1: %%UNIX --- change the website address only -- 18/4/2000
2: %====================================================================%
3: % sprocl.tex 27-Feb-1995 %
4: % This latex file rewritten from various sources for use in the %
5: % preparation of the standard proceedings Volume, latest version %
6: % by Susan Hezlet with acknowledgments to Lukas Nellen. %
7: % Some changes are due to David Cassel. %
8: %====================================================================%
9:
10: \documentstyle[sprocl,psfig]{article}
11:
12: \font\eightrm=cmr8
13:
14: %\input{psfig}
15:
16: \bibliographystyle{unsrt} %for BibTeX - sorted numerical labels by
17: %order of first citation.
18:
19: \arraycolsep1.5pt
20:
21: \newcommand{\la}{\langle}
22: \newcommand{\ra}{\rangle}
23: \newcommand{\figwidth}{3.2in}
24: \newcommand{\figleftmarg}{-5mm}
25: \newcommand{\ttbs}{\char'134}
26: \newcommand{\AmS}{{\protect\the\textfont2
27: A\kern-.1667em\lower.5ex\hbox{M}\kern-.125emS}}
28: \newcommand{\be}{\begin{equation}}
29: \newcommand{\ee}{\end{equation}}
30: \newcommand{\ben}{\begin{eqnarray}}
31: \newcommand{\een}{\end{eqnarray}}
32: \newcommand{\nn}{\nonumber}
33: \newcommand{\tr}{{\rm Tr}}
34: \newcommand{\slas}[2]{{{#1}\hspace{-5pt}{/}}_{#2}}
35: \newcommand{\slal}[2]{{{#1}\hspace{-5pt}{/}}_{#2}}
36: \def\simgt{\rlap{\lower 3.5 pt\hbox{$\mathchar \sim$}}\raise 1pt \hbox {$>$}}
37: \def\simlt{\rlap{\lower 3.5 pt\hbox{$\mathchar \sim$}}\raise 1pt \hbox {$<$}}
38:
39:
40: % A useful Journal macro
41: \def\Journal#1#2#3#4{{#1} {\bf #2}, #3 (#4)}
42:
43: % Some useful journal names
44: \def\NCA{\em Nuovo Cimento}
45: \def\NIM{\em Nucl. Instrum. Methods}
46: \def\NIMA{{\em Nucl. Instrum. Methods} A}
47: \def\NPB{{\em Nucl. Phys.} B}
48: \def\PLB{{\em Phys. Lett.} B}
49: \def\PRL{\em Phys. Rev. Lett.}
50: \def\PRD{{\em Phys. Rev.} D}
51: \def\ZPC{{\em Z. Phys.} C}
52:
53: % Some other macros used in the sample text
54: \def\st{\scriptstyle}
55: \def\sst{\scriptscriptstyle}
56: \def\mco{\multicolumn}
57: \def\epp{\epsilon^{\prime}}
58: \def\vep{\varepsilon}
59: %\def\ra{\rightarrow}
60: \def\ppg{\pi^+\pi^-\gamma}
61: \def\vp{{\bf p}}
62: \def\ko{K^0}
63: \def\kb{\bar{K^0}}
64: \def\al{\alpha}
65: \def\ab{\bar{\alpha}}
66: \def\be{\begin{equation}}
67: \def\ee{\end{equation}}
68: \def\bea{\begin{eqnarray}}
69: \def\eea{\end{eqnarray}}
70: \def\CPbar{\hbox{{\rm CP}\hskip-1.80em{/}}}%temp replacemt due to no font
71:
72: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
73: %%BEGINNING OF TEXT
74: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
75:
76: \begin{document}
77:
78: %\vspace{-2.5cm}
79: %\begin{flushright}
80: %{\normalsize KEK-CP-107}\\
81: %\vspace{10mm}
82: %\end{flushright}
83:
84:
85: %To Prof Nick Karayiannis -- do read this:-
86: %If needed the word of Chapter~1, you can type in at the
87: %\title{}. The words will be in caps and lowercase.
88: %For chapter title can be in all caps or in caps and lowercase.
89: %It is up to the author to type for the case sensitive but
90: %all articles must be in the same style.
91: %But mostly for Review Volume are without this Chapter~1.
92: %Thank you
93: %Jessie 13/4/2000
94:
95:
96: \title{Nucleon Decay Matrix Elements from Lattice QCD}
97:
98: \author{Yoshinobu~Kuramashi for
99: JLQCD Collaboration\footnote{JLQCD Collaboration:
100: S.~Aoki, M.~Fukugita, S.~Hashimoto, K.-I.~Ishikawa, N.~Ishizuka,
101: Y.~Iwasaki, K.~Kanaya, T.~Kaneda, S.~Kaya, Y.~K., M.~Okawa,
102: T.~Onogi, S.~Tominaga, N.~Tsutsui, A.~Ukawa, N.~Yamada, T.~Yoshi\'e.}}
103:
104: \address{Institute of Particle and Nuclear Studies,\\
105: High Energy Accelerator Research Organization(KEK),\\
106: Tsukuba, Ibaraki 305-0801, Japan\\
107: E-mail: yoshinobu.kuramashi@kek.jp}
108:
109: %\author{A. N. OTHER}
110: %
111: %\address{Department of Physics, Theoretical Physics, 1 Keble Road,\\
112: %Oxford OX1 3NP, England\\E-mail: other@tp.ox.uk}
113:
114: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
115: % You may repeat \author \address as often as necessary %
116: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
117:
118: \maketitle\abstracts{
119: We present a GUT-model-independent calculation of hadron matrix elements
120: for all dimension-six operators associated with baryon number
121: violating processes using lattice QCD.
122: %The calculation is performed with the
123: %Wilson quark action in the quenched approximation at
124: %$\beta=6/g^2=6.0$ on a $28^2\times 48\times 80$ lattice.
125: Our results cover all the matrix elements required to estimate
126: the partial lifetimes of (proton,neutron)$\rightarrow$($\pi,K,\eta$)
127: +(${\bar \nu},e^+,\mu^+$) decay modes.
128: We point out the necessity of disentangling two form factors that contribute
129: to the matrix elements; previous calculations did not make the separation,
130: which led to an underestimate of the physical matrix elements.
131: With a correct separation, we find that the matrix elements
132: have values $3-5$ times larger than the smallest
133: estimates employed in phenomenological analyses of the nucleon
134: decays, which gives stronger constraints on
135: GUT models.
136: We also find that the values of the matrix elements are comparable
137: with the tree-level predictions of chiral Lagrangian.
138: }
139:
140: \section{Introduction}
141: %\subsection{Producing the Hard Copy}\label{subsec:prod}
142:
143:
144: Nucleon decay is one of the most exciting predictions of
145: grand unified theories (GUTs) regardless of the existence
146: of supersymmetry (SUSY).
147: Although none of the decay modes have been detected up to now,
148: experimental efforts over the years have pushed
149: the lower limit on the partial lifetimes of the nucleon\cite{pd_ex},
150: which can give
151: a constraint on (SUSY-)GUTs.
152: Moreover, exciting plans for the next generation
153: of the Super-Kamiokande experiment
154: to search the nucleon decay events are proposed
155: in this conference\cite{sk_next}.
156:
157: On the theoretical side predictions of the nucleon partial lifetimes
158: suffer from various uncertainties. In general the partial lifetime
159: of the nucleon decay process $N\rightarrow PS+{\bar l}$, where
160: $N$, $PS$ and ${\bar l}$ denote nucleon, pseudoscalar
161: meson and antilepton respectively, is
162: given by
163: \be
164: \tau\propto
165: |\la PS | {\cal O}^{\slal{B}{}} |N\ra|^{-2} \cdot |F_{\rm GUT}|^{-2},
166: \label{eq:lifetime}
167: \ee
168: with ${\cal O}^{\slal{B}{}}$
169: the baryon number violating operator that appears in the
170: low-energy effective Lagrangian of (SUSY-)GUTs. $F_{\rm GUT}$ denotes
171: some function in terms of parameters defined in the (SUSY-)GUT models.
172: Although the precise numbers of the nucleon partial lifetimes
173: depend on the details of the
174: theories beyond the standard model, which contain many unknown parameters,
175: another main source of uncertainty is found in the evaluation
176: of the hadronic part
177: $\la PS | {\cal O}^{\slal{B}{}} |N\ra$ in eq.~(\ref{eq:lifetime}).
178: The matrix elements have been estimated by
179: employing various QCD models. Their results, however,
180: %scatter over a factor of ten\cite{model_wf}.
181: %Our aim is a precise determination of the nucleon decay matrix elements
182: %from the first principles using lattice QCD.
183: scatter over the range whose minimum and maximum values differ by
184: a factor of ten\cite{model_wf}.
185: Therefore, a precise determination of the nucleon decay matrix elements
186: from the first principles using lattice QCD is of extreme importance.
187:
188:
189: Most important feature of our calculation is GUT
190: model independence.
191: %Although the precise numbers of the nucleon partial lifetimes
192: %depend on the details of the
193: %theories beyond the standard model, a GUT-model-independent
194: %analysis can be applied to the hadronic part
195: %$\la PS | {\cal O}^{\slal{B}{}} |N\ra$
196: %in eq.~(\ref{eq:lifetime}):
197: All dimension-six operators associated with baryon number
198: violating processes
199: are classified into four types under the requirement of
200: SU(3)$\times$SU(2)$\times$U(1) invariance
201: at low-energy scales\cite{op_6,op_4}.
202: If one specifies the decay processes of interest,
203: namely the processes among (proton,neutron)$\rightarrow$($\pi,K,\eta$)
204: +(${\bar \nu},e^+,\mu^+$), we can list a complete set of
205: independent matrix elements in QCD, and we calculate
206: all the matrix elements.
207:
208:
209: We employed two methods to evaluate the nucleon decay matrix elements
210: in lattice QCD. One is the indirect method in which
211: the matrix element
212: $\la PS | {\cal O}^{\slal{B}{}} |N \ra$ is estimated
213: from $\la 0 | {\cal O}^{\slal{B}{}} |N\ra$
214: measured on the lattice employing the
215: tree-level results of chiral Lagrangian.
216: The other is the direct method which directly measures
217: $\la PS | {\cal O}^{\slal{B}{}} |N\ra$ on the lattice.
218: In the previous lattice QCD studies the indirect method\cite{hara,bowler}
219: gave values of the matrix elements 2 or 3 times smaller than those obtained
220: by the direct method\cite{gavela,jlqcd_98}.
221: Recently, however, we pointed out\cite{jlqcd_00}
222: that the nucleon decay matrix elements
223: $\la PS | {\cal O}^{\slal{B}{}} |N\ra$ allow the contributions of
224: two form factors for general lepton momentum, which should be disentangled
225: in the direct method, and
226: this explains the discrepancy between the direct and indirect
227: estimations of the matrix elements
228: found in the previous studies\cite{gavela,jlqcd_98}
229: where the separation was not made.
230:
231: In this report we first
232: formulate the method to calculate
233: the nucleon decay matrix elements using the lattice QCD
234: in Sec.~\ref{sec:formulation}.
235: Our results and conclusions are given in Secs.~\ref{sec:results}
236: and \ref{sec:conclusions}.
237: More details are found in Ref.~10.
238: %~\protect{\cite{jlqcd_00}}.
239:
240:
241:
242:
243: \section{Formulation of the method}
244: \label{sec:formulation}
245:
246: \subsection{Independent matrix elements for nucleon decays}
247: %\label{subsec:prod}
248:
249: The low energy effective theory in
250: the baryon number violating processes is described
251: in terms of SU(3)$\times$SU(2)$\times$U(1) gauge symmetry
252: based on the strong and the electroweak interactions,
253: which enables us to make a GUT-model-independent analysis.
254: Our interest is focused on the dimension-six operators
255: which are the lowest dimensional ones
256: in the low energy effective Hamiltonian:
257: operators must contain at least three quark fields to form SU(3) color
258: singlet, and then an additional lepton field is
259: required to construct a Lorentz scalar.
260: Higher-dimensional operators
261: are suppressed by inverse powers of heavy particle mass
262: characterized by the theory beyond the standard model.
263:
264: All dimension-six operators are classified
265: into the four types under the
266: requirement of SU(3)$\times$SU(2)$\times$U(1) invariance
267: \cite{op_6,op_4}:
268: \ben
269: {\cal O}^{(1)}_{abcd}&=&
270: ({\bar D}^c_{i aR}U_{j bR})
271: ({\bar Q}^c_{\alpha k cL}L_{\beta dL})
272: \epsilon_{ijk}\epsilon_{\alpha\beta},
273: \label{eq:op_1}\\
274: {\cal O}^{(2)}_{abcd}&=&
275: ({\bar Q}^c_{\alpha i aL}Q_{\beta j bL})
276: ({\bar U}^c_{k cR}L_{dR})
277: \epsilon_{ijk}\epsilon_{\alpha\beta},
278: \label{eq:op_2}\\
279: {\cal O}^{(3)}_{abcd}&=&
280: ({\bar Q}^c_{\alpha i aL}Q_{\beta j bL})
281: ({\bar Q}^c_{\gamma k cL}L_{\delta dL})
282: \epsilon_{ijk}\epsilon_{\alpha\delta}\epsilon_{\beta\gamma},
283: \label{eq:op_3}\\
284: {\cal O}^{(4)}_{abcd}&=&
285: ({\bar D}^c_{i aR}U_{j bR})
286: ({\bar U}^c_{k cR}L_{dR})
287: \epsilon_{ijk},
288: \label{eq:op_4}
289: \een
290: where ${\bar \psi}^c=\psi^T C$
291: with $C=\gamma_4\gamma_2$ the charge conjugation matrix;
292: $i$, $j$ and $k$ are SU(3) color indices;
293: $\alpha$, $\beta$, $\gamma$ and $\delta$ are SU(2) indices;
294: $a$, $b$, $c$ and
295: $d$ are generation indices; $L_L$ and $Q_L$ are generic lepton and quark
296: SU(2) doublets with the left-handed projection $P_L=(1-\gamma_5)/2$;
297: $L_R$, $U_R$, and $D_R$ are generic charged lepton and quark SU(2)
298: singlets with the right-handed projection $P_R=(1+\gamma_5)/2$.
299: Fierz transformations are used to eliminate all the vector
300: and tensor Dirac structures in eqs.~(\ref{eq:op_1})$-$(\ref{eq:op_4}).
301:
302: Our interest exists in the decay processes from the nucleon to one
303: pseudoscalar meson: (proton,neutron)$\rightarrow$($\pi,K,\eta$)
304: +(${\bar \nu},e^+,\mu^+$). Once these decay modes are specified,
305: we can list the set of independent matrix elements
306: in QCD from the operators of eqs.~(\ref{eq:op_1})$-$(\ref{eq:op_4}):
307: \ben
308: &&\langle \pi^0|\epsilon_{ijk}
309: ({u^i}^T CP_{R,L}d^j) P_L u^k|p\rangle,
310: \label{eq:indme_1}\\
311: &&\langle \pi^+|\epsilon_{ijk}
312: ({u^i}^T CP_{R,L}d^j) P_L d^k|p\rangle,
313: \label{eq:indme_2}\\
314: &&\langle K^0|\epsilon_{ijk}
315: ({u^i}^T CP_{R,L}s^j) P_L u^k|p\rangle,
316: \label{eq:indme_3}\\
317: &&\langle K^+|\epsilon_{ijk}
318: ({u^i}^T CP_{R,L}s^j) P_L d^k|p\rangle,
319: \label{eq:indme_4}\\
320: &&\langle K^+|\epsilon_{ijk}
321: ({u^i}^T CP_{R,L}d^j) P_L s^k|p\rangle,
322: \label{eq:indme_5}\\
323: &&\langle K^0|\epsilon_{ijk}
324: ({u^i}^T CP_{R,L}s^j) P_L d^k|n\rangle,
325: \label{eq:indme_6}\\
326: &&\langle \eta |\epsilon_{ijk}
327: ({u^i}^T CP_{R,L}d^j) P_L u^k|p\rangle,
328: \label{eq:indme_7}
329: \een
330: where we assume SU(2) isospin symmetry $m_u=m_d$ and use
331: the relations
332: \ben
333: \la PS | {\cal O}_{LR} |N \ra&=&\la PS | {\cal O}_{RL} |N \ra,
334: \label{eq:lr=rl}\\
335: \la PS | {\cal O}_{RR} |N \ra&=&\la PS | {\cal O}_{LL} |N \ra,
336: \label{eq:rr=ll}
337: \een
338: due to the parity invariance.
339: All we have to calculate in lattice QCD are these 14 matrix elements.
340: Other matrix elements can be obtained by using
341: the exchange of the up and down quarks and the relations of
342: eqs.~(\ref{eq:lr=rl}) and (\ref{eq:rr=ll}).
343:
344: \nopagebreak
345:
346: \subsection{Form factors in nucleon decay matrix elements}
347: \label{subsec:ff}
348:
349: Under the requirement of Lorentz and parity invariance,
350: the matrix elements
351: between the nucleon and
352: the pseudoscalar meson in eqs.~(\ref{eq:indme_1})$-$(\ref{eq:indme_7})
353: can have two form factors:
354: \be
355: \langle PS(\vec{p})|{\cal O}_L^{\slal{B}{}}|N^{(s)}(\vec{k})\rangle
356: =P_L\left(W_0(q^2)-W_q(q^2) i{\slas{q}{}}\right) u^{(s)},
357: \label{eq:ff}
358: \ee
359: where ${\cal O}^{\slal{B}{}}_L$ represents the three-quark operator
360: projected to the left-handed chiral state,
361: $u^{(s)}$ denotes the Dirac spinor for nucleon
362: with either the up ($s=1$) or down ($s=2$) spin state,
363: and $q^2$ is the momentum squared of the out-going antilepton.
364: The contribution of the $W_q$ term in eq.(\ref{eq:ff})
365: is negligible in the physical decay amplitude, because its contribution
366: is of the order of the lepton mass $m_l$
367: after the multiplication with antilepton spinor.
368: However, since the relative magnitude of the two form factors $W_0$ and
369: $W_q$ is {\it a priori} not known, we have to disentangle these
370: two form factors in the lattice QCD calculation.
371: %in which the antilepton
372: %momentum is $O(1)$ in lattice units.
373: Hereafter we refer to $W_0$ and $W_q$ as relevant
374: and irrelevant form factor respectively.
375:
376: In our lattice QCD calculation we choose $\vec{k}=\vec{0}$ for
377: the nucleon spatial momentum and $\vec{p}=\vec{k}-\vec{q}\neq \vec{0}$ for
378: the PS meson.
379: In this case the Dirac structure of the right hand side
380: in eq.~(\ref{eq:ff}) is given by
381: \ben
382: &&\left( W_0 - W_q i{\slas{q}{}}\right) u^{(s)}\nn\\&=&
383: \left(
384: \begin{array}{cc}
385: W_0 - iq_4 W_q
386: & -W_q {\vec q}\cdot\vec{\sigma} \\
387: W_q {\vec q}\cdot\vec{\sigma}
388: & W_0 + i q_4 W_q
389: \end{array}
390: \right) u^{(s)}
391: \label{eq:dstructure}\\
392: &=&
393: \left(
394: \begin{array}{cc}
395: W_0 + (m_N-\sqrt{m_{PS}^2+{\vec p}^2}) W_q
396: & W_q {\vec p}\cdot\vec{\sigma} \\
397: -W_q {\vec p}\cdot\vec{\sigma}
398: & W_0 - (m_N-\sqrt{m_{PS}^2+{\vec p}^2}) W_q
399: \end{array}
400: \right) u^{(s)},\nn
401: \een
402: where $W_0-W_qi{\slas{q}{}}$ is expressed by a $2\times 2$ block notation;
403: $\vec{\sigma}$ are the Pauli matrices, and
404: ${u^{(s)}}^T=(1,0,0,0)$ or $(0,1,0,0)$.
405: Using the $(1,1)$ and $(2,1)$ components in the $2\times 2$ block notation
406: of eq.~(\ref{eq:dstructure}), where the other components vanish,
407: we can extract the relevant form factor $W_0$.
408:
409: %It is important to observe that the upper components of
410: %$( W_0 - W_q i{\slas{q}{}}) u^{(s)}$
411: %are linear combinations of the
412: %relevant and irrelevant form factors,
413: %while the lower components contain only the irrelevant one.
414: %Therefore, we can extract the relevant form factor $W_0$ from the
415: %upper components by subtracting the contribution of
416: %the irrelevant form factor
417: %$W_q$ with the use of the lower components.
418:
419: The need for the separation of the contribution of the irrelevant
420: form factor was not recognized in the previous studies with the
421: direct method\cite{gavela,jlqcd_98}. The values found in these
422: studies correspond to $W_0-iq_4W_q$ instead of $W_0$. We examine how
423: much this affects the estimate of the matrix elements
424: in Sec.~\ref{sec:results}.
425:
426:
427: %Let us add several technical comments:
428: %(i) The separation procedure described above cannot be applied to
429: %the case of ${\vec p}={\vec k}={\vec 0}$ because of
430: %vanishing lower components.
431: %(ii) Another possible choice of momenta for disentangling the relevant
432: %and irrelevant form factors is given by ${\vec k}\ne{\vec 0}$ and
433: %${\vec p}={\vec 0}$. In this case, however, we cannot achieve
434: %$-q^2=m_l^2$.
435:
436:
437:
438: \subsection{Calculational methods}
439: \label{subsec:calmethod}
440:
441: The nucleon decay matrix elements
442: of eq.~(\ref{eq:ff}) are calculated with two methods referred
443: to as the direct and the indirect ones.
444: The former is to extract the matrix elements
445: from the three-point
446: function of the nucleon, the PS meson and the baryon number violating
447: operator.
448: The latter is to estimate them with the aid of chiral Lagrangian,
449: where we have two unknown parameters to be determined
450: by the lattice QCD calculation.
451:
452: In the direct method
453: we calculate the following ratio of the hadron three-point function
454: divided by the propagators of the pseudoscalar meson and the nucleon:
455: \ben
456: &&R(t,t^\prime)
457: \nn\\&=&
458: \frac{\sum_{{\vec x},{\vec x}^\prime}
459: {\rm e}^{i{\vec p}\cdot({\vec x}^\prime-{\vec x})}
460: \la { J}_{PS}({\vec x}^\prime,t^\prime)
461: {\hat {\cal O}}^{\slal{B}{}}_{L,\gamma}({\vec x},t)
462: \bar{ J}_{N,s}(0) \ra}
463: {\sum_{{\vec x},{\vec x}^\prime}
464: {\rm e}^{i{\vec p}\cdot({\vec x}^\prime-{\vec x})}
465: \la { J}_{PS}({\vec x}^\prime,t^\prime)
466: { J}_{PS}^{\dagger}({\vec x},t) \ra
467: \sum_{\vec x}
468: \la { J}_{N,s}({\vec x},t)
469: \bar{ J}_{N,s}(0) \ra }
470: \sqrt{Z_{PS}} \sqrt{Z_N} \nn \\
471: &\longrightarrow&
472: \frac{1}{L_x L_y L_z}
473: \la PS(\vec{p})|{\hat {\cal O}}^{\slal{B}{}}_{L,\gamma}
474: |N^{(s)}({\vec k}={\vec 0})\ra
475: \;\;\;\;\;\;\;\; t^\prime \gg t \gg 0.
476: \label{eq:ratio}
477: \een
478: Here ${\hat {\cal O}}^{\slal{B}{}}_{L,\gamma}$ denotes
479: the renormalized operator in the
480: naive dimensional regularization(NDR) with the ${\overline{\rm MS}}$
481: subtraction scheme, and ${ J}_{PS}$ and ${ J}_{N,s}$ are interpolating
482: fields for the PS meson and the nucleon, respectively.
483: The subscripts $\gamma$ and $s$ are spinor indices; we can specify the
484: spin state of the initial nucleon at rest by choosing
485: $s=1$ or $2$.
486: $Z_{PS}$ and $Z_N$ represent the residues of the PS meson propagator
487: and the nucleon propagator.
488: $L_xL_yL_z$ is the spatial volume of the lattice.
489: In lattice QCD calculation we evaluate the Green functions numerically
490: by the Monte Carlo method with supercomputer.
491: We move the baryon number violating operator
492: ${\hat {\cal O}}^{\slal{B}{}}_{L,\gamma}$
493: in terms of $t$ between the nucleon source placed at $t=0$ and
494: the PS meson sink fixed at some $t^\prime$ well separated from
495: $t=0$. Under the condition that the baryon number violating operator
496: is sufficiently distanced from both the PS meson field and the nucleon field,
497: which is required to avoid excited state contaminations,
498: we can extract the matrix elements normalized
499: by the spatial volume of the lattice.
500:
501:
502: The indirect method uses the tree-level results of chiral Lagrangian,
503: which are given by
504: \ben
505: \langle \pi^0|(ud_R) u_L|p\rangle
506: &=&\alpha P_L u_p\left[1+D+F\right]/(\sqrt{2}f),
507: \label{eq:chpt_1_rl_q}\\
508: \langle \pi^0|(ud_L) u_L|p\rangle
509: &=&\beta P_L u_p\left[1+D+F\right]/(\sqrt{2}f),
510: \label{eq:chpt_1_ll_q}\\
511: \langle \pi^+|(ud_R) d_L|p\rangle
512: &=&\alpha P_L u_p\left[1+D+F\right]/f,
513: \label{eq:chpt_2_rl_q}\\
514: \langle \pi^+|(ud_L) d_L|p\rangle
515: &=&\beta P_L u_p\left[1+D+F\right]/f,
516: \label{eq:chpt_2_ll_q}\\
517: \langle K^0|(us_R) u_L|p\rangle
518: &=&\alpha P_L u_p\left[-1-(D-F)m_{N/B}\right]/f,
519: \label{eq:chpt_3_rl_q}\\
520: \langle K^0|(us_L) u_L|p\rangle
521: &=&\beta P_L u_p\left[1-(D-F)m_{N/B}\right]/f,
522: \label{eq:chpt_3_ll_q}\\
523: \langle K^+|(us_R) d_L|p\rangle
524: &=&\alpha P_L u_p\left[2Dm_{N/B}\right]/(3f),
525: \label{eq:chpt_4_rl_q}\\
526: \langle K^+|(us_L) d_L|p\rangle
527: &=&\beta P_L u_p\left[2Dm_{N/B}\right]/(3f),
528: \label{eq:chpt_4_ll_q}\\
529: \langle K^+|(ud_R) s_L|p\rangle
530: &=&\alpha P_L u_p\left[3+(D+3F)m_{N/B}\right]/(3f),
531: \label{eq:chpt_5_rl_q}\\
532: \langle K^+|(ud_L) s_L|p\rangle
533: &=&\beta P_L u_p\left[3+(D+3F)m_{N/B}\right]/(3f),
534: \label{eq:chpt_5_ll_q}\\
535: \langle K^0|(us_R) d_L|n\rangle
536: &=&\alpha P_L u_n\left[-3-(D-3F)m_{N/B}\right]/(3f),
537: \label{eq:chpt_6_rl_q}\\
538: \langle K^0|(us_L) d_L|n\rangle
539: &=&\beta P_L u_n\left[3-(D-3F)m_{N/B}\right]/(3f),
540: \label{eq:chpt_6_ll_q}\\
541: \langle \eta |(ud_R) u_L|p\rangle
542: &=&\alpha P_L u_p\left[-1-(D-3F)\right]/(\sqrt{6}f),
543: \label{eq:chpt_7_rl_q}\\
544: \langle \eta |(ud_L) u_L|p\rangle
545: &=&\beta P_L u_p\left[3-(D-3F)\right]/(\sqrt{6}f),
546: \label{eq:chpt_7_ll_q}
547: \een
548: where $f$ is the pion decay constant; $F$ and $D$ parameters
549: are determined from experimental results
550: of the semileptonic baryon decays;
551: $m_{N/B}=m_N/m_B$ with $m_B\equiv m_\Sigma\simeq m_\Lambda$.
552: We use $\langle PS |(\psi_1 {\psi_2}_{R,L}) {\psi_3}_L|N\rangle$
553: as a shortened form of $\langle PS|\epsilon_{ijk}
554: ({\psi_1^i}^T CP_{R,L}{\psi_2^j})
555: P_L{\psi_3^k}|N\rangle$.
556:
557: The expressions in eqs.~(\ref{eq:chpt_1_rl_q})$-$(\ref{eq:chpt_7_ll_q})
558: contain two unknown coefficients $\alpha$ and $\beta$, which are
559: to be determined by lattice QCD calculation.
560: The definitions of $\alpha$ and$\beta$ parameters are given by
561: \ben
562: \la 0 | \epsilon_{ijk}({u^i}^T C P_R d^j) P_L u^k
563: | p^{(s)} \ra &=& \alpha P_L u^{(s)},
564: \label{eq:alpha}\\
565: \la 0 | \epsilon_{ijk}({u^i}^T C P_L d^j) P_L u^k
566: | p^{(s)} \ra &=& \beta P_L u^{(s)},
567: \label{eq:beta}
568: \een
569: where operators are renormalized in the NDR scheme.
570: $p$ denotes the proton state.
571: These matrix elements are obtained from the ratio of two-point
572: functions:
573: \ben
574: R^{\alpha\beta}(t)&=&
575: \frac{\sum_{\vec x}
576: \la \epsilon_{ijk}({u^i}^T C P_{R,L} d^j) P_L u^k({\vec x},t)
577: \bar{ J}_{p,s}(0)\ra}
578: {\sum_{\vec x}
579: \la { J}_{p,s}({\vec x},t)
580: \bar{ J}_{p,s}(0)\ra}
581: \sqrt{Z_N} \nn\\
582: &\longrightarrow&
583: \la 0 | \epsilon_{ijk}(u^i C P_{R,L} d^j) P_L u^k | p^{(s)} \ra
584: \;\;\;\;\;\;\;\; t\gg 0 .
585: \label{eq:ratio_ab}
586: \een
587: Incorporating the $\alpha$ and $\beta$ values
588: determined by the lattice calculation into the
589: tree-level results of chiral Lagrangian,
590: we can obtain the values of the
591: nucleon decay matrix elements in eqs.~(\ref{eq:indme_1})$-$(\ref{eq:indme_7}).
592:
593: \section{Results}
594: \label{sec:results}
595:
596: \subsection{Details of numerical simulation}
597:
598: Our calculation is carried out with the Wilson quark action in quenched QCD
599: at $\beta=6.0$ on a $28^2\times 48\times 80$ lattice.
600: Gauge configurations are generated with the single plaquette
601: action separated by 2000 pseudo heat-bath sweeps.
602: We analyzed 100 configurations for the calculation of the
603: nucleon decay matrix elements after the thermalization of 22000 sweeps.
604: The four hopping parameters $K=0.15620$, $0.15568$,
605: $0.15516$ and $0.15464$
606: are adopted such that the physical point for the $K$ meson can be
607: interpolated.
608: The critical hopping parameter $K_c=0.15714(1)$ is determined by
609: extrapolating the results of $m_\pi^2$ at the four hopping parameters
610: linearly in $1/2K$ to $m_\pi^2=0$. The $\rho$ meson mass at the
611: chiral limit is used to determine the inverse lattice spacing
612: $a^{-1}=2.30(4)$GeV with $m_\rho=770$MeV as input.
613: The strange quark mass $m_s a=0.0464(16)$($K_s=0.15488(7)$),
614: which is estimated from the
615: experimental ratio $m_K/m_\rho=0.644$, is in the middle of $K=0.15516$ and
616: $K=0.15464$.
617:
618:
619: We calculate the ratio of eq.~(\ref{eq:ratio}) with
620: the nucleon field fixed at $t=0$ and the PS meson field
621: at $t=29$.
622: Four spatial momenta ${\vec p}a=(0,0,0)$, $(\pi/14,0,0)$, $(0,\pi/14,0)$
623: and $(0,0,\pi/24)$ are imposed on the PS meson in the final
624: state. For the ${\vec p}\ne {\vec 0}$ cases
625: we provide different quark masses for the valence quark connecting
626: $J_{PS}$ and ${\hat {\cal O}}^{\slal{B}{}}_{L,\gamma}$
627: and the other valence quarks:
628: $m_2$ is for the former and $m_1$ for the latter.
629: By this assignment
630: we can distinguish the strange quark mass from the
631: up and down quark mass.
632: %As explained in Sec.~\ref{subsec:ff}, we cannot disentangle
633: %the relevant form factor from the irrelevant one
634: %in the case of the PS meson at rest, where we take
635: %only the degenerate quark mass $m_1=m_2$.
636:
637:
638: \begin{figure}[t]
639: \begin{minipage}[t]{55mm}
640: \centering{
641: \hskip -0.0cm
642: %\psfig{file=zmix_63_1234.epsf,height=58mm,width=75mm,angle=-90}
643: \psfig{file=ratio_3pt_xy.eps,width=53mm,angle=-90}
644: }
645: %\vskip -10mm}
646: \caption{Ratio $R(t,t^\prime=29)$ for the relevant form factor $W_0$ in
647: $\la \pi^0|(ud_R) u_L|p\ra$.
648: Solid lines denote the fitting results with an error band of one standard
649: deviation.}
650: \label{fig:ratio_3pt_xy}
651: \end{minipage}
652: %
653: \hspace{\fill}
654: %
655: \begin{minipage}[t]{57mm}
656: \centering{
657: \hskip -0.0cm
658: %\psfig{file=zmix_63_1234.epsf,height=58mm,width=75mm,angle=-90}
659: \psfig{file=qfit1.eps,width=55mm,angle=-90}
660: }
661: %\vskip -10mm }
662: \caption{$-q^2 a^2$ dependences for $W_0$
663: in $\la \pi^0|(ud_R) u_L|p\ra$.
664: Combination of form factors $W_0-iq_4 W_q$
665: is also plotted for comparison.
666: Solid line denotes the function
667: $c_0+c_1\cdot (-q^2 a^2)+c_2\cdot (-q^2a^2)^2$.}
668: \label{fig:qfit1}
669: \end{minipage}
670: \vspace{-5mm}
671: \end{figure}
672:
673:
674: \subsection{Nucleon decay matrix elements
675: with direct and indirect methods}
676:
677: We first present the results of the nucleon decay matrix elements
678: obtained by the direct method.
679: In Fig.~\ref{fig:ratio_3pt_xy} we show time
680: dependence of $R(t,t^\prime=29)$ with $|{\vec p}|a=\pi/14$ for
681: the matrix element $\la \pi^0|\epsilon_{ijk}
682: ({u^i}^T CP_{R}d^j) P_L u^k|p\ra$
683: as a representative case. The result of constant fit
684: is depicted by the set of three horizontal lines.
685: We choose the fitting range to be $8 \le t \le 16$
686: for all the matrix elements of
687: eqs.~(\ref{eq:indme_1})$-$(\ref{eq:indme_7}) such that
688: the excited state contaminations in the nucleon
689: and PS meson states can be avoided simultaneously.
690:
691: Figure~\ref{fig:qfit1} shows $-q^2a^2$ dependence
692: of the relevant form factor $W_0(q^2)$ in the matrix element
693: $\la \pi^0|\epsilon_{ijk}({u^i}^T CP_{R}d^j) P_L u^k|p\ra$, where
694: the operators are renormalized with the NDR scheme at $\mu=1/a$.
695: The fitting result in Fig.~\ref{fig:ratio_3pt_xy} corresponds to the data at
696: $-q^2a^2=0.0259(22)$ in Fig.~\ref{fig:qfit1}.
697: The combination $W_0-iq_4 W_q$ is also plotted in Fig.~\ref{fig:qfit1}
698: for comparison, which
699: is obtained by following the method in Ref.~8.
700: %~\cite{gavela}.
701: The magnitude of $W_0(q^2)$ is more than two times larger than that
702: of $W_0(q^2)-iq_4 W_q(q^2)$.
703:
704: To interpolate the relevant form factor $W_0$ to $q^2=0$,
705: which is the on-shell point of outgoing antilepton,
706: we employ the following fitting function:
707: \be
708: c_0+c_1\cdot(-q^2) +c_2\cdot (-q^2)^2 +c_3\cdot m_1 +c_4\cdot m_2,
709: \label{eq:qfit}
710: \ee
711: where we assume that the form factor could have the $m_1$ and $m_2$
712: dependences through the nucleon and PS meson masses.
713: We extrapolate $m_1$ and $m_2$ to the chiral limit
714: for the matrix elements of
715: eqs.~(\ref{eq:indme_1}), (\ref{eq:indme_2}) and (\ref{eq:indme_7}), while
716: $m_2$ is interpolated to the physical strange quark mass
717: with $m_1$ taken to the chiral limit
718: for the matrix elements of eqs.~(\ref{eq:indme_3})$-$(\ref{eq:indme_6}).
719: The solid line and the open circle at $-q^2a^2=0$
720: in Fig.~\ref{fig:qfit1} denote
721: the fitting result of the data employing
722: the function of eq.~(\ref{eq:qfit}), where we find that
723: the charged lepton masses $m_e^2 a^2=4.9\times 10^{-8}$
724: and $m_\mu^2 a^2=2.1\times 10^{-3}$
725: are negligible in the current numerical statistics.
726: The solid line expresses the function
727: $c_0+c_1\cdot(-q^2)+c_2\cdot(-q^2)^2$
728: employing the fitting results of $c_0$, $c_1$ and $c_2$.
729:
730: Let us turn to the results
731: obtained by the indirect method, which uses the tree-level results
732: of chiral Lagrangian in
733: eqs.~(\ref{eq:chpt_1_rl_q})$-$(\ref{eq:chpt_7_ll_q}).
734: The $\alpha$ and $\beta$ parameters at each hopping parameter
735: are extracted from a constant fit of the ratio of eq.~(\ref{eq:ratio_ab}).
736: Applying linear fits to the data as a function of quark mass
737: $m_qa=(1/K-1/K_c)/2$, we obtain
738: $\alpha({\rm NDR},1/a)=-0.015(1)$GeV$^3$ and
739: $\beta({\rm NDR},1/a)=0.014(1)$GeV$^3$
740: in the chiral limit with the use of $a^{-1}=2.30(4)$GeV.
741:
742: \begin{figure}[t]
743: \centering{
744: \hskip -0.0cm
745: \psfig{file=summary.eps,width=100mm,angle=-90}
746: %\vskip -10mm
747: }
748: \caption{Comparison of relevant form factors with tree-level predictions
749: of ChPT. Crosses denote the ChPT results with
750: $|\alpha|=|\beta|=0.003$GeV$^3$. For numerical values see
751: Ref.~10.
752: }
753: \label{fig:summary}
754: %\vspace{-8mm}
755: \end{figure}
756:
757:
758: In phenomenological GUT model analyses of the nucleon decays,
759: the values $|\alpha|=|\beta|=0.003$GeV$^3\;\;$\cite{ab_min}
760: are conservatively
761: taken as these are the smallest estimate among various
762: QCD model calculations\cite{model_wf}.
763: The previous
764: lattice calculations, however, indicated values of these parameters
765: considerably larger than the minimum model
766: estimate above\cite{hara,bowler,gavela}.
767: Our results, significantly improved over the previous ones
768: due to the use of higher statistics, larger spatial size,
769: lighter quark masses and smaller lattice spacing,
770: have confirmed this trend:
771: the values we obtained are about five times larger than
772: $|\alpha|=|\beta|=0.003$GeV$^3$.
773:
774: In Fig.~\ref{fig:summary} we compare the nucleon decay matrix
775: elements obtained by the direct
776: method with those by the indirect one using the tree-level results
777: of chiral Lagrangian (squares), where we employ the expressions of
778: eqs.~(\ref{eq:chpt_1_rl_q})$-$(\ref{eq:chpt_7_ll_q})
779: with $\alpha({\rm NDR},1/a)=-0.015(1)$GeV$^3$,
780: $\beta({\rm NDR},1/a)=0.014(1)$GeV$^3$, $f_\pi=0.131$GeV, $m_N=0.94$GeV,
781: $m_B=1.15$GeV, $D=0.80$ and $F=0.47$\cite{fd}.
782: We observe that the two set of results are roughly comparable.
783: This leads us to consider that the large discrepancy between the results
784: of the two methods found in Refs.~8,9
785: %\cite{gavela,jlqcd_98}
786: is mainly due to the neglect of the
787: $W_q(q^2)$ term in eq.~(\ref{eq:ff}).
788:
789: It is also intriguing to compare our results with
790: the tree-level predictions of chiral Lagrangian
791: with $|\alpha|=|\beta|=0.003$GeV$^3$ (crosses).
792: Our results with the direct method are $3-5$ times larger than the
793: smallest estimates except $\langle \eta |(ud_R) u_L|p\rangle$.
794: Hence they are expected to give stronger
795: constraints on the parameters of GUT models.
796:
797: \section{Conclusions}
798: \label{sec:conclusions}
799:
800: In this article we have reported progress in the lattice study of
801: the nucleon decay matrix elements.
802: In order to enable a GUT-model-independent analysis of the nucleon decay,
803: we have extracted the form factors of all the independent matrix elements
804: relevant for the (proton,neutron)$\rightarrow$($\pi,K,\eta$)
805: +(${\bar \nu},e^+,\mu^+$) decay processes without invoking
806: chiral Lagrangian.
807:
808: We have also pointed out the necessity of separating out the
809: contribution of an irrelevant form factor in lattice calculations
810: for a correct estimate of the matrix elements at the physical point.
811: With this separation, the matrix elements obtained from the three-point
812: functions are roughly
813: comparable with the tree-level predictions of chiral Lagrangian
814: with the $\alpha$ and $\beta$ parameters
815: determined on the same lattice.
816: The magnitude of the matrix elements, however, are
817: 3 to 5 times larger than those with the smallest
818: estimate of $\alpha$ and $\beta$ among various QCD model
819: calculations.
820: Our results would stimulate phenomenological interests as
821: the larger values of the nucleon decay matrix elements
822: can give more stringent constraints on GUT models.
823:
824:
825: %The ultimate goal of lattice QCD calculations
826: %of the nucleon decay matrix elements is to
827: %determine the matrix elements precisely
828: %with control over possible systematic errors.
829: Major systematic errors conceivably affecting our present results are
830: the scaling violations and the quenching effects.
831: The former can be investigated by repeating the simulation
832: at several lattice spacings;
833: the latter is eliminated
834: once configurations are generated with dynamical
835: quarks, where it is straightforward to apply our method.
836: We leave these points to future studies.
837:
838:
839:
840: \section*{Acknowledgments}
841: This work is supported by the Supercomputer Project No.45 (FY1999)
842: of High Energy Accelerator Research Organization (KEK),
843: and also in part by the Grants-in-Aid of the Ministry of
844: Education (Nos. 09304029, 10640246, 10640248, 10740107, 10740125,
845: 11640294, 11740162).
846:
847: \section*{References}
848: \begin{thebibliography}{99}
849:
850:
851: \bibitem{pd_ex} See, {\it e.g.,} Super-Kamiokande Collaboration,
852: M.~Shiozawa {\it et al.}, Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf 81} (1998) 3319;
853: {\it ibid.} {\bf 83} (1999) 1529.
854:
855: \bibitem{sk_next} K.~Nakamura, these proceedings;
856: Y.~Suzuki, these proceedings.
857:
858: \bibitem{model_wf} See, {\it e.g.,} S.~J.~Brodsky {\it et al.},
859: Nucl. Phys. {\bf B238} (1984) 561.
860:
861: %\bibitem{model_wf} See, {\it e.g.,} S.~J.~Brodsky, J.~Ellis, J.~S.~Hagelin
862: %and C.~T.~Sachrajda,
863: %Nucl. Phys. {\bf B238} (1984) 561.
864:
865: \bibitem{op_6} S.~Weinberg, Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf 43} (1979) 1566;
866: F.~Wilczek and A.~Zee, Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf 43} (1979) 1571.
867:
868: \bibitem{op_4} L.~F.~Abbott and M.~B.~Wise,
869: Phys. Rev. D{\bf 22} (1980) 2208.
870:
871: \bibitem{hara} Y.~Hara {\it et al.},
872: Phys. Rev. D{\bf 34} (1986) 3399.
873:
874: %\bibitem{hara} Y.~Hara, S.~Itoh, Y.~Iwasaki and T.~Yoshi\'e,
875: %Phys. Rev. D{\bf 34} (1986) 3399.
876:
877: \bibitem{bowler} K.~C.~Bowler {\it et al.},
878: Nucl. Phys. {\bf B296} (1988) 431.
879:
880: %\bibitem{bowler} K.~C.~Bowler, D.~Daniel, T.~D.~Kieu,
881: %D.~G.~Richards and C.~J.~Scott,
882: %Nucl. Phys. {\bf B296} (1988) 431.
883:
884: \bibitem{gavela} M.~B.~Gavela {\it et al.},
885: Nucl. Phys. {\bf B312} (1989) 269.
886:
887: \bibitem{jlqcd_98} JLQCD Collaboration, N.~Tsutsui {\it et al.},
888: Nucl. Phys. {\bf B} (Proc. Suppl.) {\bf 73} (1999) 297.
889:
890: %\bibitem{jlqcd_99} JLQCD Collaboration, N.~Tsutsui {\it et al.},
891: %hep-lat/9910009
892:
893:
894: \bibitem{jlqcd_00} JLQCD Collaboration, S.~Aoki {\it et al.},
895: Phys. Rev. D{\bf 62} (2000) 014506.
896:
897:
898: %\bibitem{chpt_gut} M.~Claudson, M.~B.~Wise and L.~J.~Hall,
899: %Nucl. Phys. {\bf B195} (1982) 297.
900:
901: %\bibitem{pt_w} D.~G.~Richards, C.~T.~Sachrajda and C.~J.~Scott,
902: %Nucl. Phys. {\bf B286} (1987) 683.
903:
904: %\bibitem{klm} P.~B.~Mackenzie, Nucl. Phys. {\bf B}
905: %(Proc. Suppl.) {\bf 30} (1993) 35;
906: %A.~S.~Kronfeld, {\it ibid.} {\bf 30} (1993) 445;
907: %A.~X.~El-Khadra, A.~S.~Kronfeld and P.~B.~Mackenzie,
908: %Phys. Rev. D{\bf 55} (1997) 3933.
909:
910: %\bibitem{tadimp} G.~P.~Lepage and P.~B.~Mackenzie,
911: %Phys. Rev. D{\bf 48} (1993) 2250.
912:
913: %\bibitem{pt_kc} R.~Groot, J.~Hoek and J.~Smit,
914: %Nucl. Phys. {\bf B237} (1984) 111.
915:
916: %\bibitem{chpt_susy} S.~Chadha and M.~Daniel,
917: %Nucl. Phys. {\bf B229} (1983) 105.
918:
919: \bibitem{ab_min} J.~F.~Donoghue and E.~Golowich,
920: Phys. Rev. D{\bf 26} (1982) 3092.
921:
922: \bibitem{fd} Particle Data Group,
923: Eur. Phys. J. {\bf C3} (1998) 1;
924: S.~Y.~Hsueh {\it et al.}, Phys. Rev. D{\bf 38} (1988) 2056.
925: %R.~Shrock and L.~Wang, Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf 41} (1978) 692.
926:
927: %\bibitem{source} C.~Bernard, T.~Draper, G.~Hockney and A.~Soni, in
928: %{\it Lattice Gauge Theory: A Challenge in Large-Scale Computing},
929: %eds. B.~Bunk {\it
930: %et al.} (Plenum, New York, 1986);
931: %G.~W.~Kilcup {\it et al.}, Phys. Lett. {\bf 164B} (1985) 347.
932:
933: %\bibitem{alpha_p} C.~T.~H.~Davies {\it et al.},
934: %Phys. Rev. D{\bf 56} (1997) 2755.
935:
936: %\bibitem{hara_spc} S.~Itoh, Y.~Iwasaki and T.~Yoshi\'e,
937: %Phys. Lett. {\bf 183B} (1987) 351.
938:
939: %\bibitem{bowler_spc} K.~C.~Bowler {\it et al.},
940: %Nucl. Phys. {\bf B240} [FS12] (1984) 213.
941:
942: %\bibitem{ms_spc} G.~Martinelli and C.~T.~Sachrajda,
943: %Nucl. Phys. {\bf B316} (1989) 355.
944:
945: %\bibitem{gf11} F.~Butler, H.~Chen, J.~Sexton, A.~Vaccarino and
946: %D.~Weingarten,
947: %Nucl. Phys. {\bf B430} (1994) 179.
948:
949: %\bibitem{gupta} T.~Bhattacharya, R.~Gupta, G.~Kilcup and
950: %S.~Sharpe,
951: %Phys. Rev. D{\bf 53} (1996) 6486.
952:
953: %\bibitem{bases} S.~Kawabata, Comput. Phys. Commun. {\bf 41}
954: %(1986) 127; {\it ibid.} {\bf 88} (1995) 309.
955:
956: \end{thebibliography}
957:
958: \end{document}
959:
960: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
961: %% End of sprocl.tex
962: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
963:
964:
965: \begin{figure}[t]
966: \rule{5cm}{0.2mm}\hfill\rule{5cm}{0.2mm}
967: \vskip 2.5cm
968: \rule{5cm}{0.2mm}\hfill\rule{5cm}{0.2mm}
969: %\psfig{figure=filename.ps,height=1.5in}
970: \caption{A generalized cactus tree: the confluent
971: transfer-matrix $S$ transforms the state function $f(x)$ and
972: $f(z)$ into $f(x)$. \label{fig:radish}}
973: \end{figure}
974:
975:
976: \begin{table}[t]
977: \caption{Experimental Data bearing on
978: $\Gamma(K \rightarrow \pi \pi \gamma)$
979: for the $K^0_S$, $K^0_L$ and $K^-$ mesons.\label{tab:exp}}
980: \vspace{0.2cm}
981: \begin{center}
982: \footnotesize
983: \begin{tabular}{|c|c|c|l|}
984: \hline
985: {} &\raisebox{0pt}[13pt][7pt]{$\Gamma(\pi^- \pi^0)\; s^{-1}$} &
986: \raisebox{0pt}[13pt][7pt]{$\Gamma(\pi^-\pi^0\gamma)\; s^{-1}$} &{}\\
987: \hline
988: \multicolumn{2}{|c|}{\raisebox{0pt}[12pt][6pt]{Process
989: for Decay}} & &\\
990: \cline{1-2}
991: $K^-$ &$1.711 \times 10^7$
992: &\begin{minipage}{1in}
993: \begin{center}
994: $2.22 \times 10^4$ \\ (DE $ 1.46 \times 10^3)$
995: \end{center}
996: \end{minipage}
997: &\begin{minipage}{1.5in}
998: \phantom{xxx}
999: No (IB)-E1 interference seen but data shows excess events
1000: relative to IB over
1001: $E^{\ast}_{\gamma} = 80$ to $100$~MeV
1002: \end{minipage} \\[22pt]
1003: \hline
1004: \end{tabular}
1005: \end{center}
1006: \end{table}
1007:
1008:
1009:
1010: