1: \documentstyle[11pt]{article}
2: \input epsf
3: \textheight 23cm
4: \topmargin -0cm
5: \textwidth 16cm\oddsidemargin 0mm\evensidemargin 0mm
6: \def\baselinestretch{1.85}
7:
8: \begin{document}
9: \title{\large\bf Properties of
10: the Scalar Mesons $f_0(1370)$, $f_0(1500)$ and $f_0(1710)$}
11:
12: \author{\small De-Min Li${}^b$\footnote{ E-mail:
13: lidm@alpha02.ihep.ac.cn},~ Hong Yu${}^{a,b,c}$, Qi-Xing Shen${}^{a,b,c}$\\
14: \small \em $^a$ CCAST (World Lab), P.O.Box 8730, Beijing 100080, P.R. China\\
15: \small \em $^b$ Institute of High Energy Physics, Chinese Academy of Sciences,\\
16: \small \em P.O. Box 918 (4), Beijing 100039, P.R. China\footnote{Mailing address}\\
17: \small \em $^c$ Institute of Theoretical Physics, Chinese Academy of Sciences, Beijing 100080, P.R. China}
18: \date{}
19: \maketitle
20: \vspace{0.5cm}
21:
22: \begin{abstract}
23: In the three-state mixing framework, considering the possible
24: glueball components of $\eta$ and $\eta^\prime$, we
25: investigate the hadronic decays of
26: $f_0(1370)$, $f_0(1500)$ and $f_0(1710)$ into two pseudoscalar mesons. The
27: quarkonia-glueball content of the three states is determined from the fit
28: to the new data presented by the WA102 Collaboration. We find that these data are
29: insensitive to the possible glueball components of $\eta$ and
30: $\eta^\prime$. Furthermore, we discuss some
31: properties of the mass matrix describing the mixing of the isoscalar scalar
32: mesons.
33: \end{abstract}
34:
35: \vspace{0.5cm}
36:
37: %{\bf Key words:} Scalar glueball; Scalar mesons; Mixing; Decay of mesons
38:
39: %{\bf PACS number:} 12.29.Mk; 13.25.Jx; 14.40.Cs
40:
41: \newpage
42: \baselineskip 24pt
43: \section{Introduction}
44: \indent
45:
46: Recently, based on the mass matrix motivated by Ref.\cite{Wein},
47: Ref.\cite{4241} has
48: investigated the implications of the new data presented by the WA102
49: Collaboration\cite{102} for the glueball-quarkonia content of
50: $f_0(1370)$, $f_0(1500)$ and $f_0(1710)$ ($f_1$, $f_2$ and $f_3$
51: respectively stand for
52: $f_0(1370)$, $f_0(1500)$ and $f_0(1710)$ below). We
53: propose that some points can be improved on. First, in
54: the reduced
55: partial width $\Gamma(f_i\rightarrow\eta\eta^\prime)$ in Ref.\cite{4241},
56: the sign of the contribution of the diagram iv) of Fig. 1 was flipped, it
57: should be negative. The flipped sign actually
58: arose from a typo in the equation (A5) of Ref.\cite{A5} where the
59: $\lambda$
60: should all read $1/\lambda$\footnote{We wish to thank F.E.
61: Close
62: and A. Kirk for useful discussions on this matter.}. Second, the
63: mixing angle
64: of $\eta$ and $\eta^\prime$ was determined to be a very small value of
65: $-5\pm4^\circ$\cite{4241} which is inconsistent with the value of
66: $-15.5\pm1.5^\circ$ determined from a rather exhaustive and up-to-date
67: analysis of data including strong decays of tensor and higher spin mesons,
68: electromagnetic decays of vector and pseudoscalar mesons, and the decays
69: of $J/\psi$\cite{Bramon}.
70: Also, the possibility that the glueball components exist in $\eta$ and
71: $\eta^\prime$ was not considered in Ref.\cite{4241}.
72: Refs.\cite{pseud} already suggested that the $\eta$
73: and $\eta^\prime$ wave functions need glueball components.
74:
75: In this work, instead of the mass matrix in which one should
76: confront with the confused mass level order about the masses of the
77: bare states $(u\overline{u}+d\overline{d})/\sqrt{2}$, $s\overline{s}$
78: and glueball\cite{Wein,order,CLOSE}, we shall adopt another
79: mixing scheme which can be
80: related to the mass matrix to describe the mixing of $f_1$, $f_2$ and
81: $f_3$, then we can discuss some properties of the mass matrix based on
82: our preferred results. In addition, we shall consider the possibility that
83: the glueball components exist in $\eta$ and $\eta^\prime$ when we
84: investigate the hadronic decays of $f_1$, $f_2$ and $f_3$ into two
85: pseudoscalar mesons, and check whether these new data are
86: sensitive to the possible glueball components of $\eta$ and $\eta^\prime$
87: or not.
88:
89: \section{Mixing scheme and decays}
90: \indent
91:
92: Based on three Euler angles
93: $\theta_1$, $\theta_2$ and $\theta_3$, the mixing of $f_1$, $f_2$ and
94: $f_3$ can be described as:
95: \begin{equation}
96: \left(\begin{array}{c}
97: f_1\\
98: f_2\\
99: f_3
100: \end{array}\right)
101: =\left(\begin{array}{ccc}
102: a_8&a_1&a_g\\
103: b_8&b_1&b_g\\
104: c_8&c_1&c_g
105: \end{array}\right)
106: \left(\begin{array}{c}
107: |8\rangle\\
108: |1\rangle\\
109: |G\rangle
110: \end{array}\right)=
111: \left(\begin{array}{ccc}
112: x_1&y_1&z_1\\
113: x_2&y_2&z_2\\
114: x_3&y_3&z_3
115: \end{array}\right)
116: \left(\begin{array}{c}
117: |N\rangle\\
118: |S\rangle\\
119: |G\rangle
120: \end{array}\right)
121: \end{equation}
122: with
123: \begin{eqnarray}
124: &\left(\begin{array}{ccc}
125: a_8&a_1&a_g\\
126: b_8&b_1&b_g\\
127: c_8&c_1&c_g
128: \end{array}\right)=
129: \left(\begin{array}{ccc}
130: c_1c_2c_3-s_1s_3&-c_1c_2s_3-s_1c_3&c_1s_2\\
131: s_1c_2c_3+c_1s_3&-s_1c_2s_3+c_1c_3&s_1s_2\\
132: -s_2c_3&s_2s_3&c_2
133: \end{array}\right),\\
134: &\left(\begin{array}{ccc}
135: x_1&y_1&z_1\\
136: x_2&y_2&z_2\\
137: x_2&y_3&z_3
138: \end{array}\right)=
139: \left(\begin{array}{ccc}
140: a_8&a_1&a_g\\
141: b_8&b_1&b_g\\
142: c_8&c_1&c_g
143: \end{array}\right)
144: \left(\begin{array}{ccc}
145: \sqrt{\frac{1}{3}}&-\sqrt{\frac{2}{3}}&0\\
146: \sqrt{\frac{2}{3}}&\sqrt{\frac{1}{3}}&0\\
147: 0&0&1
148: \end{array}\right),
149: \end{eqnarray}
150: where
151: $|8\rangle=|u\overline{u}+d\overline{d}-2s\overline{s}\rangle/\sqrt{6}$,
152: $|1\rangle=|u\overline{u}+d\overline{d}+s\overline{s}\rangle/\sqrt{3}$,
153: $|N\rangle=|u\overline{u}+d\overline{d}\rangle/\sqrt{2}$,
154: $|S\rangle=|s\overline{s}\rangle$, $|G\rangle=|gg\rangle$;
155: $c_1$ ($c_2,~c_3$)$\equiv\cos\theta_1$
156: ($\cos\theta_2,~\cos\theta_3$),
157: $s_1$ ($s_2,~s_3$)$\equiv\sin\theta_1$
158: ($\sin\theta_2,~\sin\theta_3$), and $-180^\circ\leq\theta_1\leq
159: 180^\circ$,~$0^\circ\leq\theta_2\leq
160: 180^\circ$,~$-180^\circ\leq\theta_3\leq 180^\circ$.
161: One advantage of this mixing model is only 3 unknown parameters with the
162: definite changing ranges.
163:
164: Considering that the glueball components possibly exist in the final
165: isoscalar pseudoscalar mesons\cite{pseud},
166: for the hadronic decays of $f_i$ (here and below, $i=1,~2,~3$) into
167: pseudoscalar meson
168: pairs, we consider the following coupling modes as indicated in Fig. 1: i)
169: the coupling of the $q\overline{q}$ components of $f_i$ to the
170: final pseudoscalar meson pairs, ii) the coupling of the glueball
171: components of $f_i$ to the final pseudoscalar meson pairs via
172: $qq\bar{q}\bar{q}$ intermediate states, iii) the coupling of the glueball components of $f_i$ to the
173: glueball components of the final isoscalar pseudoscalar mesons, and iv) the
174: coupling
175: of the glueball components of $f_i$ to the $q\overline{q}$ components of
176: the final isoscalar pseudoscalar meson pairs. Based on these coupling
177: modes, the effective Hamiltonian describing the hadronic decays of $f_i$
178: into two pseudoscalar mesons can be written as\cite{Hamil}
179: \begin{eqnarray}
180: &&H_{eff}=g_1{\bf Tr}(f_{F}P_FP_F)+g_2f_{G}{\bf
181: Tr}(P_FP_F)+g_3f_{G}P_GP_G+g_4f_{G}{\bf Tr}(P_F){\bf Tr}(P_F),
182: \end{eqnarray}
183: where $g_1$, $g_2$, $g_3$ and $g_4$ describe the effective
184: coupling strengths of the coupling modes i), ii), iii) and iv),
185: respectively. $f_{G}$ and $P_G$ are $SU(3)$ flavor singlets describing the
186: glueball components of $f_i$ and the final isoscalar pseudoscalar mesons,
187: respectively. $f_{G}$ and $P_G$ can be given by \begin{eqnarray}
188: f_{G}=\sum\limits_{i}z_if_i,~P_G=\sum\limits_{j}z_jj,
189: \end{eqnarray}
190: where $z_j$ denotes the glueball content of $j$ (here and below
191: $j=\eta$, $\eta^\prime$). $f_{F}$ and $P_F$ are $3\times3$ flavor matrixes
192: describing the
193: $q\bar{q}$ components of $f_i$ and the final pseudoscalar mesons,
194: respectively. $f_{F}$ can be written as
195: \begin{equation}
196: f_{F}=\left(\begin{array}{ccc}
197: \sum\limits_{i}\frac{x_i}{\sqrt{2}}f_i&0&0\\
198: 0&\sum\limits_{i}\frac{x_i}{\sqrt{2}}f_i&0\\
199: 0&0&\sum\limits_{i}y_if_i
200: \end{array}\right),
201: \end{equation}
202: $P_F$ can be written as
203: \begin{equation}
204: P_F=\left(\begin{array}{ccc}
205: \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}\pi^0+\sum\limits_{j}\frac{x_j}{\sqrt{2}}j&\pi^{+} &K^{+}\\
206: \pi^{-}&-\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}\pi^0+\sum\limits_{j}\frac{x_j}{\sqrt{2}}j
207: &K^0\\
208: K^{-}&\overline{K^0}&\sum\limits_{j}y_jj
209: \end{array}\right),
210: \end{equation}
211: where $x_j$ and $y_j$ denote the
212: $(u\bar{u}+d\bar{d})/\sqrt{2}$, $s\bar{s}$ contents of $j$,
213: respectively, and they
214: satisfy $x^2_j+y^2_j+z^2_j=1.$
215:
216: Introducing $g_2/g_1=r_1$, $g_3/g_1=r_2$, $g_4/g_1=r_3$, from Eqs.
217: (4)$\sim$(7), one can obtain
218: \begin{eqnarray}
219: &&\Gamma{(f_i\rightarrow\pi\pi)}=
220: 3g^2_1q_{i\pi\pi}[x_i+\sqrt{2}z_ir_1]^2,
221: \\
222: &&\Gamma{(f_i\rightarrow K\bar{K})}=
223: g^2_1q_{iK\bar{K}}[x_i+\sqrt{2}y_i+2\sqrt{2}z_ir_1]^2,
224: \\
225: &&\Gamma{(f_i\rightarrow\eta\eta)}=
226: g^2_1q_{i\eta\eta}[x^2_\eta x_i+\sqrt{2}y^2_\eta y_i
227: +\sqrt{2}(x^2_\eta+y^2_\eta)z_ir_1
228: \nonumber\\
229: &&~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~+\sqrt{2}z^2_\eta
230: z_ir_2+(2\sqrt{2}x^2_\eta+\sqrt{2}y^2_\eta+4x_\eta
231: y_\eta)z_ir_3]^2,
232: \\
233: &&\Gamma{(f_i\rightarrow\eta\eta^\prime)}=
234: g^2_1q_{i\eta\eta^\prime}[\sqrt{2}x_\eta x_{\eta^\prime}x_i+2y_\eta
235: y_{\eta^\prime}y_i
236: +2(x_\eta x_{\eta^\prime}+y_\eta
237: y_{\eta^\prime})z_ir_1
238: \nonumber\\
239: &&~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~+2z_\eta z_{\eta^\prime}z_ir_2+2(2x_\eta
240: x_{\eta^\prime}+\sqrt{2}x_\eta
241: y_{\eta^\prime}+\sqrt{2}x_{\eta^\prime}y_\eta+y_\eta
242: y_{\eta^\prime})z_ir_3]^2,
243: \end{eqnarray}
244: where $q_{iP_1P_2}$ is the decay momentum for the decay mode
245: $f_i\rightarrow P_1P_2$,
246: \begin{eqnarray}
247: q_{iP_1P_2}=\sqrt{[M^2_i-(M_{P_1}+M_{P_2})^2][M^2_i-(M_{P_1}-M_{P_2})^2]}/2M_i,
248: \end{eqnarray}
249: $M_i$ is the mass of $f_i$, $M_{P_1}$ and $M_{P_2}$ are the masses of the final pseudoscalar mesons
250: $P_1$ and $P_2$, respectively, and we take $M_K=\sqrt{(M^2_{K^{\pm}}+M^2_{K^0})/2}$.
251:
252: For $\Gamma(f_i\rightarrow\eta\eta)$ and
253: $\Gamma(f_i\rightarrow\eta\eta^\prime)$, the contribution of the coupling
254: mode iv) given in our present work differs from that given in
255: Ref.\cite{4241} since we don't adopt the assumption employed by
256: Ref.\cite{4241} that the coupling
257: of the glueball components of $f_i$ to the $q\bar{q}$ components of the
258: isoscalar pseudoscalar mesons occurs dominantly through their $s\bar{s}$
259: content in chiral symmetry. In addition, even under this assumption (i.e.,
260: $x_j$ in the terms containing $r_3$ is set to be zero),
261: for $\Gamma(f_i\rightarrow\eta\eta^\prime)$, the contribution of
262: the mode iv) should be proportional to $+y_{\eta}y_{\eta^\prime}$ but not
263: $+2\alpha\beta\equiv -y_{\eta}y_{\eta^\prime}$ given by Ref.\cite{4241}.
264:
265: \section{Fit results}
266: \indent
267:
268: Before performing the fit to determine the glueball-quarkonia content of
269: $f_i$, we should first determine the parameters $x_j$, $y_j$
270: and $z_j$. We
271: will adopt the mixing scheme mentioned above to discuss the mixing of
272: $\eta$, $\eta^\prime$ and $\eta(1410)$. Recently,
273: the mixing of the three states based on a mass matrix has been discussed
274: in Ref.\cite{DML}. Based on the equations (22)$\sim$(29) in Appendix A,
275: the $\theta_1$, $\theta_2$ and $\theta_3$ are determined as
276: $\theta_1=-98^\circ$, $\theta_2=30^\circ$ and $\theta_3=-95^\circ$,
277: and $x_j$, $y_j$ and $z_j$ are determined as
278: \begin{eqnarray}
279: &&x_\eta=-0.731,~y_\eta=0.679,~z_\eta=-0.069,~x_{\eta^\prime}=-0.566,
280: ~y_{\eta^\prime}=-0.660,~z_{\eta^\prime}=-0.495,
281: \end{eqnarray}
282: with $\chi^2=1.64$, which is consistent with the results given by
283: Refs.\cite{DML}.
284: If we set $\theta_2$ and $\theta_3$ to be zero, i.e., we do not consider
285: the possible glueball components of $j$, the mixing angle of $\eta$ and
286: $\eta^\prime$ is determined
287: to be the value of $-15^\circ$ which is in good agreement with
288: the value of $-15.5\pm1.5^\circ$ given by\cite{Bramon}, and $x_j$
289: and $y_j$ are determined as
290: \begin{eqnarray}
291: &&x_\eta=y_{\eta^\prime}=[\cos(-15^\circ)-\sqrt{2}\sin(-15^\circ)]/\sqrt{3},\\
292: &&x_{\eta^\prime}=-y_\eta=[\sin(-15^\circ)+\sqrt{2}\cos(-15^\circ)]/\sqrt{3},
293: \end{eqnarray}
294: with $\chi^2=9.19$. The $\chi^2$ implies that the
295: $\eta$ and $\eta^\prime$ wave functions need the additional glueball
296: components. The predicted and measured results are shown in Table I.
297:
298:
299: In order to investigate whether the new data given by Ref.\cite{102} are
300: sensitive to the possible glueball components of
301: $\eta$ and $\eta^\prime$ or not, we perform the fit to the data
302: presented in Table III in two cases: a)
303: $z_j\not=0$ and b) $z_j=0$.
304: In the fit procedure , we take $M_1=1.312$ GeV, $M_2=1.502$ GeV,
305: $M_3=1.727$ GeV\cite{102}, and use the average value of 194 MeV
306: for the decay momentum $q_{2\eta\eta^\prime}$\cite{A5} since $f_2$ lies
307: very near to the threshold in the $\eta\eta^\prime$ decay mode\footnote{In this paper, the values of the
308: masses of other mesons are taken from Ref.\cite{PDG}}. In
309: fit a) the
310: parameters $x_j$, $y_j$
311: and $z_j$ are taken from Eq. (13) and in fit b)
312: $x_j$, $y_j$ are taken from Eqs. (14) and (15).
313: The parameters $\theta_1$, $\theta_2$,
314: $\theta_3$, $r_1$, $r_2$ and $r_3$ in two fits are determined as shown in
315: Table II and the predicted and the measured results are shown in Table
316: III. Comparing fit a) with fit b), we find that
317: three Euler angles and the predicted results
318: are not much altered, and that the $\chi^2$ of the
319: two fits are nearly equal, which shows that the new data on the
320: hadronic decays of $f_i$ into two pseudoscalar mesons are insensitive to
321: the possible glueball components of $\eta$ and $\eta^\prime$.
322:
323: Based on the parameters with the lowest $\chi^2$,
324: the physical states $|f_1\rangle$, $|f_2\rangle$ and $|f_3\rangle$ can be
325: given by
326: \begin{eqnarray}
327: &&|f_1\rangle=-0.599|N\rangle+0.326|S\rangle-0.732|G\rangle,
328: \nonumber\\
329: &&|f_2\rangle=0.795|N\rangle+0.350|S\rangle-0.495|G\rangle,\\
330: &&|f_3\rangle=0.095|N\rangle-0.878|S\rangle-0.469|G\rangle.
331: \nonumber
332: \end{eqnarray}
333:
334: From Eq. (16), one also can obtain
335: \begin{eqnarray}
336: &\Gamma(f_1\rightarrow\gamma\gamma):\Gamma(f_2\rightarrow\gamma\gamma):
337: \Gamma(f_3\rightarrow\gamma\gamma)=\nonumber\\
338: &M^3_1(5x_1+\sqrt{2}y_1)^2:M^3_2(5x_2+\sqrt{2}y_2)^2:M^3_3(5x_3+\sqrt{2}y_3)^2=
339: 14.50:67.75:3.02.
340: \end{eqnarray}
341: This prediction can provide a test for the consistency of our results.
342:
343: \section{Discussions}
344: \indent
345:
346: Now we wish to discuss the properties of the mass matrix which can be used
347: to describe the mixing of the scalar mesons based on our preferred
348: results. In the $|N\rangle$, $|S\rangle$ and $|G\rangle$ basis, the
349: general form of
350: the mass matrix $M$ describing the mixing of the quarkonia and a glueball can be
351: written as\cite{matrix}
352: \begin{equation}
353: M=\left(\begin{array}{ccc}
354: M_N+2A_1&\sqrt{2}A_2&\sqrt{2}B_1\\
355: \sqrt{2}A_2&M_S+A_3&B_2\\
356: \sqrt{2}B_1&B_2&M_G
357: \end{array}\right),
358: \end{equation}
359: where $M_N$,
360: $M_S$ and $M_G$ represent the masses of
361: the bare states $|N\rangle$, $|S\rangle$ and $|G\rangle$, respectively;
362: $A_1$ ( $A_3$ ) is the amplitude of $|N\rangle$ (
363: $|S\rangle$ ) annihilation and reconstruction via intermediate gluons
364: states; $A_2$ is the amplitude of the transition between $|N\rangle$
365: and $|S\rangle$; $B_1$ ( $B_2$ ) is the amplitude of the transition between
366: $|N\rangle$ ( $|S\rangle$ ) and $|G\rangle$. If $A_1$, $A_2$ and
367: $A_3$ are set to
368: be zero, and $B_1$ is assumed to be equal to $B_2$, Eq. (16) would reduced
369: to the form employed in Ref.\cite{Wein}.
370:
371: The physical states $|f_1\rangle$, $|f_2\rangle$ and $|f_3\rangle$ are
372: assumed to be the eigenvectors of the mass matrix $M$ with the
373: eigenvalues of $M_1$, $M_2$ and $M_3$, then we can have
374: \begin{equation}
375: UMU^\dagger=\left(\begin{array}{ccc}
376: M_1&0&0\\
377: 0&M_2&0\\
378: 0&0&M_3
379: \end{array}\right),~~
380: \left(\begin{array}{c}
381: |f_1\rangle\\
382: |f_2\rangle\\
383: |f_3\rangle
384: \end{array}\right)=
385: U\left(\begin{array}{c}
386: |N\rangle\\
387: |S\rangle\\
388: |G\rangle
389: \end{array}\right).
390: \end{equation}
391: Comparing Eq. (16) with Eq. (19), we have
392: \begin{equation}
393: U=\left(\begin{array}{ccc}
394: -0.599&0.326&-0.732\\
395: 0.795&0.350&-0.495\\
396: 0.095&-0.878&-0.469
397: \end{array}\right).
398: \end{equation}
399: Then the numerical form of the mass matrix can be given by
400: \begin{equation}
401: M=U^\dagger\left(\begin{array}{ccc}
402: M_1&0&0\\
403: 0&M_2&0\\
404: 0&0&M_3
405: \end{array}\right)U=\left(\begin{array}{ccc}
406: ~1.436&0.018&-0.093\\
407: ~0.018&1.656&~0.138\\
408: -0.093&0.138&~1.450
409: \end{array}\right).
410: \end{equation}
411:
412: Eq. (21) shows that $A_2$ is very small. If $A_1$ and $A_3$ also can be
413: expected to be
414: very small, the mass level order of the bare states $|N\rangle$, $|S\rangle$ and $|G\rangle$
415: would be $M_S>M_G>M_N$, which is consistent with the argument
416: given by Refs.\cite{4241,CLOSE} while disagrees with the prediction that
417: the glueball state has a higher mass than the $q\bar{q}$ state\cite{Lat}.
418: Otherwise, the mass level order of $M_N$, $M_S$ and $M_G$ in scalar sector
419: would remain unclear. In addition, Eq. (21) implies that the
420: mass of the pure scalar glueball is about $1.5$ GeV, which is consistent
421: with the lattice QCD prediction\cite{Lat1}.
422:
423: A salient property of Eq. (21) is that $B_1<0$ and $B_2>0$.
424: This shows that the amplitude of the transition between $|N\rangle$ and
425: $|G\rangle$ is negative while
426: the amplitude of the transition between $|S\rangle$ and
427: $|G\rangle$ is positive, which disagrees
428: with the assumption that $B_1=B_2$ in the model\cite{Wein}. In fact, in
429: the scalar sector, $B_1$ and $B_2$ should be nonperturbative effects dominantly,
430: there are not convincing reasons to expect that
431: the relation between $B_1$ and $B_2$ should behave as $B_1=B_2$.
432:
433: We note that the values of $r_1$ and $r_2$ are inconsistent with that $r_1$
434: and $r_2$ should be less than the unit,
435: the prediction given by the perturbative theory.
436: We find that if we restrict that $r_1$, $r_2$ and $r_3$ in
437: the viewpoint of the perturbative theory, i.e., $r_1<1$, $r_2<1$ and $r_3<1$,
438: the $\chi^2$ increases from 2.05 to 3.80, but the results given above are not
439: much altered. However, in the scalar sector, there are not
440: any convincing reasons to expect that the perturbative theory should be valid.
441: The values of $r_1$ and $r_2$ imply that the nonperturbative
442: effects in the scalar sector could be rather large.
443:
444: \section{Summary and conclusions}
445: \indent
446:
447: Using three Euler angles, we introduce a mixing scheme to describing the
448: mixing of the isoscalar scalar mesons. In this mixing framework,
449: considering the four coupling modes as shown in Fig. 1, we construct the
450: effective Hamiltonian to investigate the two-body hadronic decays of
451: $f_0(1370)$, $f_0(1500)$ and $f_0(1710)$. The glueball-quarkonia content
452: of the three states is determined from the fit to the new data about
453: the hadronic decays of the three states presented by the WA102
454: collaboration. Our conclusions are as follows:
455:
456: 1). The large mixing effect exist in the three states.
457:
458: 1). The new data about the hadronic decays of $f_0(1370)$, $f_0(1500)$ and
459: $f_0(1710)$
460: are insensitive to the possible glueball components of $\eta$ and
461: $\eta^\prime$.
462:
463: 3). The nonperturbative effects in the scalar sector are rather large.
464:
465: 4). Our preferred results don't support the assumption employed by Weingarten's mass matrix
466: describing the mixing of the isoscalar scalar states\cite{Wein} that $B_1=B_2$.
467:
468: \section{Acknowledgments}
469: \indent
470:
471: This project is supported by the National Natural
472: Science Foundation of China under Grant Nos. 19991487 and 19835060, and
473: the Foundation of Chinese Academy of Sciences under Grant No. LWTZ-1298.
474:
475: \begin{thebibliography}{99}
476:
477: \bibitem{Wein}
478: D. Weingarten, Nucl. Phys. (Proc. Suppl.) {\bf 53} (1997) 232.
479:
480: \bibitem{4241}
481: F. E. Close and A. Kirk, Phys. Lett. {\bf B483}
482: (2000) 345; hep-ph/0004241.
483:
484: \bibitem{102}
485: D. Barberis et al., the WA102 collaboration, Phys. Lett.
486: {\bf B479} (2000) 59; hep-ex/0003033.
487:
488: \bibitem{A5}
489: C. Amsler, F. E. Close, Phys. Rev. {\bf D53} (1996) 295.
490:
491: \bibitem{Bramon}
492: A. Bramon {\sl et al.,} Eur. Phys. J.{\bf C7} (1999) 271.
493:
494: \bibitem{pseud}
495: N. H. Fuchs, Phys. Rev. {\bf D14} (1976) 1912;
496: E. Kawai, Phys. Lett. {\bf B124} (1983) 262;
497: Howard E. Haber and J. Perrier, Phys. Rev. {\bf D32} (1985) 2961;
498: M. Genovese, D. B. Lichtenberg, E. Predazzi, Z. Phys. {\bf C61} (1994)
499: 425;
500: Patricia Ball, J.-M. Frere, M. Tytgat, Phys. Lett. {\bf B365} (1996)
501: 367.
502: W. S. Carvalho, A. C. B. Antunes and A. S. de Castro, Eur. Phys. J. {\bf
503: C7} (1999) 95;
504:
505:
506: \bibitem{order}
507: M. Strohmeier-Presicek, T. Gutsche, R. Vinh Mau, Amand Faessler, Phys. Rev. {\bf D60} (1999) 054010;
508: L. Burakovsky, P. R. Page, Phys. Rev. {\bf D59} (1999) 014022.
509:
510: \bibitem{CLOSE}
511: F. E. Close, G. R. Farrar, Z. Li, Phys. Rev. {\bf D55} (1997) 5749.
512:
513: \bibitem{Hamil}
514: J. Schechter, Phys. Rev. {\bf D27} (1983) 1109;
515: C. S. Gao, hep-ph/9901367.
516:
517: \bibitem{DML} D. M. Li, H. Yu and Q. X. Shen, Mod. Phys. Lett. {\bf
518: A15} (2000) 1213.
519:
520: \bibitem{PDG}C. Caso {\sl et al.}, Eur. Phys. J. {\bf C3} (1998) 1.
521:
522: \bibitem{matrix}
523: A. De Rujula, H. Georgi and S. L. Glashow, Phys. Rev. {\bf D12}
524: (1975)147; J. L. Rosner, S. F. Tuan, Phys. Rev. {\bf D27} (1983) 1544;
525: J. Turnau, Z. Phys. {\bf C23} (1984) 89.
526:
527: \bibitem{Lat}
528: W. Lee and D. Weingarten, Nucl. Phys. (Proc.Suppl.) {\bf 63} (1998) 194.
529:
530: \bibitem{Lat1}
531: G. S. Bali {et al}., Phys. Lett. {\bf B309} (1993) 378; C. J. Morningstar
532: and M. Peardon, Phys. Rev. {\bf D56} (1997) 4043.
533:
534: \bibitem{rosner}
535: J. L. Rosner, Phys. Rev. {\bf D27} (1983) 1101.
536:
537: \end{thebibliography}
538:
539: \newpage
540: \section*{Appendix A: \\
541: Formulae for the electormagnetic decays widths rates involving $\eta$ and $\eta^\prime$}
542: \begin{eqnarray}
543: &&\frac{\Gamma(\eta\rightarrow\gamma\gamma)}
544: {\Gamma(\pi^0\rightarrow\gamma\gamma)}=\frac{1}{9}
545: \left(\frac{M_\eta}{M_{\pi^0}}\right)^3
546: (5x_\eta+\sqrt{2}y_\eta)^2,\\
547: &&\frac{\Gamma(\eta^\prime\rightarrow\gamma\gamma)}
548: {\Gamma(\pi^0\rightarrow\gamma\gamma)}=\frac{1}{9}
549: \left(\frac{M_{\eta^\prime}}{M_{\pi^0}}\right)^3
550: (5x_{\eta^\prime}+\sqrt{2}y_{\eta^\prime})^2,\\
551: &&\frac{\Gamma(\rho\rightarrow\eta\gamma)}
552: {\Gamma(\omega\rightarrow\pi^0\gamma)}=
553: \left[
554: \frac{(M^2_\rho-M^2_\eta)M_\omega}
555: {(M^2_\omega-M^2_{\pi^0})M_\rho}
556: \right]^3x^2_\eta,\\
557: &&\frac{\Gamma(\eta^\prime\rightarrow\rho\gamma)}
558: {\Gamma(\omega\rightarrow\pi^0\gamma)}=
559: 3\left[
560: \frac{(M^2_{\eta^\prime}-M^2_\rho)M_\omega}
561: {(M^2_\omega-M^2_{\pi^0})M_{\eta^\prime}}
562: \right]^3x^2_{\eta^\prime},\\
563: &&\frac{\Gamma(\phi\rightarrow\eta\gamma)}
564: {\Gamma(\omega\rightarrow\pi^0\gamma)}
565: =\frac{4}{9}\frac{m^2_u}{m^2_s}\left[
566: \frac{(M^2_\phi-M^2_\eta)M_\omega}{(M^2_\omega-M^2_{\pi^0})M_\phi}
567: \right]^3 y^2_\eta,\\
568: &&\frac{\Gamma(\phi\rightarrow\eta^\prime\gamma)}
569: {\Gamma(\omega\rightarrow\pi^0\gamma)}=
570: \frac{4}{9}\frac{m^2_u}{m^2_s}
571: \left[\frac{(M^2_\phi-M^2_{\eta^\prime})M_\omega}
572: {(M^2_\omega-M^2_{\pi^0})M_\phi}\right]^3y^2_{\eta^\prime},\\
573: &&\frac{\Gamma(J/\psi\rightarrow\rho\eta)}
574: {\Gamma(J/\psi\rightarrow\omega\pi^0)}
575: =\left[\frac{\sqrt{[M^2_{J/\psi}-(M_\rho+M_\eta)^2][
576: M^2_{J/\psi}-(M_\rho-M_\eta)^2]}}
577: {\sqrt{[M^2_{J/\psi}-(M_\omega+M_{\pi^0})^2][M^2_{J/\psi}-(M_\omega-M_{\pi^0})^2]}}\right]^3x^2_\eta,\\
578: &&\frac{\Gamma(J/\psi\rightarrow\rho\eta^\prime)}
579: {\Gamma(J/\psi\rightarrow\omega\pi^0)}
580: =\left[\frac{\sqrt{[M^2_{J/\psi}-(M_\rho+M_{\eta^\prime})^2][M^2_{J/\psi}-(M_\rho-M_{\eta^\prime})^2]}}
581: {\sqrt{[M^2_{J/\psi}-(M_\omega+M_{\pi^0})^2][M^2_{J/\psi}-(M_\omega-M_{\pi^0})^2]}}\right]^3
582: x^2_{\eta^\prime},
583: \end{eqnarray}
584: where $M_\rho$, $M_\omega$, $M_\phi$ and $M_{J/\psi}$ are the masses of
585: $\rho$, $\omega$, $\phi$ and $J/\psi$, respectively; $m_u$ and
586: $m_s$ are the masses of the constituent quark $u$ and $d$, respectively. Here we
587: take $m_u/m_s=0.642$ used in Ref.\cite{rosner}.
588:
589: \newpage
590: \begin{table}
591: \begin{center}
592: \begin{tabular}{ccccccc}\hline
593: & &Fit1 &Fit2 \\
594: &Exp.\cite{PDG}&$z_j\not=0$~($j=\eta$, $\eta^\prime$)&$z_j=0$~($j=\eta$, $\eta^\prime$)\\
595: & &$\chi^2=1.64$ &$\chi^2=9.19$ \\
596: \hline
597: $\frac{\Gamma(\eta\rightarrow\gamma\gamma)}
598: {\Gamma(\pi^0\rightarrow\gamma\gamma)}$&$58.46\pm9.03$&53.76&63.67\\
599: $\frac{\Gamma(\eta^{\prime}\rightarrow\gamma\gamma)}
600: {\Gamma(\pi^0\rightarrow\gamma\gamma)}$&$540.78\pm104.44$&561.33&728.20\\
601: $\frac{\Gamma(\rho\rightarrow\eta\gamma)}
602: {\Gamma(\omega\rightarrow\pi^0\gamma)}$&$0.051\pm0.023$&0.066&0.073\\
603: $\frac{\Gamma(\eta^\prime\rightarrow\rho\gamma)}
604: {\Gamma(\omega\rightarrow\pi^0\gamma)}$&$0.086\pm0.016$&0.086&0.111\\
605: $\frac{\Gamma(\phi\rightarrow\eta\gamma)}
606: {\Gamma(\omega\rightarrow\pi^0\gamma)}$&$0.078\pm0.010$&0.074&0.066\\
607: $\frac{\Gamma(\phi\rightarrow\eta^\prime\gamma)}
608: {\Gamma(\omega\rightarrow\pi^0\gamma)}$&$0.0007\pm0.0005$&0.0003&0.0004\\
609: $\frac{\Gamma(J/\psi\rightarrow\rho\eta)}
610: {\Gamma(J/\psi\rightarrow\omega\pi^0)}$&$0.460\pm0.120$&0.482&0.533\\
611: $\frac{\Gamma(J/\psi\rightarrow\rho\eta^\prime)}
612: {\Gamma(J/\psi\rightarrow\omega\pi^0)}$&$0.250\pm0.079$&0.223&0.285\\\hline
613: \end{tabular}
614: \vspace{0.5cm}
615: \caption{The predicted and measured results of electromagnetic decays involving $\eta$,
616: $\eta^\prime$.}
617: \end{center}
618: \end{table}
619: \vspace{1cm}
620:
621: \begin{table}
622: \begin{center}
623: \begin{tabular}{cccccccc}\hline
624:
625: &$\chi^2$&$r_1$&$r_2$&$r_3$&$\theta_1$&$\theta_2$&$\theta_3$\\\hline
626: Fit a)&2.05&1.0&3.4&0.33&$-146^\circ$&$118^\circ$&$-151^\circ$\\
627: Fit b)&2.15&1.0&0&0.7&$-148^\circ$&$115^\circ$&$-146^\circ$\\\hline
628: \end{tabular}
629: \vspace{0.5cm}
630: \caption{The parameters determined from the fit.}
631: \end{center}
632: \end{table}
633:
634:
635: \begin{table}
636: \begin{center}
637: \begin{tabular}{cccc}\hline
638: &Exp.\cite{102} &Fit a) &Fit b)\\
639: & &$\chi^2=2.05$&$\chi^2=2.15$\\
640: \hline
641: $\frac{\Gamma(f_0(1370)\rightarrow\pi\pi)}{\Gamma(f_0(1370)\rightarrow
642: K\bar{K})}$&
643: $2.17\pm0.90$&2.453&2.397\\
644: $\frac{\Gamma(f_0(1370)\rightarrow\eta\eta)}{\Gamma(f_0(1370)\rightarrow
645: K\bar{K})}$&
646: $0.35\pm0.30$&0.248&0.314\\
647: $\frac{\Gamma(f_0(1500)\rightarrow\pi\pi)}{\Gamma(f_0(1500)\rightarrow
648: \eta\eta)}$&
649: $5.56\pm0.93$&5.581&5.853\\
650: $\frac{\Gamma(f_0(1500)\rightarrow
651: K\bar{K})}{\Gamma(f_0(1500)\rightarrow\pi\pi)}$&
652: $0.33\pm0.07$&0.335&0.308\\
653: $\frac{\Gamma(f_0(1500)\rightarrow\eta\eta^\prime)}
654: {\Gamma(f_0(1500)\rightarrow\eta\eta)}$&
655: $0.53\pm0.23$&0.528&0.484\\
656: $\frac{\Gamma(f_0(1710)\rightarrow \pi\pi)}{\Gamma(f_0(1710)\rightarrow
657: K\bar{K})}$&
658: $0.20\pm0.03$&0.191&0.200\\
659: $\frac{\Gamma(f_0(1710)\rightarrow\eta\eta)}{\Gamma(f_0(1710)\rightarrow
660: K\bar{K})}$&
661: $0.48\pm0.19$&0.230&0.223\\
662: $\frac{\Gamma(f_0(1710)\rightarrow\eta\eta^\prime)}
663: {\Gamma(f_0(1710)\rightarrow K\bar{K})}$&
664: $<0.04$($90\%$CL)&0.035&0.021\\\hline
665: \end{tabular}
666: \vspace{0.5cm}
667: \caption{The predict and measured results of the
668: hadronic decays of $f_i$.}
669: \end{center}
670: \end{table}
671:
672: \begin{figure}
673: \epsfxsize=15cm \epsfbox{tu.eps}
674: \caption{The coupling modes considered in this work. i) The
675: coupling of the quarkonia components of $f_i$ to the final pseudoscalar
676: meson pairs, ii) the coupling of the glueball components of $f_i$ to the final pseudoscalar
677: meson pairs via $qq\bar{q}\bar{q}$ intermediate states, iii) the coupling
678: of the glueball components of $f_i$ to the glueball components of the final
679: isoscalar pseudoscalar mesons, and iv) the coupling of the glueball
680: components of $f_i$ to the quarkonia of the final isoscalar pseudoscalar meson pairs.}
681: \end{figure}
682:
683:
684: \end{document}
685: