1: \documentstyle[12pt,epsfig,axodraw]{article}
2: \oddsidemargin=-0.1in
3: \evensidemargin=-0.1in
4: \topmargin=-0.2in
5: \textwidth=6.5in
6: \textheight=9in
7:
8: \renewcommand{\theequation}{\thesection.\arabic{equation}}
9:
10: %\usepackage{epsfig}
11: \begin{document}
12: \begin{flushright}
13: BIHEP-TH-2002-7
14: \end{flushright}
15:
16: \newcommand{\Title}[1]{{\baselineskip=26pt \begin{center}
17: \Large \bf #1 \\ \ \\ \end{center}}}
18: \newcommand{\Author}{\begin{center}\large
19: Medina Ablikim$^b$, Dong-Sheng Du$^{a,b}$, Mao-Zhi Yang$^{a,b}$\end{center}}
20: \newcommand{\Address}{\begin{center} \it
21: $^a$ CCAST(World Laboratory), P.O.Box 8730, Beijing 100080, China\\
22:
23: $^b$ Institute of High Energy Physics, Chinese Academy of
24: Sciences, P.O.Box 918(4),\\ Beijing 100039, China
25:
26: \end{center}}
27:
28: \bigskip
29: \bigskip
30: \bigskip
31:
32: \baselineskip=20pt
33:
34: \Title{$D \to \pi\pi$ decays with Final State Interactions}
35: \Author
36:
37: \Address
38: \vspace{2cm}
39:
40: \begin{abstract}
41:
42: We study $D \to \pi\pi$ decays with final state interactions considered
43: in one-particle-exchange method. A clear physical picture for final
44: state interactions based on quark and hadronic level diagrams is
45: presented. A strong phase is introduced for
46: hadronic effective couplings, which is crucial for explaining the
47: experimental data of $D^+\to \pi^+\pi^0$, $D^0\to \pi^+\pi^-$, and
48: $D^0\to \pi^0\pi^0$. Rescattering effects between
49: different $D$ decay channels are usually large. They are important
50: for obtaining correct branching ratios for $D\to \pi\pi$ decays
51: in theoretical calculation.
52:
53: \end{abstract}
54:
55: \section{Introduction}
56: \setcounter{equation}{0}
57:
58: The study of heavy meson decays is important for understanding the
59: quark mixing sector of the standard model (SM). It is of great help for
60: determining the quark mixing parameters, searching for the sources
61: of $CP$ violation. However, the quarks in nature are not free,
62: they are bounded in hadrons by strong interactions which
63: are described by nonperturbative QCD. The strong interaction
64: permeates every processes. It almost masks all the information of
65: electroweak (EW) interaction. One must solve the problem of strong
66: interaction before making any meaningful measurements of EW or
67: quark flavor physics in experiment. Solving the problem of
68: nonperturbative QCD needs efforts in both experiment and theory.
69: In the near future BESIII and CLEO-c detector will provide high
70: precision data in charm physics including data on $D$ meson decays,
71: which will provide the possibility for understanding the physics
72: in charm sector and $D$ decays.
73:
74: It is the high time to study $D$ meson two-body weak decays
75: beyond the factorization approach now \cite{BSW}. In general, if a process
76: happens in an energy scale where there are many resonance states, this process
77: must be seriously affected by these resonances \cite{fsi}. This is a highly
78: nonperturbtive effect. Near the scale of $D$ mass many resonance states
79: exist. $D$ meson decays must be affected by them seriously. After weak
80: decays the final state particles rescatter into other particle states
81: through nonperturbative strong interaction \cite{fsi,Donoghue}.
82: This is called final state
83: interaction (FSI). Every $D$ decay channels
84: can contribute to each other through final state interactions. One can
85: model this rescattering effect as one-particle exchange process
86: \cite{ope1,ope2}. That is to say that the final state particles be scattered
87: into other particle states by exchanging one resonance state
88: existing near the mass scale of $D$ meson.
89: There are also other ways to treat the nonperturbative and FSI effects in
90: nonleptonic $D$ decays. The readers
91: can refer to Ref.\cite{ref}
92:
93:
94: In this paper, we study $D^+\to \pi^+\pi^0$, $D^0\to \pi^+\pi^-$, and
95: $D^0\to \pi^0\pi^0$ decays. We use the one-particle-exchange method to
96: study the final state interactions in these decays. The magnitudes of
97: hadronic couplings needed here are extracted from experimental data on the measured
98: branching fractions of resonances decays. In addition, we introduce
99: a strong phase for the hadronic coupling which is
100: important for obtaining the correct branching ratios of $D\to\pi\pi$ decays.
101: The coupling constants
102: extracted from experimental data are small for $s$-channel contribution and
103: large for $t$-channel contribution. Therefore the $s$-channel contribution
104: is numerically negligible in $D\to\pi\pi$ decays. We can safely drop the
105: $s$-channel contribution in this paper.
106:
107: The paper is organized as follows. Section II presents the calculation
108: in naive factorization approach. Section III gives the main scheme of
109: one-particle-exchange method. Section IV presents
110: the numerical calculation and discussions.
111: Finally a brief summary is given.
112:
113: \section{Calculations in the factorization approach }
114: \setcounter{equation}{0}
115:
116: We start with the low energy effective Hamiltonian for charm
117: decays \cite{buras}
118: %
119: \begin{equation}
120: {\cal H} = \frac{G_F}{\sqrt2} \left[ \sum_{q=d,s} v_q \left(C_1Q_1^q +
121: C_2Q_2^q \right)\right], \label{Hamiltonian}
122: \end{equation}
123: %
124: where $C_1$ and $C_2$ are the Wilson coefficients at $m_c$ scale,
125: $v_q$ is the product of Cabibbo-Kobayashi-Maskawa (CKM) matrix elements and
126: defined as
127: %
128: \begin{equation}
129: v_q=V_{uq}V_{cq}^* ,
130: \end{equation}
131: %
132: and the current-current operators are given by
133: %
134: \begin{equation}
135: Q_1^q=(\bar u q)_{V-A}(\bar q c)_{V-A}, \qquad
136: Q_2^q=(\bar u_\alpha q_\beta)_{V-A}(\bar q_\beta c_\alpha)_{V-A}.
137: \end{equation}
138: %
139: We do not consider the contributions of the QCD and the
140: electroweak penguin operators in the decays of $D \to \pi\pi$,
141: since their effects are small in $D$ decays. The values of $C_1$
142: and $C_2$ at $m_c$ scale are taken to be \cite{buras}
143: $$ C_1=1.126,~~~~~C_2=-0.415 .$$
144:
145: In the naive factorization approach, the decay amplitude can be
146: generally factorized into a product of two current matrix elements
147: and can be obtained from~(\ref{Hamiltonian})
148: %
149: \begin{eqnarray}
150: && A(D^+ \to \pi^+\pi^0)=-\frac{G_F}{2}\;V_{ud}\;V_{cd}^*\;
151: (a_1+a_2)\;if_{\pi}( m_D^2-m_{\pi}^2)\;F^{D\pi}(m_{\pi}^2) ,\nonumber\\
152: && A(D^0 \to \pi^+\pi^-)=\frac{G_F}{\sqrt2} \; V_{ud}\;V_{cd}^*\;
153: a_1\;if_{\pi}(m_D^2-m_{\pi}^2)\;F^{D\pi}(m_{\pi}^2) ,\\
154: && A(D^0 \to \pi^0\pi^0)=-\frac{G_F}{2} \; V_{ud}\;V_{cd}^* \;
155: a_2\;if_{\pi}(m_D^2-m_{\pi}^2)\;F^{D\pi}(m_{\pi}^2),\nonumber
156: \end{eqnarray}
157: %
158: where the parameters $a_1$ and $a_2$ are defined as
159: %
160: \begin{equation}
161: a_1=C_1+\frac{C_2}{N_c}, \qquad a_2=C_2+\frac{C_1}{N_c},
162: \end{equation}
163: %
164: with the color number $N_c=3$. The decay constant $f_{\pi}$ and the form factor $F^{D\pi}(0)$ take
165: the values of 0.133 GeV and 0.692 respectively. For $q^2$
166: dependence of the form factors, we take the BSW model \cite{BSW}, i.e., the
167: monopole dominance assumption:
168: \begin{equation}
169: F(q^2)=\frac{F(0)}{1-q^2/m_*^2},
170: \end{equation}
171: where $m_*$ is the relevant pole mass.
172:
173: The decay width of a $D$ meson at rest decaying into $\pi\pi$ is
174: %
175: \begin{equation}
176: \Gamma(D \to \pi\pi)=\frac{1}{8\pi}|A(D \to \pi\pi)|^2\frac{|\vec
177: p\;|}{m_D^2},
178: \end{equation}
179: %
180: where the momentum of the $\pi$ meson is given by
181: %
182: \begin{equation}
183: |\vec p\;|=\frac{[m_D^2(m_D^2-4m_{\pi}^2)]^{1/2}}{2m_D}.
184: \end{equation}
185: %
186: The corresponding branching ratio is
187: %
188: \begin{equation}
189: Br(D \to \pi\pi)=\frac{\Gamma(D \to \pi\pi)}{\Gamma_{tot}}.
190: \end{equation}
191: %
192: \begin{table}[h]
193: \caption{{\small The branching ratios of $D \to \pi\pi$ obtained in the naive
194: factorization approach and compared with the experimental
195: results.}}
196: \begin{center}
197: \begin{tabular}{|c|c|c|c|} \hline
198: Decay mode & Br (Theory) & Br (Experiment)\\
199: \hline
200: $D^+ \to \pi^+\pi^0$ &$3.1 \times 10^{-3}$ & $(2.5\pm 0.7)\times 10^{-3}$ \\
201: \hline
202: $D^0 \to \pi^+\pi^-$ &$2.48 \times 10^{-3}$ &$(1.52 \pm 0.09) \times
203: 10^{-3}$\\
204: \hline
205: $D^0 \to \pi^0\pi^0$ &$1.0 \times 10^{-7}$ & $(8.4 \pm 2.2) \times
206: 10^{-4}$\\
207: \hline
208: \end{tabular}
209: \end{center}
210: \end{table}
211: %
212: A comparison of the branching ratios of the naive factorization result with
213: the experimental data is presented in Table 1, where the second column
214: gives the pure factorization result. One can notice
215: that the results are not in agreement with
216: the experimental data, especially the second and third decay modes.
217:
218:
219:
220: \section{The one particle exchange method for FSI}
221:
222: As we have seen above, the experimental results for the branching ratios of
223: $D^0 \to \pi^+\pi^-$ and $D^0\to \pi^0\pi^0$ are in disagreement with
224: the calculation from the naive factorization approach. The reason is that
225: the physical picture of naive factorization is too simple,
226: nonperturbative strong interaction is restricted in single
227: hadrons, or between the initial and final hadrons which share the same
228: spectator quark. If the mass of the initial particle is large, such as
229: the case of $B$ meson decay, the effect of nonperturbative strong
230: interaction between the final hadrons most probably is small because
231: the momentum transfer is large. However, in the case of $D$ meson,
232: its mass is not so large. The energy scale of $D$ decays is not
233: very high. Nonperturbative effect may give large contribution.
234: Because there exist many resonances near the mass scale of $D$
235: meson, it is possible that nonperturbative interaction is propagated
236: by these resonance states, such as, $K^*(892)$, $K^*(1430)$,
237: $f_0(1710)$, etc.
238:
239: The diagrams of these nonperturbative rescattering effects can be
240: depicted in Figs.\ref{schan} and \ref{tchan}.
241: The first part $D \to P_1P_2$ or $D \to V_1V_2$ represents the direct
242: decay where the decay amplitudes can be obtained by using naive
243: factorization method. The second part represents rescattering process
244: where the effective hadronic couplings are needed in numerical
245: calculation, which can be extracted from experimental data on the
246: relevant resonance decays.
247:
248: \begin{figure}[h]
249: \begin{center}
250: \begin{picture}(250,90)
251: \put(35,50){\line(1,0){30}}
252: \put(69,50){\circle*{8}}
253: \put(87,50){\circle{80}}
254: \put(108,50){\circle*{8}}
255: \put(112,50){\line(1,0){38}}
256: \put(148,50){\circle*{8}}
257: \put(148,50){\line(3,-2){45}}
258: \put(148,50){\line(3,2){45}}
259:
260: \put(50,50){\vector(3,0){2}}
261: \put(88,70){\vector(3,0){2}}
262: \put(88,30){\vector(3,0){2}}
263: \put(130,50){\vector(3,0){2}}
264: \put(170,64.5){\vector(3,2){2}}
265: \put(170,35.5){\vector(3,-2){2}}
266:
267: \put(10,48){$D$}
268: \put(80,16){$P_2$}
269: \put(80,76){$P_1$}
270: \put(122,59){$0^{++}$}
271: \put(200,78){$\pi$}
272: \put(200,13){$\pi$}
273: \end{picture}
274: \end{center}
275: \caption{{\small s-channel contributions to final-state interaction in $D\to
276: \pi \pi $ due to one particle exchange.}}
277: \label{schan}
278: \end{figure}
279:
280:
281: Fig.\ref{schan} is the $s$-channel contribution to the final
282: state interaction. Here $P_1$ and $P_2$ are the intermediate pseudoscalar
283: mesons. The resonance state has the quantum number $J^{PC}=0^{++}$
284: derived from the final state particles $\pi\pi$. From
285: Particle Data Group~\cite{PDG},
286: one can only choose $f_0(1710)$ as the resonance state
287: which evaluates the $s$-channel contribution.
288:
289: \begin{figure}[h]
290: \begin{center}
291: \begin{picture}(430,160)
292: %------------------------(a)
293: \put(28,65){\line(1,0){30}}
294: \put(62,65){\circle*{8}}
295: \put(66,65){\line(3,2) {45}}
296: \put(66,65){\line(3,-2){45}}
297: \put(115,33){\circle*{8}}
298: \put(115,97){\circle*{8}}
299: \put(115,37){\line(0,1){56}}
300: \put(119,33){\line(1,0){38}}
301: \put(119,97){\line(1,0){38}}
302:
303: \put(42,65){\vector(3,0){2}}
304: \put(85,52){\vector(3,-2){2}}
305: \put(85,77.5){\vector(3,2){2}}
306: \put(115,65){\vector(0,-2){2}}
307: \put(138,97){\vector(3,0){2}}
308: \put(138,33){\vector(3,0){2}}
309:
310: \put(10,63){$D$}
311: \put(77,33){$P_2$}
312: \put(77,85){$P_1$}
313: \put(120,60){$V$}
314: \put(88,72){$p_1$}
315: \put(88,55){$p_2$}
316: \put(105,60){$k$}
317: \put(164,93){$\pi$}
318: \put(164,28){$\pi$}
319: \put(138,103){$p_3$}
320: \put(138,23){$p_4$}
321: \put(108,5){(a)}
322: %\end{picture}
323:
324: %\begin{picture}(0,0)
325: %------------------------(b)
326: \put(228,65){\line(1,0){30}}
327: \put(262,65){\circle*{8}}
328: \put(266,65){\line(3,2) {45}}
329: \put(266,65){\line(3,-2){45}}
330: \put(315,33){\circle*{8}}
331: \put(315,97){\circle*{8}}
332: \put(315,37){\line(0,1){56}}
333: \put(319,33){\line(1,0){38}}
334: \put(319,97){\line(1,0){38}}
335:
336: \put(242,65){\vector(3,0){2}}
337: \put(285,52){\vector(3,-2){2}}
338: \put(285,77.5){\vector(3,2){2}}
339: \put(315,65){\vector(0,-2){2}}
340: \put(338,97){\vector(3,0){2}}
341: \put(338,33){\vector(3,0){2}}
342:
343: \put(210,63){$D$}
344: \put(272,33){$V_2$}
345: \put(272,85){$V_1$}
346: \put(320,60){$P$}
347: \put(288,72){$p_1$}
348: \put(288,55){$p_2$}
349: \put(305,60){$k$}
350: \put(362,93){$\pi$}
351: \put(362,28){$\pi$}
352: \put(338,103){$p_3$}
353: \put(338,23){$p_4$}
354: \put(320,5){(b)}
355: \end{picture}
356: \end{center}
357: \caption{{\small t-channel contributions to final-state interaction in $D\to
358: \pi \pi $ due to one particle exchange.
359: (a) Exchange a single vector meson, (b) Exchange a single
360: pseudoscalar meson}}
361: \label{tchan}
362: \end{figure}
363: Fig.\ref{tchan} shows the $t$-channel contribution to the final
364: state interaction. $P_1$, $P_2$ and $V_1$, $V_2$ are the intermediate
365: states. They rescatter into the final state $\pi\pi$ by exchanging
366: one resonance state $V$ or $P$. In this paper the intermediate states
367: are treated to be on their mass shell, because their off-shell contribution
368: can be attributed to the quark level. We assume the on-shell contribution
369: dominates in the final state interaction. The exchanged resonances are
370: treated as a virtual particle. Their propagators are taken as
371: Breit-Wigner form
372: \begin{equation}
373: \frac{i}{k^2-m^2+im\Gamma_{tot}}, \nonumber
374: \end{equation}
375: where $\Gamma_{tot}$ is the total decay width of the exchanged resonance.
376:
377: To the lowest order, the effective couplings of $f_0$ to $PP$ and $VV$
378: can be taken as the form
379: \begin{eqnarray}
380: L_I & =& g_{fPP} \phi^+\phi f,\\
381: L_I & =& g_{fVV} A_\mu A^\mu f,
382: \end{eqnarray}
383: where $\phi$ is the pseudoscalar field, $A_\mu$ the vector field. Then
384: the decay amplitudes of $f_0\to PP$ and $VV$ are
385: \begin{eqnarray}
386: T_{fPP} & =& g_{fPP},\label{t1}\\
387: T_{fVV} & =& g_{fVV} \epsilon_\mu\epsilon^{\mu}.
388: \end{eqnarray}
389: The coupling constants $g_{fPP}$ and $g_{fVV}$ can
390: be extracted from the measured branching fractions of $f_0\to PP$
391: and $VV$ decays, respectively \cite{PDG}. Because $f_0\to VV$ decays
392: have not been detected yet, we
393: assume their couplings are small. We do not consider the
394: intermediate vector meson contributions in $s$-channel in this paper.
395:
396: For the $t$-channel contribution, the concerned effective vertex
397: is $VPP$, which can be related to the $V$ decay amplitude. Explicitly
398: the amplitude of $V\to PP$ can be written as
399: \begin{equation}
400: T_{VPP}=g_{VPP}\;\epsilon\cdot (p_1-p_2),
401: \label{t2}
402: \end{equation}
403: where $p_1$ and $p_2$ are the four-momentum of the two pseudoscalars,
404: respectively. To extract $g_{fPP}$ and $g_{VPP}$ from experiment,
405: one should square eqs.(\ref{t1}) and (\ref{t2}) to get the decay widths
406: \begin{eqnarray}
407: \Gamma(f\to PP)&=& \frac{1}{8\pi}\mid g_{fPP}\mid^2
408: \frac{\mid\vec{p}\mid}{m_f^2},\nonumber\\
409: \Gamma(V\to PP)&=& \frac{1}{3}\frac{1}{8\pi}\mid g_{VPP}\mid^2
410: \left[m_V^2-2m_1^2-2m_2^2+\frac{(m_1^2-m_2^2)^2}{m_V^2}\right]
411: \frac{\mid\vec{p}\mid}{m_V^2},
412: \label{couple}
413: \end{eqnarray}
414:
415: \begin{figure}
416: \begin{center}
417: \begin{picture}(150,60)
418:
419: \put(28,35){\line(1,0){38}}
420: \put(65,35){\circle*{8}}
421: \put(66,35){\line(3,2) {45}}
422: \put(66,35){\line(3,-2){45}}
423:
424: \put(42,35){\vector(3,0){2}}
425: \put(85,22){\vector(3,-2){2}}
426: \put(85,47.5){\vector(3,2){2}}
427:
428: \put(10,33){$K^*$}
429: \put(116,0){$\pi$}
430: \put(116,62){$K$}
431:
432: \end{picture}
433: \end{center}
434: \caption{{\small The effective coupling vertex on the hadronic
435: level}}
436: \label{vertex1}
437: \end{figure}
438: \noindent where $m_1$ and $m_2$ are the masses of the two final particles $PP$,
439: respectively, and $\mid\vec{p}\mid$ is the momentum of one of the final
440: particle $P$ in the rest frame of $V$ or $f$. From the above equations,
441: one can see that only the magnitudes of the effective couplings
442: $\mid g_{fPP}\mid $ and $\mid g_{VPP}\mid $ can be extracted from
443: experiment. If there is any phase factor for the effective coupling,
444: it would be dropped. Actually it is quite possible that there are
445: imaginary phases for the effective couplings. As an example, let us
446: see the effective coupling of $g_{K^*K\pi}$ shown in Fig.\ref{vertex1},
447: which relevant to the process $K^* \to K\pi$. On the quark level,
448: the effective vertex can be depicted as Fig.\ref{vertex2}, which should
449: be controlled by nonperturbative QCD. From this figure one can see that
450: it is resonable that a strong phase could appear in the effective
451: coupling, which is contributed by strong interaction.
452: Therefore we can introduce a strong phase for each
453: hadronic effective
454: coupling. In the succeeding part of this paper, the symbol $g$
455: will only be used to represent the magnitude of the relevant
456: effective coupling. The total one should be $g e^{i \theta}$, where
457: $\theta$ is the strong phase coming from Fig.\ref{vertex2}. For example,
458: the effective couplings will be written in the form of
459: $g_{fPP}e^{i\theta_{fPP}}$ and $g_{VPP}e^{i\theta_{VPP}}$.
460:
461:
462:
463: \begin{figure}
464: \begin{center}
465: \begin{picture}(150,100)
466:
467: \put(36,65){\line(3,0){30}}
468: \put(36,40){\line(3,0){30}}
469: \put(66,65){\line(3,2) {45}}
470: \put(66,40){\line(3,-2){45}}
471: \put(73,52){\line(3,2) {45}}
472: \put(73,52){\line(3,-2){45}}
473:
474: \GlueArc(63,67)(10,195,375){2}{8}
475: \GlueArc(63,38)(10,-20,170){2}{8}
476: \Gluon(66,65)(73,52){2}{3}
477: \Gluon(66,40)(73,52){2}{3}
478: \GlueArc(73,60)(15,160,300){2}{15}
479:
480: \put(42,65){\vector(3,0){2}}
481: \put(42,40){\vector(-3,0){2}}
482:
483:
484: %\pi
485: \put(100,88){\vector(3,2){2}}
486: \put(105,73.5){\vector(-3,-2){2}}
487:
488: %K
489: \put(105,30.5){\vector(3,-2){2}}
490: \put(99,18){\vector(-3,2){2}}
491:
492: \put(-8,50){$K_0^*$}
493: \put(23,63){$d$}
494: \put(23,38){$\bar s$}
495: \put(100,4){$\bar s$}
496: \put(100,96){$d$}
497: \put(110,34){$u$}
498: \put(110,66){$\bar u$}
499:
500: \put(125,6){$K^0$}
501: \put(128,91){$\pi$}
502:
503: \end{picture}
504: \end{center}
505: \caption{{\small The effective coupling vertex on the quark
506: level}}
507: \label{vertex2}
508: \end{figure}
509:
510:
511: The decay amplitude of the $s$-channel final state interaction
512: can be calculated from Fig.\ref{schan}
513: %
514: \begin{equation}
515: A^{FSI}_s=\frac12 \int \frac{d^3 \vec p_1}{(2\pi)^3
516: 2E_1} \int \frac{d^3 \vec p_2}{(2\pi)^3 2E_2} (2\pi)^4
517: \delta^4(p_D-p_1-p_2) \; A(D \to
518: P_1P_2)\frac{i\;g_1\;g_2\;e^{i(\theta_1+\theta_2)}}{k^2-m^2+im\Gamma_{tot}},
519: \end{equation}
520: %
521: where $p_1$ and $p_2$ represent the four-momenta of the pseudoscalar $P_1$
522: and $P_2$, the amplitude $A(D \to P_1P_2)$ is the direct decay
523: amplitude. The effective coupling constants $g_1$ and $g_2$
524: should be $g_{fPP}$ or $g_{VPP}$ which can be obtained by
525: comparing eq.(\ref{couple}) with experimental data.
526: %
527: By performing integrals, we can obtain
528: %
529: \begin{equation}
530: A^{FSI}_s=\frac{1}{8\pi m_D} |\vec p_1| A(D \to P_1P_2)
531: \frac{i\;g_1\;g_2\;e^{i(\theta_1+\theta_2)}}{k^2-m^2+im\Gamma_{tot}}.
532: \end{equation}
533: %
534:
535: The $t$-channel contribution via exchanging a vector
536: meson (Fig.\ref{tchan}(a) ) is
537: %
538: \begin{eqnarray}
539: A^{FSI}_{t,V}&=&\frac12 \int \frac{d^3 \vec p_1}{(2\pi)^3 2E_1}
540: \int\frac{d^3 \vec p_2}{(2\pi)^3 2E_2} (2\pi)^4
541: \delta^4(p_D-p_1-p_2) A(D \to P_1P_2)\nonumber\\
542: & &\hspace*{1cm}\times g_1 \; \epsilon_\lambda \cdot (p_1+p_3)
543: \frac{i\;e^{i(\theta_1+\theta_2)}}{k^2-m^2+im\Gamma_{tot}} \;
544: F(k^2)^2 \;g_2 \; \epsilon_\lambda\cdot(p_2+p_4),
545: \label{fsisk}
546: \end{eqnarray}
547: %
548: where
549: $F(k^2)=(\Lambda^2-m^2)/(\Lambda^2-k^2)$
550: is the
551: form factor which is introduced to compensate the off-shell effect of the
552: exchanged particle at the vertices \cite{Fk}. In the numerical calculation we take
553: $\Lambda =0.5 GeV$. We choose the lightest
554: resonance state as the exchanged particle that gives rise to the largest
555: contribution to the decay amplitude.
556:
557: We can furthermore obtain
558: %
559: \begin{equation}
560: A^{FSI}_{t,V}=\int^1_{-1} \frac{d(\cos\theta)}{16\pi m_D} |\vec p_1|
561: A(D \to P_1P_2) \;g_1 \frac{i\;e^{i(\theta_1+\theta_2)}}
562: {k^2-m^2+im\Gamma_{tot}} \;F(k^2)^2\;g_2\;H ,
563: \label{fsitv}
564: \end{equation}
565: %
566: where
567: %
568: \begin{eqnarray}
569: H&=&-\left[m_D^2 -\frac12(m_1^2+m_2^2+m_3^2+m_4^2)
570: +(|\vec p_1||\vec p_4|+ |\vec p_2||\vec p_3|)\cos\theta
571: +E_1E_4+E_2E_3 \right]\nonumber\\
572: & & -\frac{1}{m_V^2}(m_1^2-m_3^2)(m_2^2-m_4^2).
573: \end{eqnarray}
574: %
575: The $t$-channel contribution by exchanging a pseudoscalar meson
576: (Fig.\ref{tchan}(b) )is
577: %
578: \begin{eqnarray}
579: A^{FSI}_{t,P}&=&\frac12 \int \frac{d^3 \vec p_1}{(2\pi)^3 2E_1}
580: \int\frac{d^3 \vec p_2}{(2\pi)^3 2E_2} (2\pi)^4
581: \delta^4(p_D-p_1-p_2) \sum_{\lambda_1,\lambda_2}A(D \to V_1V_2)\nonumber\\
582: & &\hspace*{1cm} \times g_1 \; \epsilon_{\lambda_1} \cdot (p_3-k)
583: \frac{i\;e^{i(\theta_1+\theta_2)}}{k^2-m^2+im\Gamma_{tot}} \; F(k^2)^2
584: \;g_2 \; \epsilon_{\lambda_2}\cdot(k+p_4),
585: \end{eqnarray}
586: %
587: and we obtain
588: %
589: \begin{eqnarray}
590: A^{FSI}_{t,P}=\int^1_{-1} \frac{d(\cos\theta)}{16\pi m_D} |\vec p_1| \;
591: \frac{i\;e^{i(\theta_1+\theta_2)}}{k^2-m^2+im\Gamma_{tot}}
592: X \; g_1 \;g_2 \; F(k^2)^2\;(-H_1+H_2),
593: \label{fsitp}
594: \end{eqnarray}
595: where
596: %
597: \begin{eqnarray}
598: H_1&=&4im_{V_1}f_{V_1}(m_D+m_2)
599: A_1\left[\frac12(m_D^2-m_3^2-m_4^2)\right.\nonumber\\
600: &&\hspace*{4cm} -\frac{1}{m_1^2} ( E_1E_3-|\vec p_1||\vec
601: p_3|\cos\theta)
602: ( E_1E_4+|\vec p_1||\vec p_4|\cos\theta)\nonumber\\
603: &&\hspace*{4cm} -\frac{1}{m_2^2}( E_2E_4-|\vec p_2||\vec
604: p_4|\cos\theta) ( E_2E_3+|\vec p_2||\vec p_3|\cos\theta)\nonumber\\
605: & &\left.+\frac{1}{2m_1^2m_2^2}( m_D^2-m_1^2-m_2^2 )
606: ( E_1E_3-|\vec p_1||\vec p_3|\cos\theta )(E_2E_4-|\vec p_2||\vec
607: p_4|\cos\theta) \right],
608: \end{eqnarray}
609: %
610: \begin{eqnarray}
611: H_2&=&\frac{8im_{V_1}f_{V_1}}{(m_D+m_2)}A_2
612: \left[ E_2E_3+|\vec p_2||\vec p_3|\cos\theta -
613: \frac{1}{2m_1^2}(m_D^2-m_1^2-m_2^2)(E_1E_3-|\vec p_1||\vec
614: p_3|\cos\theta)\right]\nonumber\\
615: & &\hspace*{1cm}\left[ E_1E_4+|\vec p_1||\vec p_4|\cos\theta -
616: \frac{1}{2m_2^2}(m_D^2-m_1^2-m_2^2)( E_2E_4-|\vec p_2||\vec
617: p_4|\cos\theta ) \right],
618: \end{eqnarray}
619: %
620: and $X$ represents the relevant direct decay amplitude of $D$ decaying
621: to the intermediate vector pair $V_1$ and $V_2$ divided by
622: $\langle V_1 |(V-A)_\mu |0\rangle \langle V_2|(V-A)^\mu|D\rangle$,
623: $$
624: X\equiv \frac{A(D\to V_1 V_2)}
625: {\langle V_1 |(V-A)_\mu |0\rangle \langle
626: V_2|(V-A)^\mu|D\rangle}.
627: $$
628:
629: \section{Numerical calculation and discussions}
630:
631: In general, every decay channel should be analysed to see whether it can
632: rescatter into $\pi\pi$ state, and how large the contribution is
633: if it can. Here for $D\to\pi\pi$ decays, the rescattering processes
634: $D\to\pi\pi\to\pi\pi$, $D\to KK\to\pi\pi$, and $D\to\rho\rho\to\pi\pi$,
635: $D\to K^*K^*\to\pi\pi$ give the largest contributions, because these
636: intermediate states have the largest couplings with the final state
637: pion and the exchanged meson state shown in Fig.\ref{scatter}.
638: The contribution of each diagram in Fig.\ref{scatter} should not only
639: be calculated via eqs.(\ref{fsitv}) and (\ref{fsitp}), there
640: is but also an isospin factor for each diagram which should be multiplied to
641: the calculation of eqs.(\ref{fsitv}) or (\ref{fsitp}). The isospin factor
642: should be considered in such a way that, at first, consider all the possible
643: isospin structure for each diagram in Fig.\ref{scatter} and draw all
644: the possible sub-diagrams on the quark level. One diagram in Fig.\ref{scatter}
645: may amount to several diagrams on quark level. Second, write down the isospin
646: factor for each sub-diagram. For example, the $u\bar{u}$ component
647: in one final meson $\pi^0$ contributes an isospin factor $\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}$,
648: and the $d\bar{d}$ component contributes $-\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}$. For the
649: intermediate state $\pi^0$, the factor $\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}$ and
650: $-\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}$ should be dropped, otherwise, the isospin relation
651: between these three channels $D^+\to \pi^+\pi^0$,
652: $D^0\to \pi^+\pi^-$ and $D^0\to \pi^0\pi^0$ would be violated. Third, sum
653: the contributions of all the possible diagrams on the quark level together
654: to get the isospin factor for each diagram on the hadronic level.
655:
656:
657: \begin{figure}
658: \begin{center}
659: \begin{picture}(430,100)
660: %------------------------(a)
661: \put(28,65){\line(1,0){30}}
662: \put(62,65){\circle*{8}}
663: \put(66,65){\line(3,2) {45}}
664: \put(66,65){\line(3,-2){45}}
665: \put(115,33){\circle*{8}}
666: \put(115,97){\circle*{8}}
667: \put(115,37){\line(0,1){56}}
668: \put(119,33){\line(1,0){38}}
669: \put(119,97){\line(1,0){38}}
670:
671: \put(42,65){\vector(3,0){2}}
672: \put(85,52){\vector(3,-2){2}}
673: \put(85,77.5){\vector(3,2){2}}
674: \put(115,65){\vector(0,-2){2}}
675: \put(138,97){\vector(3,0){2}}
676: \put(138,33){\vector(3,0){2}}
677:
678: \put(10,63){$D$}
679: \put(77,33){$\pi$}
680: \put(77,85){$\pi$}
681: \put(120,60){$\rho$}
682: \put(164,93){$\pi$}
683: \put(164,28){$\pi$}
684: \put(108,5){(a)}
685:
686: %------------------------(b)
687: \put(228,65){\line(1,0){30}}
688: \put(262,65){\circle*{8}}
689: \put(266,65){\line(3,2) {45}}
690: \put(266,65){\line(3,-2){45}}
691: \put(315,33){\circle*{8}}
692: \put(315,97){\circle*{8}}
693: \put(315,37){\line(0,1){56}}
694: \put(319,33){\line(1,0){38}}
695: \put(319,97){\line(1,0){38}}
696:
697: \put(242,65){\vector(3,0){2}}
698: \put(285,52){\vector(3,-2){2}}
699: \put(285,77.5){\vector(3,2){2}}
700: \put(315,65){\vector(0,-2){2}}
701: \put(338,97){\vector(3,0){2}}
702: \put(338,33){\vector(3,0){2}}
703:
704: \put(210,63){$D$}
705: \put(272,33){$K$}
706: \put(272,85){$K$}
707: \put(320,60){$K^*$}
708: \put(362,93){$\pi$}
709: \put(362,28){$\pi$}
710: \put(320,5){(b)}
711: \end{picture}
712: \end{center}
713:
714: \begin{center}
715: \begin{picture}(430,100)
716: %------------------------(c)
717: \put(28,65){\line(1,0){30}}
718: \put(62,65){\circle*{8}}
719: \put(66,65){\line(3,2) {45}}
720: \put(66,65){\line(3,-2){45}}
721: \put(115,33){\circle*{8}}
722: \put(115,97){\circle*{8}}
723: \put(115,37){\line(0,1){56}}
724: \put(119,33){\line(1,0){38}}
725: \put(119,97){\line(1,0){38}}
726:
727: \put(42,65){\vector(3,0){2}}
728: \put(85,52){\vector(3,-2){2}}
729: \put(85,77.5){\vector(3,2){2}}
730: \put(115,65){\vector(0,-2){2}}
731: \put(138,97){\vector(3,0){2}}
732: \put(138,33){\vector(3,0){2}}
733:
734: \put(10,63){$D$}
735: \put(77,33){$\rho$}
736: \put(77,85){$\rho$}
737: \put(120,60){$\pi$}
738: \put(164,93){$\pi$}
739: \put(164,28){$\pi$}
740: \put(108,5){(c)}
741:
742: %------------------------(d)
743: \put(228,65){\line(1,0){30}}
744: \put(262,65){\circle*{8}}
745: \put(266,65){\line(3,2) {45}}
746: \put(266,65){\line(3,-2){45}}
747: \put(315,33){\circle*{8}}
748: \put(315,97){\circle*{8}}
749: \put(315,37){\line(0,1){56}}
750: \put(319,33){\line(1,0){38}}
751: \put(319,97){\line(1,0){38}}
752:
753: \put(242,65){\vector(3,0){2}}
754: \put(285,52){\vector(3,-2){2}}
755: \put(285,77.5){\vector(3,2){2}}
756: \put(315,65){\vector(0,-2){2}}
757: \put(338,97){\vector(3,0){2}}
758: \put(338,33){\vector(3,0){2}}
759:
760: \put(210,63){$D$}
761: \put(272,33){$K^*$}
762: \put(272,85){$K^*$}
763: \put(320,60){$K$}
764: \put(362,93){$\pi$}
765: \put(362,28){$\pi$}
766: \put(320,5){(d)}
767: \end{picture}
768: \end{center}
769:
770: \caption{{\small Intermediate states in rescattering process
771: for $D\to\pi\pi$ decays}} \label{scatter}
772: \end{figure}
773:
774: We study these three channels of $D\to \pi\pi$ decays: $D^+\to \pi^+\pi^0$,
775: $D^0\to \pi^+\pi^-$ and $D^0\to \pi^0\pi^0$. In $D^+\to \pi^+\pi^0$, the
776: isospin factors for Fig.\ref{scatter}(b) and (d) are zero since the contributions
777: of the sub-diagrams on the quark level
778: cancel each other. The rescattering contribution in $D^+\to \pi^+\pi^0$ only
779: depends on $g_{\rho\pi\pi}e^{i\theta\rho\pi\pi}$. In $D^0\to \pi^0\pi^0$ decay, however,
780: the FSI contribution only depends on $g_{K^*K\pi}e^{i\theta_{K^*K\pi}}$, because the isospin
781: factors of Fig.\ref{scatter}(a) and (c) are zero for the sub-diagrams of them
782: cancel each other. The FSI contribution in $D^0\to \pi^+\pi^-$ decay depends
783: on both $g_{\rho\pi\pi}e^{i\theta\rho\pi\pi}$ and $g_{K^*K\pi}e^{i\theta_{K^*K\pi}}$. The
784: numerical results of the branching ratios of these three $D\to \pi\pi$
785: decays including both the direct decay and the rescattering effects are:
786: \begin{eqnarray}
787: Br(D^+\to \pi^+\pi^0)&=&1.68\times 10^{10}\mid 4.29\times 10^{-7}i
788: -(6.84\times 10^{-7}+8.69\times 10^{-8}i)e^{i2\theta_{\rho\pi\pi}}\mid ^2,
789: \nonumber\\
790: Br(D^0\to \pi^+\pi^-)&=&6.61\times 10^{9}\mid -6.13\times 10^{-7}i
791: -(5.41\times 10^{-7}+2.43\times 10^{-8}i)e^{i2\theta_{K^*K\pi}}+
792: \nonumber\\
793: &&~~~~~~~~~(9.67\times 10^{-7}+1.23\times 10^{-7}i)
794: e^{i2\theta_{\rho\pi\pi}}\mid ^2, \label{bnr}
795: \\
796: Br(D^0\to \pi^0\pi^0)&=&6.61\times 10^{9}\mid -3.89\times 10^{-9}i
797: -(3.82\times 10^{-7}+1.72\times 10^{-8}i)e^{i2\theta_{K^*K\pi}}\mid ^2.
798: \nonumber
799: \end{eqnarray}
800:
801: The above equations satisfy the isospin relation
802: \begin{equation}
803: \frac{1}{\sqrt 2}A(D^0 \to \pi^+\pi^-) - A(D^0 \to \pi^0\pi^0) = -A(D^+ \to
804: \pi^+\pi^0).\nonumber
805: \end{equation}
806: In order to get~(\ref{bnr}), we have used
807: eq.(\ref{couple}) and the center
808: value of the measured decay width of $\rho\to\pi\pi$
809: and $K^*\to K\pi$ \cite{PDG} to
810: obtain $g_{\rho\pi\pi}=6.0$, $g_{K^*K\pi}=4.6$.
811: While using the measured value
812: of $f_0(1710)\to KK$ and $f_0(1710)\to \pi\pi$ decays \cite{PDG},
813: one can get $g_{fKK}=1.6$ and $g_{f\pi\pi}=0.29$.
814: Comparing the value of $g_{fPP}$ and $g_{VPP}$, we
815: can see that the amplitude of s-channel contribution to
816: FSI is at least 40 times ($1.6\times 0.29/4.6^2$)
817: smaller than t-channel
818: contribution. Therefore we can drop the s-channel
819: contribution in our numerical analysis. The other
820: input parameters used in the numerical calculation are:
821: 1) the form factors, $F^{D\pi}(0)=0.692$, $F^{DK}(0)=0.762$,
822: $A_1^{D\rho}(0)=0.775$, $A_2^{D\rho}(0)=0.923$, $A_1^{DK}(0)=0.880$,
823: $A_2^{DK}(0)=1.147$ \cite{BSW}; 2) the decay constants,
824: $f_{\pi}=0.133GeV$, $f_K=0.158GeV$, $f_D=0.205GeV$,
825: $f_{\rho}=0.2GeV$, and $f_{K^*}=0.2GeV$; 3)
826: $\Lambda=0.5 GeV$.
827:
828: \begin{figure}[htbp]
829: \begin{center}
830: \scalebox{0.9}{
831: \epsfig{file=figp0.eps}
832: \begin{picture}(0,0)(60,60)
833: \put(-190,80){ \small{\rotatebox{90}{$10^3\times Br(D^+\to\pi^+\pi^0)$}} }
834: \put(50,50){\small{$\theta_{\rho\pi\pi}$}}
835: \end{picture} }
836: \end{center}
837: \caption{{\small The branching ratio of $D^+\to\pi^+\pi^0$ vs.
838: $\theta_{\rho\pi\pi}$. The horizontal lines are the
839: centeral value of experimental data and error bars.}}
840: \label{figp0}
841: \end{figure}
842:
843: \begin{figure}[htbp]
844: \begin{center}
845: \scalebox{0.9}{
846: \epsfig{file=fig00.eps}
847: \begin{picture}(0,0)(60,60)
848: \put(-190,80){ \small{\rotatebox{90}{$10^4\times Br(D^0\to\pi^0\pi^0)$}} }
849: \put(50,50){\small{$\theta_{K^*K\pi}$}}
850: \end{picture} }
851: \end{center}
852: \caption{{\small The branching ratio of $D^0\to\pi^0\pi^0$ vs.
853: $\theta_{K^*K\pi}$. The horizontal lines are the
854: centeral value of experimental data and error bars.}}
855: \label{fig00}
856: \end{figure}
857:
858:
859:
860: \begin{figure}[htbp]
861: \begin{center}
862: \scalebox{0.9}{
863: \epsfig{file=figpn.eps}
864: \begin{picture}(0,0)(60,60)
865: \put(-190,200){ \small{\rotatebox{90}{$\theta_{\rho\pi\pi}$}} }
866: \put(50,50){\small{$\theta_{K^*K\pi}$}}
867: \end{picture} }
868: \end{center}
869: \caption{{\small The allowed region of $\theta_{\rho\pi\pi}$
870: and $\theta_{K^*K\pi}$
871: by experimental data. The solid belts are from
872: $D^0\to \pi^+\pi^-$, and the dashed belts
873: allowed by $D^+\to \pi^+\pi^0$. The overlap is
874: allowed by both data.}}
875: \label{figpn}
876: \end{figure}
877:
878: The strong phase $\theta_{\rho\pi\pi}$ and $\theta_{K^*K\pi}$ can
879: not be known from any other existing data at present, they
880: are treated as free parameters. Fig.\ref{figp0} and \ref{fig00}
881: show the branching ratios of $D^+\to\pi^+\pi^0$ and
882: $D^0\to\pi^0\pi^0$ changing with the strong phase
883: $\theta_{\rho\pi\pi}$ and $\theta_{K^*K\pi}$, respectively. The
884: ranges $(22.6^\circ, 30.8^\circ)$ and $(51.9^\circ, 60.2^\circ)$
885: for $\theta_{\rho\pi\pi}$ are allowed by the measured branching
886: ratio of $D^+\to\pi^+\pi^0$, while the whole range of
887: $\theta_{K^*K\pi}$ is allowed by $D^0\to\pi^0\pi^0$.
888: Fig.\ref{figpn} shows the allowed region of
889: $\theta_{\rho\pi\pi}$ and $\theta_{K^*K\pi}$ by the three decay
890: modes $D^+\to\pi^+\pi^0$, $D^0\to\pi^+\pi^-$ and
891: $D^0\to\pi^0\pi^0$. In the overlap regions in Fig.\ref{figpn} all
892: the three decay modes are in agreement with the experimental data.
893: However, if $SU(3)$ symmetry is kept with small violation, the
894: relation $\theta_{\rho\pi\pi}\simeq \theta_{K^*K\pi}$ should be
895: satisfied. Considering this relation, only one of the four overlap
896: regions in Fig.\ref{figpn} shall be allowed, where
897: $51.9^\circ < \theta_{\rho\pi\pi} < 60.2^\circ$ and
898: $40.9^\circ < \theta_{K^*K\pi} < 60.7^\circ$. As an example, Table
899: \ref{tabbr2} shows the branching ratios of $D^+\to\pi^+\pi^0$,
900: $D^0\to\pi^+\pi^-$ and $D^0\to\pi^0\pi^0$ by taking one sample
901: point in the overlap region of Fig.\ref{figpn}
902: $(\theta_{\rho\pi\pi}, \theta_{K^*K\pi})=(57.3^\circ, 51.0^\circ
903: )$, where the $SU(3)$ symmetry violation is in the order of a few
904: degrees. Column `Factorization' is for the branching ratio
905: predicted in naive factorization approach. Column `Factorization +
906: FSI' is for the branching ratio of naive factorization including
907: the final state interaction. The contributions of final state
908: rescattering effects are large, which can improve the predictions
909: of naive factorization to be consistent with the experimental
910: data. The strong phases introduced for the effective hadronic
911: couplings $g_{\rho\pi\pi}$ and $g_{K^*K\pi}$ are important for
912: explaining the experimental data, otherwise, it is quite difficult
913: to get the correct results for the three decay modes at the same
914: time by varying other input parameters.
915:
916:
917: \begin{table}
918: \caption{{\small The branching ratios of $D \to \pi\pi$.}}
919: \begin{center}
920: \begin{tabular}{|c|c|c|c|} \hline
921: Decay mode & Factorization & Factorization + FSI & Experiment\\
922: \hline
923: $D^+ \to \pi^+\pi^0$ &$3.1 \times 10^{-3}$&
924: $2.63\times 10^{-3}$&$(2.5\pm 0.7)\times 10^{-3}$ \\
925: \hline
926: $D^0 \to \pi^+\pi^-$ &$2.48 \times 10^{-3}$&
927: $1.57\times 10^{-3}$ &$(1.52 \pm 0.09) \times 10^{-3}$\\
928: \hline
929: $D^0 \to \pi^0\pi^0$ &$1.0 \times 10^{-7}$ &
930: $9.9\times 10^{-4}$& $(8.4 \pm 2.2) \times 10^{-4}$\\
931: \hline
932: \end{tabular}
933: \end{center}
934: \label{tabbr2}
935: \end{table}
936: %
937:
938: The parameter $\Lambda$ in the off-shellness compensating function
939: $F(k^2)$ introduced in eq.(\ref{fsisk}) takes the value $0.5GeV$
940: in this calculation, while in Ref.\cite{ope1,Fk} the value takes
941: $\Lambda=1.2\sim 2.0 GeV$, that is because it is quite possible that
942: $\Lambda$ is not an universal parameter. We assume that $\Lambda$
943: should be near the masses of the mesons involved in the effective
944: coupling. The reaction studied in Ref.\cite{ope1,Fk}
945: is $\bar{P}P\to \phi\pi$, where
946: the parameter $\Lambda$ should be near the mass of
947: $\phi$ meson $m_{\phi}=1.02 GeV$. Therefore its value can be
948: taken to be $\Lambda=1.2\sim 2.0 GeV$. While in the decay process
949: studied in this paper, $K$, $\pi$, $K^*$ and $\rho$ are involved.
950: Therefore the parameter $\Lambda$ can take about $0.5GeV$, which is located in
951: the range of the masses of these mesons. However, it is still
952: necessary to study the off-shell properties of the hadronic effective
953: couplings in a direct nonperturbative way to check the shape of
954: $F(k^2)$ used in eq.(\ref{fsisk}), because the numerical results
955: of FSI rescattering effects calculated in this model
956: are sensitively dependent on the off-shell properties of the
957: hadronic couplings, or specifically to say, the shape of
958: the off-shell compensating function
959: $F(k^2)$. To show this dependence, we give the results of the
960: three decay branching ratios in Table \ref{tabbr3} by varying the
961: value of the parameter $\Lambda$. It shows that the branching
962: ratios are very sensitive to the variation of $\Lambda$. Certainly
963: there are also many other free parameters, such as the form
964: factors, some meson decay constants which have not yet been well
965: determined in experiment. So the allowed value of the strong
966: phases $\theta_{\rho\pi\pi}$ and $\theta_{K^*K\pi}$ may heavily
967: depends on these parameters. Therefore Fig. \ref{figpn} shall not
968: be viewed as a stringent constraint on the strong phases. It only shows
969: the possibility to accommodate the three $D\to \pi\pi$ decay modes consistently
970: in this model. Certainly to completely understand final state interaction,
971: more experimental data and more detailed theoretical works are needed.
972:
973: \begin{table}
974: \caption{{\small The dependence of the branching ratios of
975: $D \to \pi\pi$ on different values of $\Lambda$, where
976: $(\theta_{\rho\pi\pi}, \theta_{K^*K\pi})=(57.3^\circ, 51.0^\circ)$.}}
977: \begin{center}
978: \begin{tabular}{|c|c|c|c|} \hline
979: $\Lambda({\mathrm{GeV}})$ & $D^+ \to \pi^+\pi^0$ &$D^0 \to \pi^+\pi^-$ & $D^0 \to \pi^0\pi^0$\\
980: \hline
981: 0.45 & $9.23 \times 10^{-3}$& $2.57\times 10^{-3}$& $2.2\times 10^{-3}$ \\
982: \hline
983: 0.5 & $2.63 \times 10^{-3}$& $1.57\times 10^{-3}$ & $9.9 \times 10^{-4}$\\
984: \hline
985: 0.55 &$9.48 \times 10^{-4}$ & $1.39\times 10^{-3}$& $4.24 \times 10^{-4}$\\
986: \hline
987: \end{tabular}
988: \end{center}
989: \label{tabbr3}
990: \end{table}
991:
992: {\bf Summary} We have studied three $D\to \pi\pi$ decay modes. The total
993: decay amplitude includes direct weak decays and final state rescattering
994: effects. The direct weak decays are calculated in factorization
995: approach, and the final state interaction effects are studied in
996: one-particle-exchange method. The prediction of naive factorization
997: is far from the experimental data. After including the contribution
998: of final state interaction, the theoretical prediction can accommodate
999: the experimental data.
1000:
1001: \vspace{5mm}
1002:
1003: \noindent {\large{\bf Acknowledgement}}\vspace{0.3cm}
1004:
1005: \noindent This work is supported in part by National Natural Science
1006: Foundation of China. M. Yang thanks the partial support of the Research Fund
1007: for Returned Overseas Chinese Scholars. M. Ablikim is grateful to
1008: Scientific Research Foundation for Returned Scholars of State Education
1009: Ministry of China.
1010:
1011:
1012: \begin{thebibliography}{9}
1013:
1014: \bibitem{BSW} M.~Wirbel, B.~Stech and M.~Bauer,
1015: \textit{Z. Phys.\/} \textbf{C29}, 637, (1985);
1016: M.~Bauer, B.~Stech and M.~Wirbel,
1017: \textit{Z. Phys.\/} \textbf{C34}, 103, (1987).
1018:
1019: \bibitem{fsi} H.J.~Lipkin,
1020: \textit{Phys. Rev. Lett.\/} \textbf{44}, 710, (1980);
1021: J.F.~Donoghue and B.R.~Holstein,
1022: \textit{Phys. Rev.\/} \textbf{D21}, 1334, (1980).
1023:
1024: \bibitem{Donoghue}J.F.~Donoghue,
1025: \textit{Phys. Rev.\/} \textbf{D33}, 1516, (1986).
1026:
1027: \bibitem{ope1}Y.~Lu, B.S.~Zou and M.P.~Locher, \textit{Z.Phys.\/} \textbf{A345}, 207,(1993);
1028: M.P.~Locher, Y.~Lu and B.S.~Zou, \textit{Z.Phys.\/} \textbf{A347}, 281, (1994);
1029: Y.~Lu and M.P.~Locher, \textit{Z.Phys.\/} \textbf{A351}, 83, (1995).
1030:
1031: \bibitem{ope2}X.Q.~Li and B.S.~Zou, \textit{Phys. Lett.\/} \textbf{B399}, 297,(1997);
1032: Y.S.~Dai, D.S.~Du, X.Q.~Li, Z.T.~Wei and B.S.~Zou,
1033: \textit{Phys. Rev.\/} \textbf{D60}, 014014, (1999).
1034:
1035: \bibitem{ref} A.N.~Kamal and R.C.~Verma,
1036: \textit{Phys. Rev.\/} \textbf{D35}, 3515, (1987);
1037: A.N.~Kamal and R. Sinha,
1038: \textit{Phys. Rev.\/} \textbf{D36}, 3510, (1987);
1039: H.J. Lipkin, \textit{Phys. Lett.\/} \textbf{B 283}, 421, (1992);
1040: T.N. Pham, \textit{Phys. Rev.\/} \textbf{D46}, 2976, (1992);
1041: L.L. Chau and H.Y. Cheng, \textit{Phys. Lett.\/}
1042: \textbf{B333}, 514, (1994);
1043: X.Q.~Li and B.S.~Zou,
1044: \textit{Phys. Rev.\/} \textbf{D57}, 1518, (1998).
1045: \bibitem{buras}G. Buchalla, A.J. Buras and M.E. Lautenbacher,
1046: \textit{Rev. Mod. Phys.} \textbf{68}, 1125, (1996).
1047:
1048: \bibitem{PDG}Particle Data Group, \textit{Eur.Phys. J.\/}
1049: \textbf{C}, (2000).
1050:
1051: \bibitem{Fk}O.~Gortchakov, M.P.~Locher, V.E.~Markushin and S.~von Rotz,
1052: \textit{Z. Phys.\/} \textbf{A353}, 447, (1996).
1053:
1054:
1055:
1056: \end{thebibliography}
1057:
1058:
1059:
1060:
1061:
1062:
1063:
1064:
1065: \end{document}
1066: