1: \documentstyle[prl,aps,epsf,epsfig,floats,twocolumn]{revtex}
2: \setlength{\textwidth}{7in}
3: \setlength{\textheight}{9.5in}
4: \begin{document}
5: \draft
6: \twocolumn[\hsize\textwidth\columnwidth\hsize\csname
7: @twocolumnfalse\endcsname
8:
9: \title{
10: \hfill{\small { FZJ-IKP(TH)-2000-29}}\\[0.2cm]
11: The S--wave $\Lambda\pi$ phase shift is not large}
12: %\vspace{1cm}
13:
14: \author{
15: Ulf-G. Mei{\ss}ner, Jos\'e Antonio Oller}
16:
17: %\vspace{0.5cm}
18: \address{Forschungszentrum J\"ulich, Institut f\"ur Kernphysik (Th), D-52425
19: J\"ulich, Germany }
20: \maketitle
21: %\thispagestyle{empty}
22:
23: %\vspace{2cm}
24:
25: \begin{abstract}
26: We study the strong interaction S--wave $\Lambda\pi$ phase shift in the region
27: of the $\Xi$ mass in the framework of a relativistic chiral unitary
28: approach based on coupled channels. All parameters have been
29: previously determined in a fit to strangeness $S= -1$ S--wave
30: kaon--nucleon data. We find $0^\circ \le \delta_0 \le 1.1^\circ$ in agreement
31: with previous chiral perturbation theory calculations (or extensions
32: thereof). We also discuss why a recent coupled channel K-matrix calculation gives a
33: result for $\delta_0$ that is negative and much bigger in magnitude.
34: We argue why that value should not be trusted.
35: \end{abstract}
36: \medskip
37: {PACS numbers: 13.75.Gx, 13.30.Eg, 12.39.Fe}
38:
39: ]
40:
41: \vspace{1cm}
42:
43: \noindent
44: {\bf 1.}~Direct CP violation can be measured in the decay $\Xi \to \Lambda \pi
45: \to p\pi\pi$ (for a recent experiment, see \cite{luk}).
46: To extract the CP violating phase, one has to know the
47: strong $\Lambda \pi$ S-- and P--wave phase shifts at the mass of the
48: cascade, denoted $\delta_0$ and $\delta_1$, respectively.
49: While earlier calculations~\cite{old1,old2} were inconclusive on the value of $\delta_0$,
50: a leading order heavy baryon chiral perturbation theory (HBCHPT) analysis led to
51: a vanishing S--wave phase shift~\cite{LWS} and corrections including
52: excited $\Sigma$ intermediate states were shown to give a bound of
53: $\delta_0 \sim 0.5^\circ$~\cite{LWS,DP}. Relativistic tree level
54: calculations have also been performed, leading to a somewhat larger
55: band of values for $\delta_0$, but still $|\delta_0| \le 2^\circ$~\cite{DDP,K}.
56: A more recent calculation using also
57: dimension two operators~\cite{TTV} with the corresponding low--energy constants
58: fixed from kaon--nucleon scattering~\cite{KSW} gave the range
59: $-3.0^\circ \le \delta_0 \le +0.4^\circ$.\footnote{Note that
60: the parameters obtained in \cite{KSW} need to be taken with some
61: care since the important $\eta$ channels were not considered, as
62: stressed in \cite{OR}.}
63: In that paper, the effect of channel coupling was also investigated, based on the
64: observation that in SU(3), the $\Lambda \pi$ state is coupled to the
65: $\Sigma \pi$, $N\bar{K}$, $\Sigma\eta$ and $\Xi K$ states with
66: strangeness $S=-1$ and isospin $I=1$. A K-matrix approach was used
67: to calculate the channel coupling effects and a surprisingly
68: large $\delta_0 \simeq -7^\circ$ was found. The authors of
69: ref.\cite{TTV} have been
70: careful to point out that more refined coupled channel calculations
71: based on chiral perturbation theory
72: (CHPT) are necessary to further clarify this surprising result.
73: We have recently presented a
74: novel relativistic chiral unitary approach based on coupled channels~\cite{OM}.
75: Dispersion relations are used to perform the necessary resummation of
76: the lowest order relativistic chiral Lagrangian. Within this
77: framework, the S--wave kaon--nucleon interactions for strangeness $S=-1$
78: were studied and a good description of the
79: data in the $K^- p$, $\pi \Sigma$ and $\pi \Lambda$ channels
80: (cross sections, threshold ratios, mass distribution in the
81: region of the $\Lambda(1405)$) was obtained. This method can be systematically extended
82: to higher orders, emphasizing its applicability to any
83: scenario of strong self--interactions where the perturbative
84: series diverges even at low energies. It is straightforward to
85: project out the $\Lambda \pi \to \Lambda \pi$ amplitude from our
86: coupled channel solutions and extract in a parameter--free manner
87: the corresponding S--wave phase shift. This is done here. To close the
88: introduction, we remark that our approach can also be used to
89: calculate the P--waves. Since there is no discrepancy in the
90: corresponding predictions for $\delta_1$, we focus here entirely
91: on the S--wave.
92:
93: \medskip\noindent
94: {\bf 2.}~We briefly summarize our calculational scheme, for details see \cite{OM}.
95: It is based on the fact that unitarity, above the pertinent
96: thresholds, implies that the inverse of a partial wave amplitude satisfies
97: \begin{equation}
98: \label{uni}
99: \hbox{Im}~T^{-1}(W)_{ij}=-\rho(W)_i \delta_{ij}~,
100: \end{equation}
101: where $\rho_i \equiv q_i/(8\pi W)$, $W = \sqrt{s}$ the centre-of-mass (cm)
102: energy, $q_i$ is the modulus of the cm
103: three--momentum and the subscripts $i$ and $j$ refer to the physical channels.
104: The $\Lambda \pi$ states couple strongly to several
105: channels. To be consistent with lowest order CHPT, where all the baryons belonging
106: to the same SU(3) multiplet are degenerate, one should consider the whole set of states:
107: $K^-p~(1)$, $\bar{K}^0 n~(2)$, $\pi^0 \Sigma^0~(3)$, $\pi^+ \Sigma^-~(4)$,
108: $\pi^- \Sigma^+~(5)$, $\pi^0 \Lambda~(6)$, $\eta \Lambda~(7)$, $\eta \Sigma^0~(8)$,
109: $K^+\Xi~(9)$, $K^0 \Xi^0~(10)$, where
110: between brackets the channel number, to be used in a matrix notation, is given for each
111: state. The unitarity relation in eq.(\ref{uni}) gives rise to a cut in the
112: $T$--matrix of partial wave amplitudes which is usually called the unitarity or right--hand
113: cut. Hence we can write down a dispersion relation for $T^{-1}(W)$, in a fairly symbolic
114: language:
115: \begin{eqnarray}
116: \label{dis}
117: T^{-1}(W)_{ij} &=&-\delta_{ij}\left\{\widetilde{a}_i(s_0)
118: + \frac{s-s_0}{\pi}\right. \nonumber \\ &\times& \left. \int_{s_{i}}^\infty ds'
119: \frac{\rho(s')_i}{(s'-s)(s'-s_0)}\right\}+{\mathcal{T}}^{-1}(W)_{ij} ~,
120: \end{eqnarray}
121: where $s_i$ is the value of the $s$ variable at the threshold of channel $i$ and
122: ${\mathcal{T}}^{-1}(W)_{ij}$ indicates other contributions coming from local and
123: pole terms as well as crossed channel dynamics but {\it without}
124: right--hand cut. These extra terms will be taken directly from CHPT
125: after requiring the {\em matching} of our general result to the CHPT expressions.
126: Notice also that the negative of the quantity in the curly brackets, denoted $g(s)_i$
127: from here on, is the familiar scalar loop integral
128: \begin{eqnarray}
129: \label{g2}
130: g(s)_i&=&{i}\int \frac{d^4 q}{(2\pi)^4}\frac{1}{(q^2-M_i^2+i \epsilon)
131: ((P-q)^2-m_i^2+i\epsilon)}\nonumber \\
132: &=&\frac{1}{16 \pi^2}\left\{ a_i(\mu)+\log\frac{m_i^2}{\mu^2}+
133: \frac{M_i^2-m_i^2+s}{2 s}\log\frac{M_i^2}{m_i^2} \right.\nonumber\\
134: &+&\left.\frac{q_i}{\sqrt{s}}\log\frac{m_i^2+M_i^2-s-2
135: \sqrt{s}q_i}{m_i^2+M_i^2-s+2\sqrt{s}q_i} \right\} ,
136: \end{eqnarray}
137: where $M_i$ and $m_i$ are, respectively, the
138: meson and baryon masses in the state $i$. Notice that in order to calculate $g(s)_i$,
139: we are using the physical masses both for mesons and baryons since the unitarity
140: result in eq.(\ref{uni}) is exact. In the usual chiral power counting,
141: $g(s)_i$ is ${\mathcal{O}}(p)$ because the baryon propagator scales as
142: ${\cal O}(p^{-1})$. Let us note that the important
143: point here is to proceed systematically guaranteeing that ${\cal T}$ is
144: free of the right--hand cut and matching simultaneously with the CHPT
145: expressions. We can further simplify the notation by employing a matrix formalism. We
146: introduce the
147: matrices $g(s)={\rm diag}~(g(s)_i)$, $T$ and ${\mathcal{T}}$, the latter defined in
148: terms
149: of the matrix elements $T_{ij}$ and ${\mathcal{T}}_{ij}$. In this way,
150: from eq.(\ref{dis}), the $T$-matrix can be written as:
151: \begin{equation}
152: \label{t}
153: T(W)=\left[I+{\mathcal{T}}(W)\cdot g(s) \right]^{-1}\cdot {\mathcal{T}}(W)~.
154: \end{equation}
155: In this short note, we are considering the lowest order (tree level) CHPT amplitudes as
156: input. Hence, expanding the previous equation, our final expression for the
157: $T$-matrix, taking as input the lowest order CHPT results, has the form
158: \begin{equation}
159: \label{fin}
160: T(W)=\left[ I + T_1(W) \cdot g(s) \right]^{-1} \cdot T_1(W) ~.
161: \end{equation}
162: For more details on this formalism, we refer to refs.\cite{OM,MO}. We only want to
163: remark that this approach is not just a unitarization scheme, like e.g. the
164: K--matrix approach. The latter is, however, included as one particular approximation
165: as discussed below.
166:
167: \medskip\noindent
168: {\bf 3.}~Using the lowest order relativistic (tree level) CHPT amplitudes for $\phi_i B_a
169: \to \phi_j B_b$ as input, where $\phi_i \, (B_a)$ denotes a member
170: of the Goldstone boson (ground state baryon) octet, one obtains
171: a very good description of the scattering data for $K^- p \to
172: K^-p, K^0 n, \pi^+\Sigma^-, \pi^-\Sigma^+, \Lambda \pi^0, \Sigma^0
173: \pi^0$ (for kaon lab momenta below 250~MeV),
174: the so--called threshold ratios $\gamma$, $R_c$ and $R_n$,
175: the $K^- p$ scattering length and the $ \pi^+\Sigma^-$ event
176: distribution in the region of the $\Lambda (1405)$ in terms of
177: three parameters (using fixed axial couplings, $D=0.80$ and $F=0.46$~\cite{rat}).
178: These are the baryon octet mass in the chiral limit,
179: $m_0$, the chiral limit value of the three--flavor meson decay
180: constant\footnote{We remark that there are some indications that the
181: order parameter of chiral symmetry breaking, $F_0$, decreases sizeably
182: when going from the two to the three--flavor sector, see
183: e.g.~\cite{orsay}.},
184: $F_0$, and the subtraction constant $a(\mu)$, cf. eq.(\ref{g2}).
185: Note that it was shown in \cite{OM} that it suffices to take only
186: one subtraction constant for {\em all} channels, thus the subscript
187: ``$i\,$'' appearing in eq.(\ref{g2}) for these constants will be dropped out.
188: In ref.\cite{OM}, we considered
189: two sets of parameters, set~I describing the best fit and set~II using
190: the so--called natural values (as discussed in that paper). The
191: pertinent numbers are for
192: set~I:~$m_0 =1.286\,$GeV, $F_0 = 74.1\,$MeV, $a(\mu) = -2.23\,$, and for
193: set~II:~$m_0 =1.151\,$GeV, $F_0 = 86.4\,$MeV, $a(\mu) = -2\,$ at the
194: scale $\mu =630\,$MeV. Of course, physical observables are
195: scale--independent. It is now straightforward to extract the
196: $\Lambda\pi$ phase shift as shown in fig.~1 by the solid line (set~I)
197: and the dashed line (set~II). The corresponding phases at the mass of
198: the $\Xi^0$ and the $\Xi^-$ are:
199: \begin{eqnarray}
200: {\rm set~I}: && \delta_0 (m_{\Xi^0}) = 0.10^\circ~,
201: \delta_0 (m_{\Xi^-}) = 0.16^\circ~, \nonumber \\
202: {\rm set~II}: && \delta_0 (m_{\Xi^0}) = 0.92^\circ~,
203: \delta_0 (m_{\Xi^-}) = 1.11^\circ~,
204: \end{eqnarray}
205: consistent with earlier CHPT findings~\cite{LWS,DP,DDP,K,TTV}. We should
206: stress that set~I gives the better fit in the $\bar{K}N$ sector and
207: should be preferred.
208: \begin{figure}[htb]
209: %\vspace{-10cm}
210: \centerline{\epsfig{file=pilf.ps,width=3.0in}}
211:
212: \vspace{0.3cm}
213:
214: \caption[pilf]{\protect \small
215: The $\Lambda \pi$ phase shift in degrees versus the cm energy,
216: $W= E_{\Lambda\pi}$. The various lines are explained in the text.
217: }
218: \end{figure}
219:
220:
221: \noindent It is important to understand the large result obtained
222: in the K--matrix formalism~\cite{TTV}. The K--matrix approach
223: is one particular approximation to our scheme in that ones sets
224: \begin{equation}
225: \label{ko}
226: g(s)_i = -\frac{i \,q_i}{8\pi W}\equiv -i\,\rho(s)_i~.
227: \end{equation}
228: Notice that $-\rho(s)_i$, above the threshold
229: of channel $i$, is the imaginary part of $g(s)_i$, cf. eq.(\ref{dis}). In order to see
230: the importance
231: of keeping the whole $g(s)_i$ function, compare the
232: dashed and dotted-dashed lines in fig.1. The latter is obtained for set~II by making
233: use of eq.(\ref{fin}) but using the approximation given in eq.(\ref{ko}) to
234: the $g(s)_i$ function. The
235: differences are huge and for the second case the results are similar to the findings of
236: ref.\cite{TTV}. In fact, we can
237: reproduce the results for their K--matrix calculation by means of eq.(\ref{fin})
238: by considering only the dominant
239: non--relativistic seagull (Weinberg-Tomozawa) term to the tree level meson--baryon
240: scattering and the K--matrix representation of the $g(s)_i$ function. This is given
241: by the dotted line in fig. 1. All these large differences nicely show that
242: it is not sufficient to account only for the imaginary part of the scalar
243: loop functions via unitarity but that a proper treatment of the real part by an
244: appropriate dispersion relation is of equal importance.
245: Consequently, the large and negative value for
246: $\delta_0\simeq -7^\circ$ of ref.\cite{TTV} can be ruled out and is just a result of
247: the simple
248: representation of the function $g(s)_i$ used in that reference. This is, by far, not
249: sufficiently accurate for this case and the full relativistic expression for $g(s)_i$,
250: cf. eq.(\ref{g2}), has to be used. Furthermore, the
251: phases are sensitive to $F_0$ and $m_0$. We conclude from our approach that indeed
252: $\delta_0$ is narrowly bounded,
253: \begin{equation}\label{band}
254: 0^\circ \le \delta_0 \le 1.1^\circ~,
255: \end{equation}
256: and that the large value found in the K--matrix approach should not be
257: used.
258:
259: \medskip\noindent
260: {\bf 4.}~In summary, we have used a relativistic chiral unitary approach based
261: on coupled channels to investigate the strong S--wave $\Lambda \pi$
262: phase shift in the region of the $\Xi$. All parameters have been
263: previously determined from a good description of the kaon--nucleon
264: data~\cite{OM} and thus we arrive at a small band of values for $\delta_0$, cf.
265: eq.(\ref{band}). This number is consistent with earlier findings in
266: CHPT (or extensions thereof)~\cite{LWS,DP,DDP,K,TTV}. We have also shown why
267: the K--matrix approach of ref.\cite{TTV} leads to a large value of
268: $\delta_0$ and why this number should not be trusted. The strong
269: $\Lambda\pi$ S--wave phase in the region of the cascade mass is indeed small.
270:
271: \pagebreak
272:
273: \section*{Acknowledgments}
274: The work of J.A.O. was supported in part by funds from
275: DGICYT under contract PB96-0753 and from the EU TMR network Eurodaphne, contract
276: no. ERBFMRX-CT98-0169.
277:
278: %\vspace{-0.2cm}
279: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%% refs %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
280: \begin{thebibliography}{99}
281: \bibitem{luk}K.B.~Luk et al., {\tt hep-ex/0007030}.
282: \bibitem{old1}B.R.~Martin, Phys. Rev. 138, B1136 (1965).
283: \bibitem{old2}R.~Nath and A.~Kumar, Nuovo Cimento 36, 669 (1965).
284: \bibitem{LWS} M.~Lu, M.B.~Wise and M.J.~Savage,
285: Phys. Lett. B337, 133 (1994).
286: \bibitem{DP} A.~Datta and S.~Paksava, Phys. Lett. B344, 430 (1995).
287: \bibitem{DDP} A.~Datta, P.~O'Donnell and S.~Paksava,\\ {\tt
288: hep-ph/9806374}.
289: \bibitem{K}A.N.~Kamal, Phys. Rev. D58, 077501 (1998).
290: \bibitem{TTV} J.~Tandean, A.W.~Thomas and G.~Valencia,\\ {\tt
291: hep-ph/0011214}.
292: \bibitem{KSW} N.~Kaiser, P.B.~Siegel and W.~Weise,
293: Nucl. Phys. A594, 325 (1995).
294: \bibitem{OR} E.~Oset and A.~Ramos, Nucl. Phys. A635, 99 (1998).
295: \bibitem{OM} J.A.~Oller and Ulf-G.~Mei{\ss}ner, {\tt hep-ph/0011146}.
296: \bibitem{MO} Ulf-G.~Mei{\ss}ner and J.A.~Oller,
297: Nucl. Phys. A673, 311 (2000).
298: \bibitem{rat}P.G. Ratcliffe, Phys. Rev. D59, 014038 (1999).
299: \bibitem{orsay}S.~Descotes, L.~Girlanda and J.~Stern, JHEP 0001, 41 (2000);
300: S.~Descotes and J.~Stern, Phys. Lett. B488, 274 (2000).
301: \end{thebibliography}
302:
303:
304: \end{document}
305:
306:
307: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%% EOF %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
308: