1: \documentclass[11pt]{article}

2: \usepackage{epsf,epsfig,psfig,float,amssymb,latexsym}

3: \usepackage{graphics,psfrag}

4: \textheight 22.3cm

5: \textwidth 17.5cm

6: \topmargin -1.5cm

7: \hoffset -.75cm

8: \headsep 1.5cm

9: \parindent 1.2em

10: \oddsidemargin 0in

11: \evensidemargin 0in

12: \newcommand{\wU}{\widetilde{U}}

13: \newcommand{\La}{{\cal L}}

14: \newcommand{\ci}{{\cal I}}

15: \newcommand{\cZ}{{\cal Z}}

16: \newcommand{\cF}{{\cal F}}

17: \newcommand{\cM}{{\cal M}}

18: \newcommand{\cH}{{\cal H}}

19: \newcommand{\cD}{{\cal D}}

20: \newcommand{\oK}{\overline{K}}

21: \newcommand{\vp}{{\mathbf{p}}}

22: \newcommand{\vq}{{\mathbf{q}}}

23: \newcommand{\vx}{{\mathbf{x}}}

24: \newcommand{\vy}{{\mathbf{y}}}

25: \newcommand{\vQ}{{\mathbf{Q}}}

26: \newcommand{\vP}{{\mathbf{P}}}

27: \newcommand{\vk}{{\mathbf{k}}}

28: \newcommand{\tQ}{{\widetilde{Q}}}

29: \newcommand{\Kma}{K^+}

30: \newcommand{\Kme}{K^-}

31: \newcommand{\spa}{\quad\quad\quad}

32: \newcommand{\cmP}{\mathcal{P}}

33: \newcommand{\Op}{{\mathcal{O}}(p)}

34: \newcommand{\Opd}{{\mathcal{O}}(p^2)}

35: \newcommand{\Opt}{{\mathcal{O}}(p^3)}

36: \newcommand{\Opc}{{\mathcal{O}}(p^4)}

37: \newcommand{\Opf}{{\mathcal{O}}(p^5)}

38: \newcommand{\Ops}{{\mathcal{O}}(p^6)}

39: \newcommand{\Ima}{{\rm Im}\,}

40: \newcommand{\Rea}{{\rm Re}\,}

41: \newcommand{\barro}{\bar{\rho}}

42: \newcommand{\hatr}{\hat{\rho}}

43: \newcommand{\rcite}[1]{{\cite{#1}}}

44: \newcommand{\rref}[1]{{(\ref{#1})}}\newcommand{\tref}[1]{{\ref{#1}}}

45: \newcommand{\rlabel}[1]{{\label{#1}}}

46: \newcommand{\rbibitem}[1]{\bibitem{#1}}

47: \newcommand{\be}{\begin{equation}}

48: \newcommand{\ee}{\end{equation}}

49: \newcommand{\ba}{\begin{eqnarray}}

50: \newcommand{\ea}{\end{eqnarray}}

51: \newcommand{\dis}{\displaystyle}

52: \newcommand{\nn}{\nonumber}

53: \newcommand{\ct}{\cos \theta}

54: \newcommand{\barr}[1]{\not\mathrel #1}

55: \renewcommand{\thefootnote}{\#\arabic{footnote}}

56: \newcommand{\ve}{\varepsilon}

57: \newcommand{\krig}[1]{\stackrel{\circ}{#1}}

58: \newcommand{\vs}{\vspace{-0.20cm}}

59: % 24-05-02+

60: 

61: 

62: \begin{document}

63: 

64: \thispagestyle{empty}

65: 

66: \vspace{2cm}

67: 

68: \begin{center}

69: {\Large{\bf Finite width effects in $\phi$ radiative decays}}

70: \end{center}

71: \vspace{.5cm}

72: 

73: \begin{center}

74: {\large Jos\'e A. Oller\footnote{email: oller@um.es}}

75: \end{center}

76: 

77: 

78: \begin{center}

79: {\it {\it Departamento de F\'{\i}sica. Universidad de Murcia.\\ E-30071,

80: Murcia. Spain.}}

81: \end{center}

82: \vspace{1cm}

83: 

84: \begin{abstract}

85: \noindent

86: {\small{ We calculate the decay rates $\phi\rightarrow \gamma

87:     \pi^0\pi^0$ and $\gamma \pi^0\eta$ in very  good agreement with  the

88:     recent accurate experimental data. We also point out the necessity of a 

89:  $\phi\gamma K^0\bar{K}^0$ contact vertex beyond the pure $K^+K^-$ loop

90:     model. The decay widths $\phi \rightarrow \gamma

91:     f_0(980)$ and $\phi \rightarrow \gamma a_0(980)$ are also calculated taking into

92:     account the finite widths of the scalar resonances $f_0(980)$ and

93: $a_0(980)$. The latter are shown to be essential in order to obtain meaningful

94:     results.The resulting decay rates to $\gamma f_0(980)$

95:     and $\gamma a_0(980)$ are in good agreement

96:     with the experimental ones without

97: invoking isospin breaking in the couplings of the $f_0(980)$ and $a_0(980)$

98: resonances to the

99: $K^+ K^-$ and $K^0 \bar{K}^0$ channels, at odds with recent proposals. The derived

100: formula for calculating these $\phi$ radiative decay widths can  be also applied

101: in their own experimental analyses in order to obtain more precise results.

102: }}

103: \end{abstract}

104: 

105: \vspace{2cm}

106: 

107: %\begin{center}

108: %Keywords:

109: %\end{center}

110: 

111: \newpage

112: 

113: %-----------------------------------------------------------------------------

114: \section{Introduction}

115: \def\theequation{\arabic{section}.\arabic{equation}}

116: \setcounter{equation}{0}

117: 

118: 

119: In this article we study the $\phi$ radiative decays to $\gamma$ and two

120: neutral pseudoscalars and the related rates to $\gamma f_0(980)$ and $\gamma

121: a_0(980)$. 

122: These decays were first observed experimentally

123: by the CMD-2 \cite{akh} and SND \cite{snd98,exppi0,expeta} collaborations at Novosibirsk

124: by measuring the invariant mass distributions

125: $d\Gamma(\phi \rightarrow \gamma \pi^0\pi^0)/dm_{\pi\pi}$ and

126: $d\Gamma(\phi \rightarrow \gamma\pi^0 \eta)/d m_{\pi\eta}$, respectively, where

127: we indicate by $m_{M^0 N^0}$ the invariant mass of a pair of neutral pseudoscalars

128: $M^0$ and $N^0$. On the other hand, high statistics results have been recently

129: reported by the KLOE collaboration at DA$\Phi$NE in

130: refs.\cite{dafnef0,dafnea0} for the rates $\phi\rightarrow \gamma \pi^0\pi^0$

131: and $\gamma \pi^0\eta$, respectively.  These decays offer an additional

132: source of experimental information

133: on the non-trivial and so important low lying scalar mesons with vacuum quantum numbers

134: $0^{++}$. Our theoretical study generalizes the one undertaken in

135: ref.\cite{plb} about the $\phi\rightarrow \gamma K^0\bar{K}^0$ decay  in order

136: to reproduce the precise data of refs.\cite{dafnef0,dafnea0} on

137: $\phi\rightarrow \gamma\pi^0\pi^0$ and $\gamma \pi^0\eta$ and connects the previous

138: processes with chiral symmetry and unitarity. Ref.\cite{plb} was also followed

139: closely by ref.\cite{marco} where the aforementioned radiative decays to the

140: final states $\gamma \pi^0\pi^0$ and $\gamma \pi^0\eta$  were also

141: considered. 

142: For recent accounts on the application

143: of similar techniques to the scalar meson-meson and meson-baryon dynamics we refer the

144: reader to refs.\cite{anke,kyoto,jamin} where many references are presented and discussed.

145: Other studies of $\phi\rightarrow \gamma M^0 N^0$ decays are

146: refs.\cite{acha,lucio,truong,close,bra1,bra3,markushin,referee,gok,fazio,escri}.

147: 

148: 

149: In order to interpret the experimental results from refs.\cite{exppi0,expeta}

150: on the $\phi$ decays to

151: $\gamma f_0(980)$ and $\gamma a_0(980)$, ref.\cite{close2} has pointed out recently

152: the necessity of considering important isospin breaking corrections in the couplings

153: of the $f_0(980)$ and $a_0(980)$ resonances to the $K^+K^-$ and $K^0

154: \bar{K}^0$ channels. That is, $|g_{K^+K^-}^R|$ and $|g_{K^0\bar{K}^0}^R|$,

155: where $R$ represents either the $f_0(980)$ or $a_0(980)$ resonances, are

156: no longer equal as required by isospin symmetry but can be actually quite

157: different according to ref.\cite{close2}. Special emphasis is given to the

158: rather large decay width $\phi

159: \rightarrow \gamma f_0(980)$ together with the deviation from one, by around a factor four,

160: of the ratio $Br(\phi\rightarrow \gamma f_0)/Br(\phi\rightarrow \gamma a_0)$

161: as experimentally

162: established in refs.\cite{akh,exppi0,expeta,dafnef0,dafnea0}. 

163: Nevertheless, in ref.\cite{acha2} it is

164: clearly shown that possible isospin breaking effects in the quotient

165: $\Gamma(\phi \rightarrow \gamma \pi^0\pi^0))/\Gamma (\phi \rightarrow \gamma \pi^0\eta)$

166: cancel to a large extend.

167: As a result, this ratio is sensitive mostly to the isospin

168: eigenstates $a_0(I=1)$ and $f_0(I=0)$. Similar conclusions are obtained within the 

169: vector meson dominance model of ref.\cite{joe} as well. 

170: Other references treating the $f_0(980)$ and $a_0(980)$ mixing are \cite{speth,isos1,isos2,isos3}.

171: 

172: We show that one does not need to abandon

173: isospin symmetry in the couplings of the scalar resonances $f_0(980)$ and $a_0(980)$

174: to the $K\bar{K}$ channels so as to account for the experimental results on the

175: $\phi \rightarrow \gamma R$ decay widths. We emphasize the fact that the

176: threshold of $\gamma R$ is so close

177: to the mass of the $\phi(1020)$ resonance, that meaningful results for the

178: width $\Gamma(\phi\rightarrow \gamma R)$ can only result once the finite widths of the

179: $f_0(980)$ and $a_0(980)$ resonances are taken into account. It is important

180: to stress that the  decay width $\Gamma(\phi \rightarrow \gamma R)$ depends

181: cubically on the small photon momenta and hence small changes in the nominal masses

182: of the $f_0(980)$ or $a_0(980)$ resonances, e.g. as compared to their widths or to the

183: difference between the real parts of the pole positions and the peaks of the

184: scattering amplitudes, imply dramatic

185: variations on the resulting $\phi$ radiative decay widths to $\gamma R$ if the standard

186: two body decay formula were used.

187: In sec.\ref{sec:direct} we calculate the $\phi$ decays to

188:  $\gamma \pi^0\eta$, $\gamma \pi^0\pi^0$ and $\gamma K^0\bar{K}^0$ where we 

189: connect with and extend the results already given in

190:  refs.\cite{plb,marco}. We also establish a new contribution beyond the pure $K^+

191:  K^-$ loop model of ref.\cite{acha} due to a contact $\phi\gamma K^0\bar{K}^0$

192:  vertex.  In sec.\ref{sec:gf}, making use of the results of the previous

193:  section, we take into account the finite

194: width effects of the $f_0(980)$ and $a_0(980)$ resonances

195: on the decays $\phi \rightarrow \gamma R$ and derive the corresponding formulae.

196: We also consider  the connection of the obtained

197: formula for  $\Gamma(\phi\rightarrow \gamma R)$ to the invariant

198: mass distributions $d\Gamma(\phi \rightarrow \gamma M^0 N^0)/dm_{M^0 N^0}$. 

199: Finally,  our results are discussed in sec.\ref{sec:wfr} and the conclusions are given in

200: sec.\ref{sec:conc}.

201: 

202: 

203:  %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

204: 

205: \section{ $\Gamma(\phi \rightarrow \gamma M^0 N^0)$ rates}

206: \label{sec:direct}

207: 

208: We are interested in studying the $\phi\rightarrow\gamma

209: M^0N^0$ decays. The final state interactions (FSI) of the

210: two pseudoscalar mesons are assumed to be dominated by their strong S-wave

211: amplitudes which contain the $f_0(980)$ and $a_0(980)$ scalar

212: resonances. Then gauge invariance requires, as noted in

213: refs.\cite{acha,acha3,close} with respect to the related decays

214: $\phi\rightarrow \gamma R$ as well, that the transition amplitude 

215: $\phi(1020)\rightarrow \gamma M^0 N^0$ must have the form \cite{plb,marco}:

216: \be

217: \label{gaugein}

218: {\cal M}\left[\phi(p) \rightarrow \gamma(k) M^0N^0 (Q)\right]=

219: H(Q^2)\left[g^{\alpha\beta} (p\cdot k)-p^\alpha k^\beta\right]

220: \epsilon^{\lambda}(\gamma)_\alpha \epsilon^{\nu}(\phi)_\beta~.

221: \ee   

222:  The kinematics is indicated in fig.\ref{fig:loop} and the four-momentum $Q$ 

223: corresponds to the total one of the pair of pseudoscalars $M^0N^0$. 

224: 

225: As in refs.\cite{acha,bra1,plb} we consider the $K^+ K^-$ meson loop contribution

226: to the  decay $\phi \rightarrow \gamma M^0 N^0$, fig.\ref{fig:loop}, 

227: since the $K^+K^-$ system strongly couples to both the $\phi$ and $R$

228: resonances. In addition, since the $K^0 \bar{K}^0$ couples with the same

229: strength as the $K^+K^-$

230: state both to the scalar and  $\phi$ resonances, we  also allow for

231: a neutral kaon loop  contribution, as indicated in fig.\ref{fig:loop}a, where

232: the vertex on the left of the figure is discussed in length below.

233: 

234: To simplify the discussions, we will consider the isospin channels 

235: separately, since they do not mix by final state interactions in the isospin

236: limit,  so that $H^I(Q^2)$ is the invariant

237: function in the same isospin channel as the corresponding scalar resonance $R$ from the 

238: kaon loops of fig.\ref{fig:loop}. We now calculate the function ${\cal H}^I(Q^2)$ 

239: defined such that $H^I(Q^2)={\cal H}^I(Q^2) t^R_{K^+K^- \rightarrow M^0

240:   N^0}$,  with $t^R_{K^+K^- \rightarrow M^0

241:   N^0}$  the isospin amplitude 

242: $-t^I_{K\bar{K}\rightarrow M N}\,C^I_{M^0N^0}/\sqrt{2}$ where the

243: $K\bar{K}$ and $MN$ states are in 

244: the isospin channel $I$ of the scalar resonance $R$, namely, $I=0$ for the

245: $f_0(980)$ and $I=1$ for the $a_0(980)$, and $-1/\sqrt{2}$ and $C^I_{M^0N^0}$

246: are Clebsch-Gordan coefficients. For the $\gamma \pi^0\eta$ final

247: state only the $I=1$ channel takes place and the $I=0$ one  is the only contribution to 

248: $\gamma \pi^0\pi^0$. For the $\gamma K^0\bar{K}^0$ final state both contributions sum

249: up. 

250: 

251: In ref.\cite{plb} we took as interacting Lagrangian, 

252: 

253: \be

254: \label{lag}

255: \La=2 e g_\phi A^\mu \phi_\mu K^+ K^- 

256: -i\,(e A_\mu+g_\phi \phi_\mu) (K^-\partial^\mu K^+ - \partial^\mu K^- K^+)~,

257: \ee 

258: upon making the $\phi$ and $K^+ K^-$ interactions gauge invariant. 

259: 

260: \begin{figure}[htb]

261: \centerline{\epsfig{file=loopmes.eps,width=7.0in}}

262: \vspace{.3cm}

263: \caption[pilf]{\protect \small

264:   Set of diagrams for the calculation of $\phi \rightarrow \gamma M^0 N^0$ through kaon loops. 

265: \label{fig:loop}}

266: \end{figure} 

267: 

268: We now consider the more refined approach of ref.\cite{conga}, where the 

269: couplings of the octet of pseudoscalars to the octet of vector resonances are

270: given at order $p^2$ by taking into account chiral symmetry  in a chiral power 

271: expansion. The couplings of the singlet vector resonance $\omega_1$ cancel 

272: at this order exactly. Making use of ideal  mixing we can write the $\phi$ resonance 

273: as:

274: \be

275: \label{mixing}

276: \phi=-\frac{2}{\sqrt{6}}\omega_8+\frac{1}{\sqrt{3}}w_1~,

277: \ee 

278: and thus the couplings of the $\phi$ resonance from ref.\cite{conga} are 

279: the ones of the $\omega_8$ resonance times $-2/\sqrt{6}$.  The 

280: tree level matrix element for the contact vertex $\phi \gamma K^+K^-$, 

281: corresponding to the left vertex of fig.\ref{fig:loop}a, 

282: $M(\phi\rightarrow \gamma K^+ K^-)_{contact}$, calculated from the formalism

283: of ref.\cite{conga} is:

284: \be

285: \label{phiconga}

286: M(\phi\rightarrow \gamma K^+ K^-)_{contact}=

287: -\frac{\sqrt{2}\,e M_\phi G_V}{f^2}\epsilon(\gamma)\cdot

288: \epsilon(\phi) -

289: \frac{\sqrt{2}\,e}{f^2 M_\phi}\left(\frac{F_V}{2}-G_V\right)

290: p_\alpha \epsilon(\phi)_\beta\left(k^\alpha \epsilon(\gamma)^\beta

291: -k^\beta \epsilon(\gamma)^\alpha\right)~,

292: \ee

293: where $f\simeq 93$ MeV is the weak pion decay constant and $G_V$ measures the

294: strength of the transition  $\phi\rightarrow K^+ K^-$.  The experimental width 

295: $\Gamma(\phi \rightarrow K^+K^-)$ is reproduced with $G_V=55$ MeV. Let us note

296: that the second structure in the equation above is gauge invariant by itself. On the

297: other hand, vector meson dominance requires $F_V=2 G_V$ \cite{conga} and in

298: this limit the coefficient in front of the second term of eq.(\ref{phiconga})

299: is zero. At the chiral order considered in ref.\cite{conga}, there is no direct

300: coupling $\phi\gamma K^0\bar{K}^0$ although at higher orders this is no longer

301: the case and can mimic e.g. $\phi\gamma K^0\bar{K}^0$ vertices generated

302: through the exchange of vector resonances, see e.g.\cite{bra1}.  

303: 

304: We consider first the $K^+K^-$ loops of fig.\ref{fig:loop} that

305: are originated from the surviving local term of eq.(\ref{phiconga}),

306: fig.\ref{fig:loop}a, plus the

307: Bremsstrahlung ones, diagrams \ref{fig:loop}b and c, and fig.\ref{fig:loop}d. 

308: We follow the treatment

309: of ref.\cite{plb} where it is shown that the T-matrix element

310: $t^R_{K^+K^-\rightarrow K^+K^-}$ of ref.\cite{npa} factorizes on-shell in these diagrams. The

311: reason is, as proved in ref.\cite{plb}, that the off-shell parts of the

312: T-matrices of ref.\cite{npa} do not contribute to the

313: coefficient of the term in eq.(\ref{gaugein}) proportional to $p^\alpha

314: k^\beta$, which is the function $H(Q^2)$ as required by gauge

315: invariance.\footnote{It is shown in

316:   ref.\cite{nd} that the contributions from crossed channels exchanges of

317:   pairs of pseudoscalars and resonances tend to cancel in the S-waves with

318:   $I=0,$ 1 and $1/2$ below roughly 1 GeV.} 

319: 

320: 

321: Motivated by the self-invariant structure of the second term of

322: eq.(\ref{phiconga}), we consider for each isospin channel a general contact 

323: $\phi\gamma K\bar{K}$ interaction with the same structure but parameterized by a

324: coupling $\zeta_I$, 

325: \ba

326: \label{local}

327: V_I(\phi\gamma K\bar{K})=-

328: \frac{\sqrt{2}e\,\zeta_I}{f^2 M_\phi} p_\alpha \epsilon(\phi)_\beta 

329: \left(k^\alpha \epsilon(\gamma)^\beta-k^\beta \epsilon(\gamma)^\alpha\right)~.

330: \ea

331: The dependence of $\zeta_I$ on the isospin channel implies a possible non-vanishing

332: $\phi \gamma K^0\bar{K}^0$ local term since the Clebsch-Gordan coefficient for

333: $K^0\bar{K}^0$ changes sign from $I=0$ to $I=1$ while that of $K^+K^-$ is the

334: same for both isospins. Similar structures for $\gamma\pi^0\pi^0$ and

335: $\gamma\pi^0\eta$ are not considered since they are expected to be suppressed

336: by the OZI rule.

337: 

338: 

339: \begin{figure}[htb]

340: \centerline{\epsfig{file=loop2.eps,width=2.0in}}

341: \vspace{.3cm}

342: \caption[pilf]{\protect \small

343:   Diagram for $\phi \rightarrow \gamma M^0 N^0$ with the contribution of 

344: eq.(\ref{local}), which is gauge invariant by itself, in the vertex on the left.

345: This contribution was considered in ref.\cite{marco} to some extend but not in 

346: refs.\cite{plb,lucio,truong,close}.  Note that in the

347: vertex on the right the full amplitude $t^R_{K^+K^- \rightarrow M^0 N^0}$ is

348: considered.   

349: \label{fig:loop2}}

350: \end{figure} 

351: 

352: 

353: 

354: We are now in position to evaluate  the loop of fig.\ref{fig:loop2}

355: with the contact term $V_I(\phi\gamma K \bar{K})$ of eq.(\ref{local}), 

356: in the vertex on the left of the diagram. The strong amplitude 

357: $t^R_{K^+  K^- \rightarrow M^0  N^0}$ of ref.\cite{npa} 

358: ($t^R_{K^0\bar{K}^0 \rightarrow M^0 N^0}$ is

359: just proportional to the former) factorizes on-shell since

360: the off-shell part, as in the case of the pure strong interacting problem

361: treated in detail in ref.\cite{npa}, just renormalizes the coupling on the left

362: part of the loop, namely, the $\zeta_I$ factor of 

363: eq.(\ref{local}). This is due to the fact that it only gives rise to tadpole

364: like diagrams. Since the $\zeta_I$ factor is a free one this renormalization

365: process is not relevant for our present purposes and is just reabsorbed in

366: the final value of $\zeta_I$. Since both vertices on the diagram of 

367: fig.\ref{fig:loop2} factorize 

368: with their physical renormalized values, the one on the left does not involve 

369: any $K\bar{K}$ momentum, see eq.(\ref{local}), we are then

370: left with the logarithmic divergent loop integral, 

371: \be

372: \label{kloop}

373: i\int \frac{d^4 q}{(2\pi)^4}\frac{1}{\left(q^2 -m_{K^+}^2+i0^+\right)

374: \left( (Q-q)^2-m_K^2+i0^+\right)}~.

375: \ee

376:  In ref.\cite{marco} this integral 

377: was taken the same as the one fixed in ref.\cite{npa} for the strong

378: interactions.  Nevertheless, one should point out that unitarity and analyticity, 

379: with the latter restricted to the presence of the unitarity or right hand cut,

380: allow the presence of an extra subtraction constant, $\delta G^I$, in the integral of

381: eq.(\ref{kloop}) as compared to $G_{K \bar{K}}$ of ref.\cite{npa}. We show now this point. 

382: 

383: Since the vertex of eq.(\ref{local}) is gauge invariant by itself, we

384: consider its contributions separately. Thus, it is characterized by the

385: corresponding invariant function $\widetilde{H}^I$, a contribution to the total

386: one $H^I$. Let us denote by $\widetilde{H}^I_\alpha$ the invariant function

387: corresponding to the $\phi \rightarrow \gamma \alpha$ decay where $\alpha$

388: indicates any channel that can couple strongly to the $K \bar{K}$ channel and 

389: with the same well defined isospin. We treat these

390: invariant functions as form factors 

391: depending only on $Q^2$ since this is the

392: dependence obtained from unitarity loops as those of fig.\ref{fig:loop2} that we 

393: want to analyze.\footnote{Note that

394:   the vertex on the right is the full strong T-matrix with its own unitarity

395:   cuts.} Then unitarity requires:

396: \be

397: \hbox{Imag}\left[\widetilde{H}^I_\alpha\right]=\sum_{\beta}(\widetilde{H}^I_\beta)^*\,

398: \rho_\beta \,t_{\beta\rightarrow \alpha}\, \theta(Q^2-W_\beta^2)~,

399: \ee 

400: where $\rho_\beta$ is the phase space factor of channel $\beta$, 

401: $\rho_\beta=q_\beta/(8\pi\sqrt{Q^2})$. In ref.\cite{jpsi,palomar} it is shown

402: that when the T-matrix appearing on the

403: right side of the previous equation has no crossed cuts due to crossed channels, as the

404: one of refs.\cite{npa,iamprd}, $\widetilde{H}^I_\alpha$, collected in the vector

405: column $\widetilde{H}^I$, can be represented as:

406: \be

407: \label{jpsi}

408: \widetilde{H}^I=\left[1+K^I(Q^2)\cdot G(Q^2)\right]^{-1} R_I(Q^2)~,

409: \ee 

410: where it is important to remark that $R_I(Q^2)$ is a vector of functions without any cut. 

411: In addition, $T^I(Q^2)=\left[1+K^I(Q^2)G(Q^2)\right]^{-1}\cdot K^I(Q^2)$ with $T^I(Q^2)$ the

412: strong T-marix for the S-wave meson-meson scattering with isospin $I$, 0

413: or 1. In ref.\cite{npa} $K^I(Q^2)$ corresponds to the lowest order CHPT

414: meson-meson amplitudes \cite{wein,gl} while in ref.\cite{iamprd} together with

415: this contribution one has the local terms calculated from ${\cal O}(p^4)$ CHPT,

416: see refs.\cite{npa,iamprd} for explicit formulae.

417: In addition $G(Q^2)$ is a diagonal matrix of unitarity loops such

418: that for $I=0$, $G_{11}(Q^2)$ is the loop analogous to  eq.(\ref{kloop}) but for

419: $\pi\pi$($\alpha=1$) and $G_{22}(Q^2)$ corresponds to the $K\bar{K}$($\alpha=2$) channel. 

420: Analogously for $I=1$, $G_{11}(Q^2)$ corresponds to

421: $\pi\eta$($\alpha=1$) and $G_{22}(Q^2)$

422: to $K\bar{K}$($\alpha=2$) and is equal to $G_{22}(Q^2)$ with $I=0$.

423:  

424: 

425: On the other hand, because of the aforementioned factorization of the T-matrix of 

426: ref.\cite{npa},  $\widetilde{H}^I_\alpha$ can be expressed as:

427: \be

428: \label{h'}

429: \widetilde{H}^I=\lambda_I-T_I \, {\cal G}^I(Q^2)\,\lambda_I ~,

430: \ee 

431: with $\lambda_I$ the vector column of direct couplings to $\phi \gamma K\bar{K}$ after 

432: removing the tensor structures like in the definition of $\widetilde{H}^I$,

433:  that is $(\lambda_I)^T \propto (0,\zeta_I)$.  

434:  On the other hand, ${\cal G}^I_{ii}(Q^2)$ can differ at most from

435: $G_{ii}(Q^2)$ in a subtraction constant which we express by writing ${\cal

436:   G}^I=G+\delta G^I$. Notice that because $(\lambda_I)_1=0$ only the matrix

437: element of $\delta G^I$

438: for the $K\bar{K}$ channel is relevant, the only one that we will keep in the

439: following.  Now, taking into account the explicit 

440: expression of $T^I$ in terms of $G$ and $K^I$, one has:

441: \ba

442: \label{ayay}

443: \widetilde{H}^I&=&\left(1-\left[1+K^I G\right]^{-1}\left\{K^I G+K^I\delta

444:     G^I\right\}\right)

445: \lambda_I=

446: \left[1+K^IG\right]^{-1}\lambda_I-\left[1+K^I G\right]^{-1}K^I\delta G^I

447:     \lambda_I \nn\\

448: &=&\left[1+K^I G\right]^{-1}(1-K^I \delta G^I)\lambda_I ~,

449: \ea

450: and hence $R_I=(1-K^I \delta G^I)\lambda_I$. Let us note that $R_I$ has no cuts, as it should,

451:  since neither $K^I$, $\delta G^I$ or $\lambda_I$ have any cut.

452: 

453: As a result of this digression, we will keep $\delta G^I$ as free parameters in addition to

454: $\zeta_I$. This amounts to four free parameters, two for each isospin

455: channel, although in the end we will show that two of them will turn out to be fixed. 

456: Although eq.(\ref{h'}) is derived by taking into account the off-shell form

457: of the T-matrices of ref.\cite{npa}, we will

458: also use it for the more involved T-matrices of

459: refs.\cite{iamprd} since the equivalent form given in eq.(\ref{ayay}) is

460: equally valid for all of them. That is, the column matrix $R_I(Q^2)$ is fixed 

461: to be $(1-K^I \delta G^I)\lambda_I$, eq.(\ref{ayay}), for both the T-matrices of

462: ref.\cite{npa} and ref.\cite{iamprd}. While for the former strong amplitudes this expression

463: for $R_I$ is a strict

464: derivation due to its specific off-shell parts that enter in the unitarity

465: loops, for the latter ones $R_I$ is fixed  by analogy.

466: 

467: Summing the $K^+K^-$ loop contribution of figs.\ref{fig:loop}a, b, c and d plus

468: the $K\bar{K}$ loop of fig.\ref{fig:loop2}, $\widetilde{H}^I$, we can then

469: write:

470: \be

471: \label{totalH}

472: H^I(Q^2)=\left\{\frac{\sqrt{2}\, eM_\phi G_V}{4\pi^2 f^2 m_{K^+}^2}I(a,b)-

473: \frac{2\,e\, \zeta_I }{f^2 M_\phi} {\cal G}^I_{K\bar{K}}(Q^2)\right\}t^R_{K^+K^-

474: \rightarrow M^0 N^0}~,

475: \ee

476: where for the $\gamma \pi^0\pi^0\,(\pi^0\eta)$ final state only $I=0\, (1)$

477: contributes while for $\gamma K^0\bar{K^0}$ one has to sum both $I=0$ and 1

478: contributions together. From this expression it follows that 

479: ${\cal H}^I(Q^2)=H^I(Q^2)/t^R_{K^+K^-

480: \rightarrow M^0 N^0}$ is given by:

481: \ba

482: \label{figamaR}

483: \cH^I(Q^2)&=&\frac{\sqrt{2}\, e M_\phi G_V}{4\pi^2 f^2 m_{K^+}^2}I(a,b)-

484: \frac{2\,e\,\zeta_I}{f^2 M_\phi} {\cal G}^I_{K\bar{K}}(Q^2)~.

485: \ea

486: Including the three-body phase space and taking into account

487: eq.(\ref{totalH}), 

488: the width $\Gamma(\phi\rightarrow \gamma M^0 N^0)$ for $M^0 N^0=\pi^0\pi^0$

489: or $\pi^0\eta$ can be expressed as:

490: \be

491: \label{gammam0n0}

492: \Gamma(\phi\rightarrow \gamma M^0 N^0)\!=\!\int \!\!d\sqrt{Q^2}\,\,

493: \frac{\alpha |\vk|^3 |\vp_M|}{6\pi^2f^4}  

494: \left|\sum_R \left(\frac{M_\phi G_V}{4\pi^2

495:     m_{K^+}^2}I(a,b)-\frac{\sqrt{2}\,\zeta_I }{M_\phi}{\cal G}^I_{K\bar{K}}(Q^2)

496: \right)\, t^R_{K^+K^-\rightarrow M^0N^0}\right|^2~,

497: \ee

498: where $|\vp_M|$ is the momentum of the $M^0 N^0$ system in their center of

499: mass frame and  $\alpha$ is the electromagnetic fine structure constant. 

500:  Possible symmetric identity factors 1/2 are omitted in

501: eq.(\ref{gammam0n0}) since the transition matrix element

502: $|t^R_{K^+K^-\rightarrow M^0  N^0}|^2$ is taken from refs.\cite{npa,iamprd}

503: and such factors are already included in its normalization. In the previous 

504: expression the sum is restricted over those isospin channels included in $M^0N^0$. For the 

505: $\gamma K^0\bar{K}^0$ final state case, $M^0N^0=  K^0\bar{K}^0$, one has

506: to add to the term between bars in 

507: eq.(\ref{gammam0n0}) the 

508: contribution $+(\zeta_0-\zeta_1)/\sqrt{2} M_\phi$ from the direct local terms of 

509: eq.(\ref{local}) with $I=0$ and 1. 

510: 

511: 

512: 

513: %------------------------------------------------------------------------------

514: \section{$\Gamma(\phi \rightarrow \gamma R)$ decay widths}

515: \label{sec:gf}

516: \def\theequation{\arabic{section}.\arabic{equation}}

517: \setcounter{equation}{0}

518: 

519: 

520: As in the previous section, see also refs.\cite{acha,acha3,close,plb}, gauge

521: invariance requires that

522: the transition amplitude $\phi(1020)\rightarrow \gamma R$ must have the form:

523: \be

524: \label{gaugeinR}

525: {\cal M}\left[\phi(p) \rightarrow \gamma(k) R (Q)\right]=

526: H^R(Q^2)\left[g^{\alpha\beta} (p\cdot k)-p^\alpha k^\beta\right]

527: \epsilon^{\lambda}(\gamma)_\alpha \epsilon^{\nu}(\phi)_\beta~.

528: \ee

529: where now $Q$ is the total four-momentum of the resonance $R$. The function

530: $H^R(Q^2)$ can be obtained from the expression given above for

531:  $H^I(Q^2)$ replacing $t^R_{K^+K^-\rightarrow M^0N^0}$ by the

532: coupling of the $K^+K^-$ channel to the $R$ resonance, $g^R_{K^+K^-}$. That

533: is, we are extracting the resonance pole contribution from $t^R_{K^+K^-\rightarrow

534:   M^0N^0}$. Although not explicitly shown $g^R_{K^+K^-}$ can depend on the

535: energy, $Q^2$, flowing to the resonance $R$ which is not fixed since its mass 

536:  is not well defined due to the finite widths of $R$. Indeed, the latter 

537:  gives rise to important effects due to  the proximity of the mass of the

538: $\phi(1020)$ resonance to the nominal ones of the $f_0(980)$ and

539: $a_0(980)$. Let us consider this in detail.

540: 

541: Since the coupling

542:  $g^R_{K^+K^-}$ appears as a factor in $H^R(Q^2)$, then we have that  

543:  $H^R(Q^2)=\cH^I(Q^2)\,g_{K^+K^-}^R$. It is also  convenient to define the quantity $\cM'$ 

544:  so that $\cM(\phi\rightarrow \gamma R)=\cM'\,g_{K^+K^-}^R$. Then, 

545: the width $\Gamma(\phi \rightarrow\gamma R)$ can be expressed as:

546: \be

547: \label{width}

548: \Gamma(\phi \rightarrow \gamma R)=\frac{1}{3}\sum_{\nu=1}^3 \sum_{\lambda=1}^2

549: \int \frac{d \vk}{(2\pi)^3 2 |\vk|}\int \frac{dQ^0}{2 Q^0} f_R(Q^0) 

550: \frac{|\cM' g_{K^+ K^-}^R|^2}{2 M_\phi} (2\pi)\delta(M_\phi-|\vk|-Q^0)~.

551: \ee

552: Of course, because of three-momentum conservation, $\vQ=-\vk$ in the center 

553: of mass frame where the $\phi$ is at rest. We have included energy 

554: distributions for the scalar resonances $f_R(Q^0)$ in order 

555: to take care of their finite widths. This is not considered

556: in the literature for the calculation $\Gamma(\phi \rightarrow \gamma R)$ since well

557: defined values for the masses of the scalar resonances $f_0(980)$ and $a_0(980)$  are

558: assumed and the standard two body decay formula, eq.(\ref{gama2body}), is

559: then applied, see e.g. \cite{close,close2,joe}. We should note that

560: this is a very unstable procedure since the decay width scales as $|\vk|^3$, 

561:  where $|\vk|$ is the photon three-momentum:

562: \be

563: \label{k}

564: |\vk|=\frac{M_\phi^2 - Q^2}{2 M_\phi}~.

565: \ee

566: Allowing a change of $m_R$ of just 10 MeV from the central value 

567: $m_R=980$ MeV, the 

568: quantity $|\vk|$ changes by a factor of 1.7 and $|\vk|^3$ by a

569: factor of five. The standard two body decay formula can be obtained 

570: from the more general eq.(\ref{width}) by taking 

571: $f_R(Q^0)=\delta(Q^0-\sqrt{\vQ^2+m_R^2})$.

572: 

573: In order to fix $f_R(Q^0)$ we invoke unitarity which implies:

574: \ba

575: \label{uni0}

576: 2\,\hbox{Imag}[t_{K^+ K^-\rightarrow K^+K^-}^R]=\langle K^+ K^- | T^\dagger \, T | 

577: K^+ K^- \rangle~.

578: \ea

579: Now, assuming that unitarity is saturated by the exchange of the corresponding scalar 

580: resonance $R$, it follows that,

581: \ba

582: \label{uni1}

583: 2\,\hbox{Imag}[t_{K^+ K^-\rightarrow K^+K^-}^R]&=&\int \frac{d^4 q}{(2\pi)^3 2 q^0}

584: f_R(q^0) (2\pi)^4 \delta^4(Q-q)\,|g_{K^+ K^-}^R|^2\nn\\

585: &=&\frac{\pi}{Q^0}f_R(Q^0)\,|g_{K^+ K^-}^R|^2~,

586: \ea

587: and then,

588: \ba

589: \label{uni2}

590: \frac{1}{2Q^0} f_R(Q^0)\,|g_{K^+ K^-}^R|^2=\frac{1}{\pi}\hbox{Imag}

591: [t_{K^+ K^- \rightarrow K^+ K^-}^R(Q^2)]~.

592: \ea

593:  The previous equation gives our final form for $f_R(Q^0)$. We show 

594: in fig.\ref{fig:f_0} the combination 

595: $\pi f_R(Q^0)/2 Q^0=\hbox{Imag}[t_{K^+ K^- \rightarrow K^+ K^-}^R(Q^2)]$ for the

596: $f_0(980)$, left panel, and $a_0(980)$, right panel. The dashed lines correspond to the 

597: matrix elements $t_{K^+ K^- \rightarrow K^+ K^-}^R(Q^2)$ given in ref.\cite{npa}, where 

598: the only one free parameter is fixed in this reference by a successful study of

599: the strong $\pi\pi$, $K\bar{K}$ and $\pi\eta$ S-wave meson-meson interactions.  These T-matrices have

600:  been used by now in a whole series of studies about the scalar sector 

601: stressing the role of 

602: unitarity and chiral symmetry in order to understand the scalar dynamics.  

603: These studies comprise strong interactions \cite{npa}, fusion of two 

604: photons to $\pi^0\pi^0$, $\pi^+ \pi^-$, $K^+ K^-$, $K^0\bar{K}^0$ and $\pi^0\eta$ \cite{gamma}, 

605: $\phi$ radiative 

606: decays \cite{plb,marco}, $J/\Psi$ decays \cite{jpsi} and $pp$ collisions 

607: \cite{anke}. In the same figure we also show by the solid lines, 

608: $\hbox{Imag}[t_{K^+ K^- \rightarrow K^+ K^-}^R(Q^2)]$

609: from the T-matrices of ref.\cite{iamprd} with the use of the Inverse Amplitude 

610: Method \cite{iam}. We also compare our choice for $\pi f_R(Q^0)/2 Q^0$ from the T-matrices of 

611: refs.\cite{npa,iamprd}, with the one that results by taking,

612: \ba

613: \label{achaprop}

614:  \hbox{Imag}[t_{K^+ K^- \rightarrow K^+ K^-}^R(Q^2)]&=&-\hbox{Imag}\left[

615:  \frac{(g^R_{K^+K^-})^2}{\cD_R(Q^2)}\right]~, \nn \\

616:  \cD_R(Q^2)&=&Q^2-m_R^2-\hbox{Re}\Pi(m_R^2)+\Pi(Q^2)~,

617: \ea

618: from ref.\cite{acha}, since this resonant form was followed 

619: in the experimental references \cite{akh,snd98,exppi0,expeta,dafnef0,dafnea0} to fit their data. 

620: The energy distribution resulting from eq.(\ref{achaprop}) is shown in 

621: fig.\ref{fig:f_0} by the thin dotted lines. The free parameters in eqs.(\ref{achaprop}), 

622: two masses and four couplings, are fixed to the central values given by the best fits of 

623: refs.\cite{exppi0,expeta} 

624: to $d\Gamma(\phi\rightarrow \gamma \pi^0\pi^0)/dm_{\pi \pi}$ and 

625: $d\Gamma(\phi\rightarrow \gamma \pi^0\eta)/dm_{\pi \eta}$, respectively. The $\Pi_R(Q^2)$

626: is the sum of two-meson self energies, $\pi\pi$ and $K\bar{K}$ for $I=0$ and 

627: $\pi\eta$ and $K\bar{K}$ for $I=1$ as in refs.\cite{exppi0,expeta}. Explicit formulae

628: for $\Pi(Q^2)$ can be found in ref.\cite{acha}. It is interesting to remark the presence

629: of a long tail

630: in each of the energy distributions $f_R(Q^0)$ towards low invariant masses.

631: This is a result of keeping the real parts of the unitarity two-meson loops 

632: \cite{npa,iamprd} or

633: the real parts in the two-meson self energies in $\cD_R(Q^2)$, eq.(\ref{achaprop})

634: \cite{acha}.

635: 

636: \begin{figure}[htb]

637: \psfrag{f0f0}{\hspace{-0.5cm}$\pi f_{f_0}(Q^0)/2Q^0$}

638: \psfrag{f0a0}{\hspace{-0.5cm}$\pi f_{a_0}(Q^0)/2Q^0$}

639: \psfrag{E(MeV)}{\begin{tabular}{l} \\ \hspace{-0.5cm}{\small $Q^0$ (MeV)}\end{tabular}}

640: \centerline{\epsfig{file=f_0.eps,width=6.0in}}

641: \vspace{0.2cm}

642: \caption[pilf]{\protect \small

643:  $\pi f_R(Q^0)/2 Q^0={\hbox{Imag}}[t^R_{K^+ K^- \rightarrow K^+ K^-}]$ for the

644:  $f_0(980)$, 

645: left panel, and $a_0(980)$, right panel. 

646:  The solid and dashed lines are calculated from the T-matrices

647:  of refs.\cite{iamprd,npa}, respectively, and the thin dotted  ones 

648: from the resonant form given in eq.(\ref{achaprop}) following ref.\cite{acha} and the 

649:  experimental analyses \cite{exppi0,expeta}.  The values of the masses and

650:  couplings, necessary to apply eq.(\ref{achaprop}), are determined by the best fits

651:  of the latter references.

652: \label{fig:f_0}}

653: \end{figure} 

654: 

655:  Then, 

656:  $\Gamma(\phi \rightarrow \gamma R)$, eq.(\ref{width}), can be written 

657:  from eqs.(\ref{gaugeinR}) and (\ref{uni2}) as:

658: \ba

659: \label{widthR}

660: \Gamma(\phi \rightarrow \gamma R)&=&

661: \int \frac{|\vk| d|\vk|}{24\pi^2M_\phi}\hbox{Imag}\,[t_{22}^R(Q^2)] 

662: \left|\cH^I(Q^2)\right|^2(M_\phi^2-Q^2)^2~,

663: \ea

664: where we have used the shorter notation $t_{22}^R$ instead of $t_{K^+ K^- \rightarrow 

665: K^+ K^-}^R$. 

666: Of course, one should keep in mind that $Q^2$ and $|\vk|$ are not independent 

667: variables but related by energy-momentum conservation, eq.(\ref{k}). It is

668: also apparent from the previous equation the cubic dependence on the photon

669: three-momentum $|\vec{k}|$.

670:  

671: From eq.(\ref{widthR}) we can also define the differential decay widths,

672: \be

673: \label{ddw}

674: \frac{d\Gamma(\phi \rightarrow \gamma R)}{d|\vk|}=\frac{M_\phi}{\sqrt{Q^2}} 

675: \frac{d\Gamma(\phi \rightarrow \gamma R)}{d \sqrt{Q^2}}=

676: \frac{|\vk| d|\vk|}{24\pi^2M_\phi}\hbox{Imag}\,[t_{22}^R(Q^2)] 

677: \left|\cH^I(Q^2)\right|^2(M_\phi^2-Q^2)^2~.

678: \ee

679: Note that $\hbox{Imag}\,t_{22}^R$ extends from the two pion threshold for 

680: the $f_0(980)$ case and from the $\pi\eta$ one for the $a_0(980)$ resonance.

681: 

682: As stated above, the standard two body decay formula for $\phi\rightarrow \gamma R$,

683: with a well defined mass $m_R$ for $R$, can be obtained from eq.(\ref{widthR}) by

684: performing the substitution $f_R(Q^0)=\delta(Q^0-w_R)$. In this case the decay

685: width is given by:

686: \be

687: \label{gama2body}

688: \Gamma(\phi\rightarrow \gamma R)_{m_R\,fixed}=

689: \frac{|\vk|^3}{12\pi}\left|\cH^I(m_R^2)\,

690: g_{K^+ K^-}^R\right|^2~.

691: \ee

692: 

693: %-------------------------------------

694: 

695: Following the previous lines, we can also derive an expression for the decay

696: widths $\Gamma(\phi\rightarrow \gamma M^0N^0)$  by considering {\it

697:   explicitly} that the strong

698: amplitudes $t^R_{K^+K^-\rightarrow M^0N^0}$ are dominated by the exchange of

699: the corresponding $R$ resonances. One should keep in mind that the results

700: given in sec.\ref{sec:direct} do not make such assumption and are derived {\it 

701: directly} in terms of the corresponding strong amplitudes

702: $t^R_{K^+K^-\rightarrow M^0N^0}$. 

703: 

704: Let us denote by $\vq_1$ and $\vq_2$ the three-momenta of the $M^0$ and $N^0$

705: particles and by $w_1$ and $w_2$ their corresponding energies. Then, since we 

706: are considering the decay $\phi \rightarrow \gamma M^0 N^0$ to be mediated 

707: by the resonance $R$,  if follows that,

708: \ba

709: \label{mediation}

710: \Gamma(\phi\rightarrow \gamma M^0 N^0)&=&\frac{1}{3}\sum_{\nu=1}^3 

711: \sum_{\lambda=1}^2 \frac{1}{2M_\phi}\int \frac{d\vk}{(2\pi)^3 2|\vk|} 

712: \left|\frac{\cM(\phi\rightarrow \gamma R)}{\cD_R(Q^2)} \right|^2 

713: \,2 \sqrt{Q^2} \nn \\

714: &\times&\left\{ \frac{1}{2 \sqrt{Q^2}} \int \frac{d\vp_1}{(2\pi)^3 2w_1}

715:   \frac{2\pi \delta(Q^0-w_1-w_2)}{2w_2} |g_{M^0 N^0}^R|^2 \right\}~,

716: \ea

717: where $\cD_R(Q^2)$ is any possible inverse propagator for the resonance $R$. Let us note that 

718: the term between curly brackets just corresponds to the standard formula for the decay

719: width of a resonance of mass $\sqrt{Q^2}$ to the $M^0 N^0$ state with a coupling 

720: $g_{M^0 N^0}^R$. In addition, we can rewrite, 

721: \ba

722: \label{new}

723: \left|\frac{\cM}{\cD_R(Q^2)}\right|^2&=&

724: \left|\frac{\cM'\, g_{K^+K^-}^R(Q^2)}{\cD_R(Q^2)}\right|^2=

725: \left| \cM' \right|^2 \,\left|t_{22}^R(Q^2)\right|^2~. 

726: \ea

727: On the other hand, within our present assumption that $t_{22}^R(Q^2)$ is dominated by the exchange 

728: of the scalar resonance $R$, unitarity implies:

729: \ba

730: \label{propa}

731: \hbox{Imag}[t_{22}^R(Q^2)]&=&\frac{1}{2}\sum_\alpha\, t_{2\alpha}^R(Q^2)^* 

732: \frac{q_\alpha\, \theta(Q^2-W^2_\alpha)}{4 \pi \sqrt{Q^2}}\, t^R_{\alpha 2}(Q^2)=

733: \left| t_{22}^R(Q^2)\right|^2 \sum_\alpha 

734: |g^R_\alpha|^2 \frac{q_\alpha \,\theta(Q^2-W^2_\alpha)}{8\pi \sqrt{Q^2}} \nn \\

735: &=&|t_{22}^R|^2 \,\sqrt{Q^2} \,\Gamma_{R,tot}(Q^2)~.

736: \ea

737: Where $q_\alpha$ is the center of mass three-momentum of the two-body channel $\alpha$, 

738: $W_\alpha$ is the corresponding threshold energy and $\Gamma_{R\, tot}(Q^2)$ is the total

739: energy of a scalar resonance of mass $\sqrt{Q^2}$ with the same couplings, 

740: indicated by $g_\alpha^R$, as the $R$ resonance.

741: 

742: 

743: As a result of eqs.(\ref{new}), (\ref{propa}) we can then write instead of eq.(\ref{mediation}):

744: \ba

745: \label{propaf}

746: \Gamma(\phi\rightarrow \gamma M^0N^0)&=&\frac{1}{3}\sum_{\nu=1}^3 

747: \sum_{\lambda=1}^2\frac{1}{2M_\phi}\int\frac{d \vk}{(2\pi)^3|\vk|}

748: |\cM'|^2\, \hbox{Imag}\left[t_{22}^R(Q^2)\right] \,

749: \frac{\Gamma_{R, M^0 N^0}(Q^2)}{\Gamma_{R,tot}(Q^2)}\nn\\

750: &=&\int 

751: \frac{|\vk|d|\vk|}{24 \pi^2 M_\phi}|\cH^I(Q^2)|^2\,\hbox{Imag}\left[t_{22}^R(Q^2) \right]

752: (M_\phi^2-Q^2)^2\,Br_{M^0 N^0}^R(Q^2)~,

753: \ea

754: where $\Gamma_{R,M^0 N^0}(Q^2)$ is the decay width of a scalar resonance with mass $\sqrt{Q^2}$ and

755: the same coupling $g^R_{M^0 N^0}(Q^2)$ to the $M^0 N^0$ channel as the $R$

756: resonance at that energy. This parameterization can be seen as an alternative to that of

757: ref.\cite{acha} and is specially suited for those approaches that directly

758: work with the strong amplitudes, without considering specific forms for the

759: propagators of the scalar resonances which are explicitly needed in the

760: legitimate parameterization of ref.\cite{acha}.

761: 

762: Consistently with eq.(\ref{propa}), the branching ratio $Br_{M^0 N^0}^R(Q^2)$ of the strong

763: decay $R(Q^2)\rightarrow M^0 N^0$ is calculated as:

764: \be

765: \label{br}

766: Br_{M^0 N^0}^R(Q^2)=\frac{|g_{M^0 N^0}^R|^2\, p_{M^0 N^0}}{\sum_\alpha |g_\alpha^R|^2 

767: p_\alpha \,\theta(Q^2-W_\alpha^2)}~,

768: \ee

769: where in addition one should include, when necessary, the corresponding $1/2$

770: factors for the decays to symmetric two particle states. For the sake of

771: completeness we show in table \ref{tab:coup}  the pole positions, 

772: $\sqrt{s_R}$ and couplings, 

773: $g_\alpha^R$, for the

774: $f_0(980)$ and $a_0(980)$ resonances from the T-matrices of

775: ref.\cite{npa}.\footnote{Since the $I=0$ $\pi\pi$ channel is

776: completely symmetric under the exchange of the pions, the convention of

777: including an extra factor $1/\sqrt{2}$ in the definition of this state is

778: followed in ref.\cite{npa}. Thus, the $\pi\pi$ coupling resulting by applying directly

779: eq.(\ref{residue}) to the $I=0$ T-matrix of ref.\cite{npa} has been

780: multiplied by $\sqrt{2}$ in table \ref{tab:coup}.}  The latter are defined by:

781: \be

782: \label{residue}

783: |g_{\alpha}^R g_{\beta}^R|=\lim_{s\rightarrow s_R}|(s-s_R)\, t_{\alpha \rightarrow \beta}^R(s)|~,

784: \ee

785: where $s_R$ is the pole position of the $R$ resonance in the unphysical sheet

786: where the center of mass three-momentum of the $M^0 N^0$ state has negative

787: imaginary part, while that of the $K\bar{K}$ three-momentum is

788: positive. It is also worth noticing that the couplings $|g^R_{K \bar{K}}|$ are different for the

789: $f_0(980)$ and $a_0(980)$ resonances like in ref.\cite{referee}. 

790: 

791: Taking from table \ref{tab:coup} the values of the couplings and pole positions

792: one calculates from eq.(\ref{br}), $Br^{f_0}_{\pi\pi}=0.7$ and $Br^{a_0}_{\pi\eta}=0.63$ in

793: perfect agreement with the branching ratios given in ref.\cite{npa} where 

794: the finite widths of the $f_0(980)$ and $a_0(980)$ are taken into

795: account for the strong decay rates as well. 

796: 

797: 

798: \begin{table}[H]

799: \begin{center}

800: \begin{tabular}{|c|c|}

801: \hline

802: $f_0(980)$ & $a_0(980)$ \\

803: \hline

804: $\sqrt{s_{f_0}}=(992.6-i\,11.8)$  MeV & $\sqrt{s_{a_0}}=(1009.2-i\,56.1)$

805: MeV\\

806: $|g_{\pi\pi}^{f_0}|=1.90$ GeV  & $

807: |g_{\pi\eta}^{a_0}|=3.54 \hbox{ GeV}$ \\

808: $|g_{K\bar{K}}^{f_0}|=3.80 \hbox{ GeV}$  &$|g_{K\bar{K}}^{a_0}|=5.20 \hbox{ GeV}$\\

809: \hline   

810: \end{tabular}

811: \caption{Poles positions, $\sqrt{s_R}$, and couplings, $g_{\alpha}^R$, of

812:   the $f_0(980)$ and $a_0(980)$ resonances from the T-matrices of ref.\cite{npa}.

813: \label{tab:coup}  }

814: \end{center}

815: \end{table}  

816: 

817: 

818: Comparing eq.(\ref{propaf}) with eq.(\ref{widthR}) for the decay $\phi \rightarrow \gamma R$ 

819: one obtains the relation,

820: \be

821: \label{rel}

822: \frac{d\Gamma(\phi\rightarrow \gamma M^0

823:   N^0)}{d|\vk|}=\frac{d\Gamma(\phi\rightarrow \gamma R)}{d|\vk|}\, Br^R_{M^0 N^0}(Q^2)~,

824: \ee

825: which, together with eq.(\ref{ddw}), can  be used to analyze in a pure phenomenological way 

826: the experimental  data of $\phi\rightarrow \gamma M^0 N^0$ by parameterizing and fitting

827: $\hbox{Imag}[t_{K^+ K^- \rightarrow K^+ K^-}^R]$, as e.g. in

828:   eq.(\ref{achaprop}). Because we are assuming that the decay $\phi \rightarrow \gamma M^0 N^0$ is

829:   dominated by the exchange of the corresponding $R$ resonance,  the previous relation

830:   tells us that the differential width $\phi\rightarrow \gamma

831:   M^0 N^0$ is the same as the

832:   one to $\gamma R$ multiplied by the probability that the scalar resonance decays to

833: $M^0 N^0$. The latter is just the branching ratio since the resonance

834:   will certainly decay to any channel at asymptotic times. This natural result

835:   is indeed the way the experimental values on the $\phi\rightarrow \gamma

836:   f_0(980)$ and $\phi\rightarrow \gamma a_0(980)$ widths are obtained once the

837:   rates $\phi\rightarrow \gamma f_0(980)\rightarrow \gamma \pi^0\pi^0$ and

838: $\phi\rightarrow \gamma a_0(980)\rightarrow \gamma  \pi^0\eta$, respectively,

839:   are determined by fitting the experimental data

840:   \cite{akh,exppi0,expeta,dafnea0}.\footnote{In ref.\cite{dafnef0} an extra

841:   and large $\sigma \gamma$

842:   contribution is included in addition to the $f_0(980) \gamma$ one with a

843:   destructive interference at low $\pi\pi$ invariant mass. However,

844:   this is a controversial result at odds with the conclusions of

845: the previous experimental analysis  refs.\cite{exppi0,snd98}, giving 

846: rise to an unconventionally large rate $\phi \rightarrow \gamma f_0 (980)$

847:   \cite{close}, larger than the ones given from any model.} 

848: Nevertheless, one should keep in mind that eq.(\ref{rel}), when used with the

849:   simplified form of $Br^R_{M^0N^0}$ given in eq.(\ref{br}), is an

850:   approximation since it does not take into 

851: account the finite widths of the $f_0(980)$ and $a_0(980)$ resonances in their 

852: strong decay rates.

853: 

854: 

855: 

856: Let us stress that eq.(\ref{gammam0n0}) is given in terms of the strong 

857: S-wave T-matrices of ref.\cite{npa,iamprd} without any reference to the exchange of an 

858: scalar resonance $R$. Indeed, in ref.\cite{npa} the scalar resonances

859: $f_0(980)$ and $a_0(980)$, together with the $\sigma$ meson, are generated dynamically 

860: as meson-meson resonances in terms of an interacting kernel given by the lowest order 

861: CHPT amplitudes \cite{wein,gl} without any explicit resonance field. 

862: Thus, it is an important consistency check whether the invariant mass

863: distribution obtained from eq.(\ref{gammam0n0}) agrees indeed

864: with the one of eq.(\ref{rel}) when substituting in the latter 

865: $d\Gamma(\phi \rightarrow \gamma R)/d|\vk|$ from eq.(\ref{ddw}). 

866: It is straightforward to demonstrate by  relating 

867: Imag$[t^R_{K^+K^-\rightarrow K^+ K^-}]$ and $|t^R_{K^+K^-\rightarrow M^0

868:   N^0}(Q^2)|^2$ via unitarity, 

869: that eq.(\ref{gammam0n0}) and the combination of eqs.(\ref{rel}) and (\ref{ddw}) yield 

870: the same $d\Gamma(\phi \rightarrow \gamma M^0N^0)/d|\vk|$ below the $K\bar{K}$ 

871: threshold. Above it, a specific energy dependent form of $Br^R_{M^0 N^0}$ should be employed.

872: 

873: 

874: \begin{figure}[htb]

875: \psfrag{gamaf0}{\hspace{-1.8cm}{\small $d Br(\phi\rightarrow \gamma \pi^0\pi^0)/dm_{\pi\pi}

876: \,10^8$}}

877: \psfrag{gamaa0}{\hspace{-1.8cm}{\small $d Br(\phi\rightarrow \gamma \pi^0\eta)/dm_{\pi\eta}

878: \, 10^8$}}

879: \psfrag{E(MeV)}{\begin{tabular}{l} \\ \hspace{-0.5cm}{\small $m_{\pi\pi}$ (MeV)}\end{tabular}}

880: \psfrag{Y}{\begin{tabular}{l} \\ \hspace{-0.5cm}{\small $m_{\pi\eta}$ (MeV)}\end{tabular}}

881: \centerline{\epsfig{file=fitgama.eps,width=7.0in}}

882: \vspace{.3cm}

883: \caption[pilf]{\protect \small Invariant mass distributions $d Br(\phi\rightarrow

884: \gamma \pi^0\pi^0)/dm_{\pi\pi}\, 10^8$ and $d Br(\phi\rightarrow \gamma

885: \pi^0\eta)/d m_{\pi\eta}\,10^8$

886: from left to right, respectively. The thick lines correspond to a simultaneous fit of the

887: parameters $\zeta_I$ and $\delta G^I$ to the experimental points

888: of \cite{exppi0} (empty circles) and \cite{dafnef0} (full circles), 

889: for the $\gamma \pi^0\pi^0$ final state,

890: and to the data of \cite{expeta} (empty circles) and \cite{dafnea0} (full

891: circles) for the $\gamma \pi^0\eta$ one.

892:  The thin line corresponds to $\zeta_I=-G_V/\sqrt{8}$ and $\delta G^I=0$,

893: the appropriate values to reproduce the results of ref.\cite{marco}.

894: \label{fig:fit}}

895: \end{figure}

896:   

897:  

898: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

899: 

900: \section{Results and discussion}

901: \label{sec:wfr}

902: %\def\theequation{\Alph{section}.\arabic{equation}}

903: \setcounter{equation}{0}

904: 

905: In sec.\ref{sec:direct} we have derived the corresponding expressions for the 

906: $\phi\rightarrow \gamma M^0 N^0$ decay by taking into account the final state

907: interactions due to the strong S-wave meson-meson amplitudes. This is what we

908: denote by the scalar contribution to such decay rates. Nevertheless, for

909: the $\gamma \pi^0\pi^0$ final state the background $\phi\rightarrow \pi^0 \rho

910: \rightarrow \gamma \pi^0\pi^0$ is not negligible, its relative size depending 

911: strongly on the energy region, as we show below in

912: fig.\ref{fig:fitconstraint}. In our final results we have included the

913: interference term between the scalar and $\rho\pi^0$ contributions with our

914: own scalar amplitudes and with the vector part calculated as in

915: ref.\cite{escri}. For the appropriate formulae for the vector piece we refer

916: to that reference.

917: 

918: We now perform a simultaneous fit, including both the scalar and vector

919: contributions, to the $\phi\rightarrow \gamma \pi^0\pi^0$ data of 

920: refs.\cite{exppi0,dafnef0} and those of $\phi\rightarrow

921: \gamma\pi^0\eta$ of refs.\cite{expeta,dafnea0}. The fit to the invariant mass

922: distributions $d\Gamma(\phi\rightarrow\gamma\pi^0\pi^0)/dm_{\pi\pi}$ and

923: $d\Gamma(\phi\rightarrow\gamma\pi^0\eta)/dm_{\pi\eta}$ with the T-matrices of

924: refs.\cite{npa,iamprd} is presented in fig.\ref{fig:disR} in the left and right

925: panel, respectively. The solid lines corresponds to the final state

926: interactions calculated from the scalar amplitudes of

927: ref.\cite{iamprd} and the dashed ones to the amplitudes of ref.\cite{npa}. The fit reproduces

928: fairly well the experimental invariant mass distributions and the resulting

929: values of the parameters are:

930: 

931: \begin{table}[H]

932: \begin{center}

933: \begin{tabular}{cll}

934: T-matrix & $ \zeta_0=+164.12\hbox{ MeV}$  & $\delta G^0=1.46/(4 \pi)^2$  \\

935: ref.\cite{npa} & $\zeta_1=-165.87\hbox{ MeV}$  & $\delta G^1=1.36/(4 \pi)^2$ \\

936: & & \\

937: T-matrix & $\zeta_0=+124.99\hbox{ MeV}$ & $\delta G^0=1.61/(4 \pi)^2$ \\

938: ref.\cite{iamprd} & $\zeta_1=-132.26\hbox{ MeV}$ & $\delta G^1=1.44/(4 \pi)^2$ \\

939: \end{tabular}

940: \caption{Values of the parameters from a simultaneous fit to

941:   $d\Gamma(\phi\rightarrow\gamma\pi^0\pi^0)/dm_{\pi\pi}$

942: \cite{exppi0,dafnef0} and

943:   $d\Gamma(\phi\rightarrow\gamma\pi^0\eta)/dm_{\pi\eta}$

944:   \cite{expeta,dafnea0}.

945: \label{tab:fits}}

946: \end{center}

947: \end{table}

948: From the previous table of values is clear an obvious symmetry in the

949: results. We have obtained that $\delta G^0\simeq \delta G^1$ and

950: $\zeta_0\simeq -\zeta_1$. The $\zeta_I$ parameters represent the direct

951: coupling $\phi\gamma K\bar{K}$ with isospin $I$, eq.(\ref{local}). Hence the

952: direct coupling for the $K^+K^-$ channel as given by eq.(\ref{local}) and the

953: values in table \ref{tab:fits} is proportional to

954: $-(\zeta_1+\zeta_0)/\sqrt{2}\simeq 0$ and vanishes. On the contrary, the one

955: for $K^0\bar{K}^0$ is $(\zeta_1-\zeta_0)/\sqrt{2}\simeq \sqrt{2}

956: \zeta_1$. Let us note as well that because $\delta G^0\simeq \delta G^1$ one

957: has that ${\cal   G}^1\simeq {\cal G}^0$. Since the Clebsch-Gordan

958: coefficients for $K^+K^-$ are the same

959: both for $I=0$ and 1 its contribution to any process is just proportional to

960: ${\cal G}^0\zeta_0+{\cal G}^1\zeta_1\simeq 0$ and cancels, as one should expect

961: since the direct coupling $\phi\gamma K^+K^-$ on the left vertex of the

962: diagram of fig.\ref{fig:loop2}

963: vanishes as we have just seen. Then it is clear the

964: consistency of having obtained within the isospin formalism that 

965: ${\cal G}^1={\cal G}^0$ once $\zeta_0=-\zeta_1$,  otherwise there would have

966: been a mismatch between the results

967: obtained from the physical basis of states and that of isospin. For the $K^0\bar{K}^0$

968: channels, since the Clebsch-Gordan coefficients change of sign when passing

969: from $I=0$ to $I=1$, one has the non-vanishing result ${\cal G}^1\zeta_1-{\cal

970:   G}^0\zeta_0\simeq 2 {\cal G}^1\zeta_1$. Thus our results suggest the

971: existence of a  $\phi\gamma K^0\bar{K}^0$ local term of the same type as

972: that of eq.(\ref{local}) but with $\zeta_I$ replaced by

973: $\zeta_{K^0\bar{K^0}}=\sqrt{2}\zeta_1$ and the absence of such terms for 

974: $K^+ K¯$. The resulting value for $|\zeta_I|$ is very similar to $F_V$ from

975: $\rho\rightarrow e^+ e^-$, $F_V=154$ MeV or from $\phi\rightarrow e^+ e^-$,

976: $F_V=165$ MeV. The value for $\delta G^I$ is of natural size since it is a

977: number of order one over $16 \pi^2$. It is also important to remark that in

978: the reproduction of the lowest

979: energy part of the $d\Gamma(\phi\rightarrow\gamma\pi^0\pi^0)/dm_{\pi\pi}$

980: invariant mass distribution, namely below 600 MeV, the background $\rho\pi^0$

981: plays a significant role, while its negligible above 700 MeV in agreement with

982: ref.\cite{referee}. From the integration of the invariant mass

983: distributions we obtain the branching ratios:

984: \ba

985: \label{brfiiam}

986: Br(\phi\rightarrow\gamma\pi^0\pi^0)&=& 1.09 \,10^{-4}~,\nn\\

987: Br(\phi\rightarrow\gamma\pi^0\eta)&=&0.72 \, 10^{-4}~.

988: \ea

989: for the T-matrices of ref.\cite{iamprd}. The values of the previous branching ratios when using

990: the strong amplitudes of ref.\cite{npa} are almost the same:

991: \ba

992: \label{brfinpa}

993: Br(\phi\rightarrow\gamma\pi^0\pi^0)&=& 1.09 \,10^{-4}~,\nn\\

994: Br(\phi\rightarrow\gamma\pi^0\eta)&=&0.73 \, 10^{-4}~.

995: \ea

996: For comparison, the precise experimental results from

997: refs.\cite{dafnef0,dafnea0} are $Br(\phi\rightarrow\gamma \pi^0\pi^0)=(1.09\pm0.03_{stat}\pm

998: 0.05_{sys})\,10^{-4}$ and $Br(\phi\rightarrow\gamma \pi^0\eta)=(0.796 \pm

999: 0.07)\,10^{-4}$, respectively, in excellent agreement with our results. 

1000: 

1001: 

1002: In fig.\ref{fig:fitconstraint} we present a new fit to the same data as before

1003: but imposing the constraints $\delta G^0=\delta G^1$ and

1004: $\zeta_0=-\zeta_1$ that  have emerged in a consistent way

1005: from the fit described above. The values obtained are:

1006: \ba

1007: \label{fitconst}

1008: \hbox{T-matrix of ref.\cite{npa}} &\zeta_0=-\zeta_1=+180.83\hbox{ MeV}~, \,\,

1009: \delta G_0=\delta G_1=1.42/(4\pi)^2~,\nn\\

1010: \hbox{T-matrix of ref.\cite{iamprd}}    &\zeta_0=-\zeta_1=+146.42\hbox{ MeV}~, \,\,

1011: \delta G_0=\delta G_1=1.54/(4\pi)^2~.

1012: \ea

1013:  The quality of the fit is similar to that of

1014: fig.\ref{fig:fit}. In the same figure we also show by the thin dotted line the

1015: $\rho\pi^0$ intermediate contribution which as told above turns out to be relevant only

1016: in the lowest energy range of the spectrum. Let us note as well that in

1017: the experimental analyses at least 6 free parameters \cite{akh,exppi0,expeta} are

1018: needed to fit the experimental $\phi\rightarrow\gamma\pi^0\eta$ and

1019: $\gamma\pi^0\pi^0$ invariant mass distributions.

1020: 

1021: 

1022: \begin{figure}[htb]

1023: \psfrag{gamaf0}{\hspace{-1.8cm}{\small $d Br(\phi\rightarrow \gamma \pi^0\pi^0)/dm_{\pi\pi}

1024: \,10^8$}}

1025: \psfrag{gamaa0}{\hspace{-1.8cm}{\small $d Br(\phi\rightarrow \gamma \pi^0\eta)/dm_{\pi\eta}

1026: \, 10^8$}}

1027: \psfrag{X}{\begin{tabular}{l} \\ \hspace{-0.5cm}{\small $m_{\pi\pi}$ (MeV)}\end{tabular}}

1028: \psfrag{Y}{\begin{tabular}{l} \\ \hspace{-0.5cm}{\small $m_{\pi\eta}$ (MeV)}\end{tabular}}

1029: \centerline{\epsfig{file=fitconst.eps,width=7.0in}}

1030: \vspace{.3cm}

1031: \caption[pilf]{\protect \small Invariant mass distributions $d Br(\phi\rightarrow

1032: \gamma \pi^0\pi^0)/dm_{\pi\pi}\, 10^8$ and $d Br(\phi\rightarrow \gamma

1033: \pi^0\eta)/d m_{\pi\eta}\,10^8$

1034: from left to right, respectively. The thick lines correspond to a simultaneous fit of the

1035: parameters $\zeta_I$ and $\delta G^I$ to the experimental points

1036: of \cite{exppi0} (empty circles) and \cite{dafnef0} (full circles), for the

1037: $\gamma \pi^0\pi^0$ final state,

1038: and to the data of \cite{expeta} (empty circles) and \cite{dafnea0} (full circles) for

1039:  the $\gamma \pi^0\eta$ one. The constraints $\delta G^1=\delta G^0$ and 

1040: $\zeta_0=-\zeta_1$

1041: have been imposed. The thin dotted line corresponds to the $\rho \pi^0$ background.

1042: \label{fig:fitconstraint}}

1043: \end{figure}

1044: 

1045: 

1046: Once the $\zeta_I$ and $\delta G^I$  are fixed, table \ref{tab:fits} and eq.(\ref{fitconst}),

1047: we show in fig.\ref{fig:disR}, from left to right,

1048: the distributions $d Br(\phi\rightarrow \gamma f_0(980))/dm \,10^8$ and

1049: $d Br(\phi\rightarrow \gamma a_0(980))/dm \,10^8$, respectively, calculated from

1050: eq.(\ref{ddw}) and the strong amplitudes of ref.\cite{npa,iamprd}. As in figs.\ref{fig:fit}

1051: the solid lines corresponds to ref.\cite{iamprd} and the dashed ones to

1052: ref.\cite{npa}. 

1053: We have denoted by  $m=\sqrt{Q^2}$  the invariant mass of the $f_0(980)$ and

1054: $a_0(980)$ resonances.   It can be

1055: surprising that the tails of the invariant mass distributions

1056: extend well below the prominent peaks of the $f_0(980)$ and $a_0(980)$ resonances towards

1057: rather low invariant masses.

1058: This is due to the cubic dependence on the photon

1059: three-momentum $|\vk|=(M_\pi^2-Q^2)/2M_\phi$ which largely enhances the low

1060: energy part of the invariant mass distributions. Indeed, if we fix $|\vk|$ to the

1061: value corresponding to some  nominal mass of the resonances, e.g. $m_R\simeq 986$ MeV,

1062: then one obtains very peaked distributions around the masses of the $f_0(980)$ and

1063: $a_0(980)$ without any tail towards low energies. Hence, it follows that although

1064: the resonance structure is clear and very prominent the low energy

1065: components of the energy distributions $f_R(Q^0)$, see fig.\ref{fig:f_0},

1066: cannot be neglected because of the enhancement due to the cubic

1067: dependence on the photon three-momentum, fig.\ref{fig:disR}.

1068: 

1069: \begin{figure}[htb]

1070: \psfrag{distributionf0}{\hspace{-1.6cm}{\small $d Br(\phi\rightarrow \gamma f_0)/d\sqrt{Q^2}

1071: \,10^8$}}

1072: \psfrag{distributiona0}{\hspace{-1.6cm}{\small $d Br(\phi\rightarrow \gamma a_0)/d\sqrt{Q^2}

1073: \, 10^8$}}

1074: \psfrag{E(MeV)}{\begin{tabular}{l} \\ \hspace{-0.5cm}{\tiny $\sqrt{Q^2}$ (MeV)}\end{tabular}}

1075: \centerline{\epsfig{file=f0wa0w.eps,width=7.0in}}

1076: \vspace{.3cm}

1077: \caption[pilf]{Invariant mass distributions $d Br(\phi\rightarrow

1078: \gamma f_0(980))/d\sqrt{Q^2}\, 10^8$ and $d Br(\phi\rightarrow \gamma a_0(980))/d\sqrt{Q^2}\,10^8$

1079: from left to right, respectively. The solid and dashed lines are calculated from

1080: the T-matrices of the refs.\cite{iamprd,npa}, respectively.

1081: \label{fig:disR}}

1082: \end{figure}

1083: 

1084: We integrate now the invariant mass distributions $d\Gamma(\phi\rightarrow

1085: \gamma R)/d \sqrt{Q^2}$ from the corresponding thresholds

1086: up to $Q^2=M_\phi^2$, eq.(\ref{figamaR}), and we obtain the values shown in

1087: table \ref{table:widths}.

1088: \begin{table}[H]

1089: \begin{center}

1090: \begin{tabular}{|l|c|c|c|}

1091: \hline

1092:  & T-matrix ref.\cite{npa} &  T-matrix ref.\cite{iamprd}\\

1093: \hline

1094: $Br(\phi\rightarrow \gamma f_0(980))\, 10^4$& 3.19  & 3.11  \\

1095: \hline

1096: $ Br(\phi\rightarrow \gamma a_0(980))\, 10^4$& 0.73 &  0.73 \\

1097: \hline

1098: $\frac{ Br(\phi\rightarrow \gamma f_0(980))}{ Br(\phi\rightarrow \gamma

1099:   a_0(980))}$ & 4.37  & 4.26 \\

1100: \hline

1101: \end{tabular}

1102: \caption{$Br(\phi\rightarrow \gamma f_0(980))$, $Br(\phi\rightarrow \gamma

1103:   a_0(980)$ and the quotient of both from eq.(\ref{figamaR}) and the energy

1104:   distribution $f_R(Q^0)$, eq.(\ref{uni2}), determined with the

1105:   T-matrices of refs.\cite{iamprd,npa}.

1106: \label{table:widths}}

1107: \end{center}

1108: \end{table}

1109: In this table the energy distributions $f_R(Q^0)$, eq.(\ref{uni2}), are determined

1110: from the  T-matrices of refs.\cite{npa,iamprd}.  For $\zeta_I=-G_V/\sqrt{8}$ and

1111: $\delta G^I=0$, which corresponds to the results of ref.\cite{marco}, one has

1112: $Br(\phi\rightarrow \gamma f_0(980))= 2.34 \,10^{-4}$,

1113: $Br(\phi\rightarrow \gamma a_0(980))= 0.86 \,10^{-4}$ and the quotient between

1114: both rates is then 2.72.

1115: 

1116: 

1117: 

1118: 

1119: The SND collaboration, refs.\cite{exppi0} and \cite{expeta}, reports the branching ratios 

1120: $ Br(\phi\rightarrow \gamma f_0(980))= (3.5\pm 0.3 ^{+1.3}_{-0.5}) \,10^{-4}$

1121: and 

1122: $ Br(\phi\rightarrow \gamma a_0(980))= (0.88\pm 0.17) \, 10^{-4} $, 

1123: respectively. The CMD-2 collaboration, ref.\cite{akh}, reports 

1124: $ Br(\phi\rightarrow \gamma f_0(980))= (2.90\pm0.21\pm 1.54)\,10^{-4}$.  

1125: Taking into account the latter value for $Br(\phi \rightarrow \gamma f_0(980))$, as in 

1126: ref.\cite{pdg} since it arises from a combined fit to the

1127: $\gamma \pi^0\pi^0$ and $\gamma \pi^+\pi^-$ data\footnote{In addition,

1128: the error in the result

1129: $Br(\phi\rightarrow \gamma f_0(980))= (2.90\pm0.21\pm 1.54)\,10^{-4}$ of

1130: ref.\cite{akh} is enlarged in this reference so that the rate 

1131: $\phi \rightarrow \gamma f_0$, determined by

1132: performing a narrow pole fit, is also compatible within errors.},

1133: and the one of ref.\cite{expeta} for $ Br(\phi\rightarrow \gamma a_0(980))$,

1134: one has

1135: $Br(\phi\rightarrow \gamma f_0(980))/Br(\phi\rightarrow a_0(980))\simeq 3.3 \pm 2.0$.

1136:  These numbers are based in a parameterization of the experimental

1137: event distributions of $\pi^0\pi^0$ and $\pi^0\eta$ leaving the masses and

1138: couplings of the $f_0(980)$ and $a_0(980)$ as free parameters.  Once these are

1139: determined by the fitting procedure, the branching ratios to $\gamma R$ are

1140: obtained by dividing the resulting $Br(\phi\gamma \rightarrow \gamma R\rightarrow

1141: \gamma M^0 N^0)$ by the corresponding $Br^R_{M^0N^0}$. 

1142: There is some model dependence on the ``experimental'' numbers

1143: because of the specific forms of the resonance propagators.

1144: Nevertheless, we see remarkable agreement between these experimental results 

1145: and our calculations of table \ref{table:widths}. In ref.\cite{dafnef0} the KLOE collaboration

1146: reports the result $Br(\phi \rightarrow \gamma f_0(980))=

1147: (4.47\pm 0.21 )\,10^{-4}$. This value is obtained by including a very specific

1148:  destructive interference in the low energy region between the

1149: $f_0(980)\gamma$ and a $\sigma \gamma$ contribution, both of them very large

1150: at such energies. The $Br(\phi\rightarrow \gamma a_0(980))$

1151: is much clearer and very well established due to the absence of any significant background

1152: contributions to $\phi\rightarrow \gamma \pi^0\eta$ as established both

1153: theoretical and experimentally,

1154: refs.\cite{referee,bra3,escri,expeta,dafnea0}. 

1155: The KLOE collaboration

1156: \cite{dafnea0} determines the  number $Br(\phi \rightarrow \gamma a_0(980)) =

1157: (0.74\pm 0.07)\,10^{-4}$ from the very precise measured rate

1158: $Br(\phi\rightarrow\gamma \pi^0\eta)=(0.796 \pm 0.07)\,10^{-4}$. 

1159: Our calculations for both rates presented in

1160: eq.(\ref{brfiiam}) and in table \ref{table:widths} are in perfect agreement with these

1161: determinations since we described very accurately the corresponding invariant mass

1162: distribution as noted in figs.\ref{fig:fit} and \ref{fig:fitconstraint}. 

1163: 

1164: 

1165: \begin{center}

1166: \begin{table}[H]

1167: \begin{tabular}{|l||c|c|c|c|}

1168: \hline

1169: & CMD-2--fit 1 \cite{akh}& CMD-2--fit 2 \cite{akh}& SND--\cite{exppi0} &

1170: SND--\cite{expeta}\\

1171: & $Br(\phi\rightarrow \gamma f_0) \,10^{4}$ & $Br(\phi\rightarrow \gamma

1172: f_0) \,10^{4}$ & $Br(\phi\rightarrow \gamma f_0)\,10^{4}$ &

1173: $Br(\phi\rightarrow \gamma a_0) \,10^{4}$  \\

1174: \hline

1175: reported& $2.90\pm 0.21 \pm 0.65$ & $3.05\pm 0.25 \pm 0.72$ &

1176: $4.6 \pm0.3^{+1.3}_{-0.5}$ &  $0.88 \pm 0.17$ \\

1177: \hline

1178: eq.(\ref{figamaR}), $\zeta_I=0$& 3.21 & 3.51 & 4.8 & 0.96\\

1179: \hline

1180: \end{tabular}

1181: \caption{$Br(\phi\rightarrow \gamma f_0(980))$ and $Br(\phi\rightarrow \gamma

1182:   a_0(980))$ branching ratios where the energy distribution $f_R(Q^0)$ is

1183:   fixed from  eq.(\ref{achaprop}) and then eq.(\ref{figamaR}) is used. 

1184: The results reported in the  experimental references \cite{exppi0,expeta}  are

1185: also given.  In the second row of numbers, the function $\cH^I(Q^2)$,

1186: eq.(\ref{figamaR}) is used with $\zeta_I=0$, the choice that corresponds to

1187:  refs.\cite{exppi0,expeta}.

1188: \label{tab:acha}}

1189: \end{table}

1190: \end{center}

1191: 

1192: 

1193:  We now apply eq.(\ref{figamaR}) to

1194: the energy distributions $f_R(Q^0)$ coming from eq.(\ref{achaprop}), where the

1195: free parameters, the masses of the $f_0(980)$, $a_0(980)$ and four couplings,

1196: take the values of several fits of refs.\cite{akh,exppi0,expeta} used

1197: to obtain their experimental numbers of the rates $\phi\rightarrow

1198: \gamma R$. The calculation is  performed  with the function

1199: $\cH^I(Q^2)$ calculated as

1200: in refs.\cite{acha,snd98,exppi0,expeta}, that is, with $\zeta_I=0$ in eq.(\ref{figamaR}).

1201: This corresponds to the second row of numerical results of

1202: table \ref{tab:acha}. In this way,

1203: the previous decay widths are calculated without the shortcut to use a

1204:  fixed

1205: value for the branching ratio of the resonance $R$ to the lightest decay

1206: channel  in all the

1207: energy interval up to $M_\phi$, as in the present experimental analyses

1208:  \cite{akh,exppi0,expeta,dafnef0,dafnea0}.

1209: 

1210: In ref.\cite{exppi0} the quoted $Br(\phi\rightarrow \gamma f_0(980))=(3.5

1211: \pm0.3^{+1.3}_{-0.5})\,10^{-4}$ comes by multiplying by three the measured 

1212: $Br(\phi\rightarrow \gamma

1213: \pi^0\pi^0)$ with $Br^{f_0}_{\pi^0\pi^0}(Q^2)=1/3$, see

1214: eq.(\ref{rel}). In table \ref{tab:acha} the quoted value from

1215: ref.\cite{exppi0} is the one obtained with a fit to $\phi\rightarrow \gamma

1216: \pi^0\pi^0$ invariant

1217: mass distribution including as well a background from $\rho\pi^0$, which amounts

1218: at most to $15\%$. The error is correspondingly

1219: enlarged so as to make both

1220: results compatible. For the $a_0(980)$ case the only number that is reported,

1221: both in table \ref{tab:acha} and ref.\cite{expeta}, is the same as the measured

1222: $Br(\phi\rightarrow \gamma \pi^0\eta)$ assuming $Br^{a_0}_{\pi\eta}(Q^2)=1$. The fit

1223: 1 for the CMD-2 collaboration includes both the $\gamma \pi^0\pi^0$ and $\gamma

1224: \pi^+\pi^-$ final states. The CMD-2 second fit includes only the $\gamma

1225: \pi^0\pi^0$ final state. We see a general agreement between the reported and

1226: calculated numbers from eqs.(\ref{achaprop}), (\ref{widthR}) and

1227: (\ref{figamaR}), given in the first and

1228: second rows of numerical results, respectively, although the

1229: latter tend to be somewhat larger, particularly for the reported values of the

1230: CMD-2 collaboration.

1231: 

1232: 

1233: It has been recently claimed in ref.\cite{close2} that in order to

1234: interpret the experimental results of refs.\cite{exppi0,expeta} for the rates

1235: $\phi \rightarrow \gamma R$ one needs to include sizeable

1236: isospin violating effects in the couplings of the $f_0(980)$ and $a_0(980)$

1237: resonances to the $K^+ K^-$ and $K^0\bar{K}^0$ channels, so that 

1238: $|g^R_{K^+K^-}|\neq|g^R_{K^0\bar{K}^0}|$ and the difference is claimed to be

1239: as large as a 30$\% $.

1240: Particular emphasis is given to the necessity to deviate from

1241: isospin symmetry in order to understand the quotient between the branching

1242: ratios of the $\phi$ to $\gamma f_0(980)$ and $\gamma a_0(980)$ that, although with a

1243: large experimental uncertainty, as shown above, has a central value of

1244: around three instead of one.

1245: The much more precise results of refs.\cite{dafnef0,dafnea0}, when taking

1246: $Br(\phi\rightarrow\gamma f_0(980))=

1247: 3\,Br(\phi\rightarrow \gamma \pi^0\pi^0)$ and

1248: $Br(\phi\rightarrow\gamma a_0(980))=Br(\phi\rightarrow\gamma\pi^0\eta)$, 

1249: imply a value $4.1\pm 0.2$ for this ratio, very close to our results of table 

1250: \ref{table:widths}.

1251: Indeed in our approach the calculated $Br(\phi \rightarrow\gamma f_0(980)$ from

1252: eq.(\ref{figamaR}) and the one obtained by multiplying by three the 

1253: $Br(\phi\rightarrow\gamma\pi^0\pi^0)$

1254: differ in less than a $6\%$. Our study clearly shows that one

1255: can achieve a good agreement with the experimental data without any

1256: deviation from isospin symmetry in the couplings of the $f_0(980)$ and $a_0(980)$ 

1257: resonances to the $K^+ K^-$ and $K^0\bar{K}^0$ channels, although a

1258: contact interaction term $\phi\gamma K^0\bar{K}^0$, beyond the

1259: pure $K^+ K^-$ loop model of ref.\cite{acha}, has to be included as described above. 

1260: It is also clear that one should 

1261: abandon in the study of the $\phi\rightarrow \gamma R$ decays 

1262: the standard two body decay formula, eq.(\ref{gama2body}), used in refs.\cite{close2,joe}, 

1263:  due to the proximity of the threshold of the final 

1264: state to $M_\phi$ and the cubic dependence on $|\vk|$. As a result, 

1265: the effects of the finite

1266: widths of the scalar resonances, and their associated energy distributions $f_R(Q^0)$, 

1267: must be included from the very beginning. 

1268: For instance, had we used the values for the $f_0(980)$ and $a_0(980)$ masses 

1269: and the $g_{K^+K^-}^R$ couplings given in table \ref{tab:coup} we would have

1270: obtained $Br(\phi\rightarrow \gamma f_0)=1.17\, 10^{-4}$ and 

1271: $Br(\phi\rightarrow \gamma a_0)=0.58\, 10^{-5}$. The latter value is so small

1272: due to the rather high pole mass of the $a_0(980)$. Let us stress that this pole mass is 

1273: clearly different to the 

1274: value where the S-wave I=1 T-matrix elements peak, around 986 MeV, which indeed 

1275: changes from one matrix element to the other. Hence, it is rather artificial to decide which 

1276: is the value of $m_R$ to be used for the calculation of the rate 

1277: $\phi \rightarrow \gamma R$ in an extraordinary  sensitive two-body standard decay formula to

1278: the chosen $m_R$ value.

1279: 

1280: It is worth mentioning that we have reproduced the numerical results of

1281: refs.\cite{plb}, $\zeta_I=0$, and those of ref.\cite{marco}, $\zeta_I=-G_V/\sqrt{8}$,

1282: $\delta G^I=0$. Nevertheless, the $I(a,b)$

1283: function in ref.\cite{plb} was evaluated with the mass of the $K^0$ although

1284:  the mass of the $K^+$ should have been used since it

1285: corresponds to a $K^+K^-$ loop. This kinematical source of isospin violation gives rise

1286: to non-negligible corrections due to the proximity of the $K^0\bar{K}^0$ threshold

1287: to the mass of the $\phi(1020)$. When this is taken into account, one has

1288: $Br(\phi\rightarrow \gamma K^0\bar{K}^0)=3.0 \, 10^{-8}$ instead of $5

1289: \,10^{-8}$ as given in ref.\cite{plb} where the

1290: T-matrices of ref.\cite{npa} were used. We now evaluate the previous branching

1291: ratio with our present formalism and with the values of the $\delta G^I$ and

1292: $\zeta_I$ as given in table \ref{tab:fits}. For the strong amplitudes of

1293: ref.\cite{npa} we obtain $Br(\phi\rightarrow\gamma K^0\bar{K}^0)=3.7\,

1294: 10^{-8}$ and with the T-matrices of ref.\cite{iamprd} one has 

1295: $Br(\phi\rightarrow\gamma K^0\bar{K}^0)=6.43\,10^{-9}$. The tree level contact interaction 

1296:  $\phi\gamma K^0\bar{K}^0$ and its iteration

1297: through final state interactions interfere destructively and tend to cancel

1298: each other or even they give rise to a negative interference with the pure $K^+K^-$ kaon

1299: loop contribution of ref.\cite{plb}. 

1300: 

1301: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

1302: 

1303: 

1304: \section{Conclusions}

1305: \label{sec:conc}

1306: \def\theequation{\Alph{section}.\arabic{equation}}

1307: \setcounter{equation}{0}

1308: 

1309: 

1310: In this article we have shown how the experimental

1311: results for the decay widths $\Gamma(\phi \rightarrow \gamma f_0(980))$ and

1312: $\Gamma(\phi \rightarrow \gamma a_0(980))$ from refs.\cite{akh,exppi0,expeta}

1313: can be described 

1314: without abandoning isospin symmetry in the calculation of the S-wave strong T-matrix

1315: elements \cite{npa,iamprd}.  Nevertheless, in our final results we have calculated

1316: the integral $I(a,b)$ in terms of the $K^+$ mass instead of the

1317: average isospin mass. This kinematical isospin violating fact amounts to

1318: effects of around

1319: a 10$\%$ in the rate $\phi\rightarrow \gamma f_0(980)$ and around a 20$\%$ in

1320: the width to $\gamma a_0(980)$.

1321: The $\gamma K^0\bar{K}^0$ branching ratio is much more sensitive to these

1322: kinematical effects due to the so much reduced available phase space.

1323: The same situation would have arisen in the decays $\phi\rightarrow \gamma R$ as well

1324: if we had used the standard two body

1325: decay formula eq.(\ref{gama2body}), with well defined masses $m_R$, instead of

1326: having taken

1327: care of the finite width effects of the $f_0(980)$ and $a_0(980)$ resonances.   These

1328: results are quite opposite to what has been claimed in

1329: ref.\cite{close2} regarding the necessity of including large isospin

1330: violating effects in the couplings of the $f_0(980)$ and $a_0(980)$ scalar resonances

1331: to the $K^+ K^-$ and $K^0\bar{K}^0$ channels due to the proximity of the

1332: $K\bar{K}$ threshold

1333: to the nominal masses of the $f_0(980)$ and $a_0(980)$

1334: resonances. 

1335: We have also stressed that one should abandon the standard

1336: two body decay formula, with well defined masses for the $f_0(980)$ and $a_0(980)$

1337: resonances, in the calculation of the rates $\phi \rightarrow \gamma f_0(980)$ and $\phi

1338: \rightarrow \gamma a_0(980)$. Instead, finite energy distributions, $f_R(Q^0)$, have to be

1339: considered from the very beginning because of the dramatic changes in the resulting

1340: decay widths under small changes of the $f_0(980)$ and $a_0(980)$ masses as compared to their

1341: widths or as compared to the difference between the pole masses and the energy of the

1342: peaks in the S-wave $I=0$ and 1 T-matrices.

1343: 

1344: It is also worth remarking that the formula derived in sec.\ref{sec:gf} for

1345:  calculating the decay

1346: widths $\phi\rightarrow \gamma R$, eq.(\ref{widthR}), together with eq.(\ref{rel}), can

1347: be also applied in the experimental analyses of the rates $\phi\rightarrow \gamma

1348: R$ as an alternative to the rightful one followed in

1349: refs.\cite{akh,exppi0,expeta,dafnef0,dafnea0} from ref.\cite{acha}.  In this

1350:  way, one does not use, even as an intermediate step, the bare theoretical concept 

1351: $\Gamma(\phi\rightarrow \gamma R;\sqrt{Q^2})$ and incorporates the contribution

1352:  to $\cH^I(Q^2)$ proportional to $\zeta_I$ in eq.(\ref{figamaR}).

1353: 

1354: In order to describe the data we have included, beyond the $K^+K^¯$ loop model

1355: of ref.\cite{acha}, self-gauge invariant vertices  

1356: $V_I(\phi\gamma K\bar{K})$ with the $K\bar{K}$ pair in the isospin channel

1357: $I$.  As a result of the fit to the experimental data of 

1358: refs.\cite{exppi0,dafnef0,expeta,dafnea0}, a non-vanishing $V(\phi\gamma K^0\bar{K}^0)$ local

1359: term has emerged while the corresponding $V(\phi\gamma K^+K^-)$ tend to vanish. It

1360: is also shown that the former plays an important role in order to reproduce

1361: the experimental data. We have also included this contribution to

1362: the $\phi\rightarrow \gamma K^0\bar{K}^0$ decay although its effects do not spoil here the

1363: conclusions of ref.\cite{plb}, where only the $K^+K^-$ loop

1364: contribution is included, that this branching ratio is negligible small and does

1365: not offer any significant background to study CP violation in a

1366: $\phi$-factory like DA$\Phi$NE.

1367: 

1368: It has been repeatedly stated that the study of the $\phi(1020)$ radiative decays to

1369: $\gamma R$ constitutes an important test to unveil the nature of the $f_0(980)$

1370: and $a_0(980)$ resonances by comparing the resulting experimental data with

1371: the models and approaches present in the literature. Indeed, we see from

1372: eq.(\ref{figamaR}) that the study of these decays constitutes an

1373: alternative source of experimental information on the $f_0(980)$  resonance since

1374:  it is sensitive to $\hbox{Imag}[t_{22}^R]$ which is not

1375: directly measured in $\pi\pi$ scattering data. For the $a_0(980)$ resonance the experimental

1376: data is much more scarce than for the $f_0(980)$ and hence having new 

1377: precise data, as that of ref.\cite{dafnea0}, is of foremost importance. 

1378: Our simultaneous study of the new and accurate data of

1379: \cite{dafnea0} on $\phi\rightarrow\gamma\pi^0\eta$ together with that of

1380: $\phi\rightarrow\gamma\pi^0\pi^0$ \cite{exppi0,dafnef0} has given a coherent 

1381: reproduction of these  data in terms of only two free parameters. 

1382: This constitutes a step forward in the experimental

1383: verification of the strong T-matrices of refs.\cite{iamprd,npa} already successfully tested in 

1384: refs.\cite{npa,gamma,jpsi,iamprd}.

1385: 

1386: \medskip

1387: \noindent {\bf Acknowledgments}

1388: 

1389: \medskip

1390: I would like to thank E. Oset for a critical reading of the manuscript 

1391: and San Fu Tuan for useful communications. This work has been partially 

1392: supported by the EU TMR network Eurodaphne, contract no. ERBFMRX-CT98-0169.

1393: 

1394: 

1395: 

1396: 

1397: 

1398: \begin{thebibliography}{99}

1399: \bibitem{akh} R. R. Akhmetshin et al, Phys. Lett. {\bf B462}, 380 (1999).\vs

1400: %%CITATION = HEP-EX 9907006;%%

1401: \bibitem{snd98} M. N. Achasov et al.,  Phys. Lett. {\bf B440}, 442 (1998).\vs

1402: %%CITATION = HEP-EX 9807016;%%

1403: \bibitem{exppi0} M. N. Achasov et al., Phys. Lett. {\bf B485}, 349 (2000).\vs

1404: %%CITATION = HEP-EX 0005017;%%

1405: \bibitem{expeta} M. N. Achasov et al., Phys. Lett. {\bf B479}, 53 (2000).\vs

1406: %%CITATION = HEP-EX 0003031;%%

1407: \bibitem{dafnef0} The KLOE Collaboration, Phys. Lett. {\bf B537}, 21 (2002).\vs

1408: %%CITATION = HEP-EX 0204013;%%

1409: \bibitem{dafnea0} The KLOE Collaboration, Phys. Lett. {\bf B}536, 209 (2002).\vs

1410: %%CITATION = HEP-EX 0204012;%%

1411: \bibitem{plb} J. A. Oller, Phys. Lett. {\bf B426}, 7 (1998).\vs

1412: %%CITATION = HEP-PH ;%%

1413: \bibitem{marco} E. Marco, S. Hirenzaki, E. Oset and H. Toki,

1414: Phys. Lett. B470, 20 (1999).\vs

1415: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9903217;%%

1416: \bibitem{anke} E. Oset, J. A. Oller and U.-G. Mei{\ss}ner, Eur. Phys. J. {\bf A12},

1417: 435 (2001).\vs

1418: %%CITATION = NUCL-TH 0109050;%%

1419: \bibitem{kyoto} J. A. Oller, Invited talk at YITP Workshop on Possible

1420: Existence of the sigma meson and its Implications to Hadron Physics (sigma-meson 2000),

1421: Kyoto, Japan, 12-14 Jun 2000; hep-ph/0007349.\vs

1422: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0007349;%%

1423: \bibitem{jamin} M. Jamin, J. A. Oller and A. Pich, Eur. Phys. J. {\bf C24}, 

1424: 237 (2002).\vs

1425: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0110194;%%

1426: \bibitem{acha}N. N. Achasov and V. N. Ivanchenko, Nucl. Phys. {\bf B315},

1427: 465 (1989).\vs

1428: %%CITATION = NUPHA,B315,465;%%

1429: \bibitem{lucio}J. Lucio and J. Pestieau, Phys. Rev. {\bf D42}, 3253 (1990).\\

1430: %%CITATION = PHRVA,D42,3253;%%

1431: J. L. Lucio and M. Napsuciale, Nucl. Phys. {\bf B440}, 237 (1995).\vs

1432: %%CITATION = NUPHA,B440,237;%%

1433: \bibitem{truong} S. Nussinov and T. N. Truong, Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf 63},

1434: 1349 (1989);

1435: %%CITATION = PRLTA,63,1349;%%

1436: ibid Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf 63}, 2003 (1989).\vs

1437: \bibitem{close} F. E. Close, N. Isgur and S. Kumano, Nucl. Phys. {\bf B389},

1438: 513 (1993).\vs

1439: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9301253;%%

1440: \bibitem{bra1}A. Bramon, A. Grau and G. Panchieri, Phys. Lett. {\bf B283}, 416 (1992);

1441:  Phys. Lett. {\bf B289}, 97 (1992).\vs

1442: %%CITATION = PHLTA,B283,416;%%

1443: %%CITATION = PHLTA,B289,97;%%

1444: \bibitem{bra3}A. Bramon, R. Escribano, J. L. Lucio, M. Napsuciale and G. Panchieri,

1445: Phys.Lett. {\bf B494}, 221 (2000).\vs

1446: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0008188;%%

1447: \bibitem{markushin}V. E. Markushin, Eur. Phys. J{\bf A8}, 389 (2000).\vs

1448: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0005164;%%

1449: \bibitem{referee} N. N. Achasov and V. V. Gubin, Phys. Rev. {\bf D63}, 094007 (2001).\vs

1450: \bibitem{gok} A. Gokalp and O. Yilmaz, Phys. Rev. {\bf D64}, 053017 (2001).\vs

1451: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0106211;%%

1452: \bibitem{fazio}F. De Fazio and M.R. Pennington, Phys. Lett. {\bf B521}, 15 (2001).\vs

1453:  %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0104289;%%

1454: \bibitem{escri}A. Bramon, R. Escribano, J. L. Lucio M. , M. Napsuciale and

1455:   G. Pancheri, hep-ph/0204339.\vs

1456: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0204339;%%

1457: \bibitem{close2}F. E. Close and A. Kirk, Phys. Lett. {\bf B515}, 13 (2001).\vs

1458: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0106108;%%

1459: \bibitem{acha2} N. N. Achasov and A. V. Kiselev, Phys. Lett. {\bf B534}, 83 (2002).\vs

1460: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0203042;%%

1461: \bibitem{joe}D. Black, M. Harada and J. Schechter, Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf88},

1462:   181603 (2002).\vs

1463: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0202069;%%

1464: \bibitem{speth} O. Krehl, R. Rapp and J. Speth, Phys. Lett. {\bf B390}, 23 (1997).\vs

1465: %%CITATION = NUCL-TH 9609013;%%

1466: \bibitem{isos1} N. N. Achasov, S. A. Devyanin and G. N. Shestakov, Phys. Lett. {\bf B88}, 367

1467: (1979).\\

1468: %%CITATION = PHLTA,B88,367;%%

1469:  N. N. Achasov and G. N. Shestakov, Phys. Rev. {\bf D56}, 212 (1997).\vs

1470: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9610409;%%

1471: \bibitem{isos2} B. Kerbikov and F. Tabakin, Phys. Rev. {\bf C62}, 064601 (2000).\vs

1472: %%CITATION = NUCL-TH 0006017;%%

1473: \bibitem{isos3} V. Yu Grishina, L. A. Kondratyuk, M. B\"uscher, W. Gassing and H. Str\"oher, Phys.

1474: Lett. {\bf B521}, 217 (2000).\vs

1475: %%CITATION = NUCL-TH 0103081;%%

1476: \bibitem{conga} G. Ecker, J. Gasser, A. Pich and E. de Rafael, Nucl. Phys.

1477: {\bf B321}, 311 (1989).\vs

1478: %%CITATION = NUPHA,B321,311;%%

1479: \bibitem{npa}J. A. Oller and E. Oset, Nucl. Phys. {\bf A620}, 438 (1997).

1480: (E)-ibid {\bf A652},407 (1999).\vs

1481: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9702314;%%

1482: \bibitem{jpsi}J. A. Oller and U.-G. Mei{\ss}ner, Nucl. Phys.

1483: {\bf A679}, 671 (2001).\vs

1484: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0005253;%%

1485: \bibitem{palomar}J. A. Oller, E. Oset and J. E. Palomar, Phys. Rev. {\bf D63},

1486: 114009 (2001).\vs

1487: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0011096;%%

1488: \bibitem{iamprd}J. A. Oller, E. Oset and J. R. Pel\'aez, Phys. Rev. 

1489: {\bf D59}, 074001 (1999); (E)-ibid {\bf D60}, 099906 (1999). \vs \vs \vs 

1490: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9804209;%%

1491: \bibitem{wein}S. Weinberg, Physica {\bf A96}, 327 (1979).\vs

1492: %%CITATION = PHYSA,A96,327;%%

1493: \bibitem{gl}J. Gasser and H. Leutwyler,

1494: Ann. Phys. (N.Y.) {\bf 158}, 142 (1984).\vs

1495: %%CITATION = APNYA,158,142;%%

1496: \bibitem{acha3} N. N. Achasov and V.V. Gubin, Phys. Rev. {\bf D56}, 4084 (1997).\vs

1497: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9703367;%%

1498: \bibitem{gamma} J. A. Oller and E. Oset, Nucl. Phys. {\bf A629}, 739 (1998).\vs

1499: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9706487;%%

1500: \bibitem{iam}

1501: A. Dobado, M. J. Herrero and T. N. Truong, Phys. Lett. {\bf B 235}, 134

1502: (1990). \\

1503: T. Hannah, Phys. Rev. {\bf D52}, 4971 (1995).\\

1504: A. Dobado and J. R. Pel\'aez, Phys. Rev. {\bf D47}, 4883 (1993);

1505: Phys. Rev. {\bf D56}, 3057 (1997).\\

1506: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9301276;%%

1507: %%CITATION = HEP-PH PHRVA,D52,4971;%%

1508: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9604416;%%

1509: J. A. Oller, E. Oset and J. R. Pel\'aez, Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf 80}, 3452

1510: (1998).\\

1511: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9803242;%%

1512:  F. Guerrero and J. A. Oller, Nucl. Phys. {\bf B537}, 459 (1999).\\

1513: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9805334;%%

1514: A. G\'omez-Nicola and J. R. Pel\'aez, Phys. Rev. {\bf D65}, 054009 (2002).\vs

1515: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0109056;%%

1516: \bibitem{nd}J. A. Oller and E. Oset, Phys. Rev. {\bf D60}, 074023 (1999).\vs

1517: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9809337;%%

1518: \bibitem{pdg}D. E. Groom et al., Eur. Phys. J. {\bf C15}, 1 (2000).\vs

1519: %%CITATION = EPHJA,C15,1;%%

1520: \end{thebibliography}

1521: \end{document}

1522: