1: \documentstyle[12pt,epsf,epsfig]{article}
2: \setlength{\footheight}{0.cm}
3: \setlength{\textwidth}{16.3cm}
4: \setlength{\textheight}{23.7cm}
5: \setlength{\oddsidemargin}{-0.3cm}
6: \setlength{\evensidemargin}{-0.3cm}
7: \setlength{\topmargin}{-1.0cm}
8: \parskip=6pt
9: \parindent=0pt
10: %\setlength{\baselineskip}{1.0cm}
11: \renewcommand{\baselinestretch}{1.4}%{1.4}
12: %\pagestyle{plain}
13: \def\lpmb#1{\mbox{\boldmath $#1$}}
14: \newcommand{\bp}{{\bf p}}
15: \newcommand{\bk}{{\bf k}}
16: \newcommand{\bx}{{\bf x}}
17: \newcommand{\by}{{\bf y}}
18: \newcommand{\bz}{{\bf z}}
19: \newcommand{\btab}{\begin{tabbing}}
20: \newcommand{\etab}{\end{tabbing}}
21: \newcommand{\eqntimes}{\mbox{} \times}
22: \newcommand{\eqnhspace}{\hspace{3em}}
23: %\newcommand{\intereqnvspace}{\vspace{-1.4ex}}
24: \newcommand{\intereqnvspace}{\vspace{-2.1ex}}
25: \newcommand{\eqnneghspace}{\hspace{-6ex}}
26: \newcommand{\beqn}{\begin{equation}}
27: \newcommand{\eeqn}{\end{equation}}
28: \newcommand{\barr}[1]{\begin{array}{#1}}
29: \newcommand{\earr}{\end{array}}
30: \newcommand{\beqna}{\begin{eqnarray}}
31: \newcommand{\eeqna}{\end{eqnarray}}
32: \newcommand{\btablec}{\begin{table} \begin{center}}
33: \newcommand{\etablec}{\end{center} \end{table}}
34: \newcommand{\lapprox}{\stackrel{<}{\scriptstyle \sim}}
35: \newcommand{\rapprox}{\stackrel{>}{\scriptstyle \sim}}
36: \newcommand{\gapproxeq}{\lower.7ex\hbox{$\;\stackrel{\textstyle>}
37: {\sim}\;$}}
38: %\newcommand{\plabel}[1]{\label{#1} \mbox{ \small \sc #1} \hspace{0.2cm}}
39: \newcommand{\plabel}[1]{\label{#1}}
40: %\newcommand{\pbibitem}[1]{\bibitem{#1} \mbox{\small \sc #1} \hspace{0.2cm}}
41: \newcommand{\pbibitem}[1]{\bibitem{#1}}
42: \marginparwidth=3cm
43: \marginparsep=0.6cm
44: \def\question#1{}
45: %\def\question#1{{{\marginpar{\tiny \sc #1}}}}
46: \input epsf
47:
48: \begin{document}
49: \title{
50: \begin{flushright}
51: \small{hep-ph/0304231} \\
52: \small{LA-UR-03-2566}
53: \end{flushright}
54: \vspace{0.6cm}
55: \Large\bf Using $\pi_2(1670)\rightarrow
56: b_1(1235)\:\pi$ to constrain hadronic models}
57: \vskip 0.2 in
58: \author{Philip R. Page\thanks{\small \em E-mail: prp@lanl.gov} \\
59: {\small \em Theoretical Division, MS B283, Los Alamos
60: National Laboratory,}\\
61: {\small \em Los Alamos, NM 87545, U.S.A.} \\
62: Simon Capstick\thanks{\small \em E-mail: capstick@csit.fsu.edu} \\
63: {\small \em Department of Physics, Florida State University,
64: Tallahassee, FL 32306-4350, U.S.A.}}
65: %\date{September 1998}
66: \date{}
67: \maketitle
68: \begin{abstract}{
69: We show that current analyses of experimental data indicate that the
70: strong decay mode $\pi_2\rightarrow b_1\pi$ is anomalously small.
71: Non-relativistic quark models with spin-1 quark pair
72: creation, such as $^3P_0$, $^3S_1$ and $^3D_1$
73: models, as well as instanton and lowest order one-boson (in this case
74: $\pi$) emission models, can accommodate the analyses of experimental
75: data, because of a quark-spin selection rule. Models and effects that
76: violate this selection rule, such as higher order one-boson emission
77: models, as well as mixing with other Fock states,
78: may be constrained by the small $\pi_2\rightarrow b_1\pi$
79: decay. This can provide a viability check on newly proposed decay
80: mechanisms. We show that for mesons made up of a heavy quark and
81: anti-quark, the
82: selection rule is exact to all orders of Quantum Chromodynamics
83: (QCD) perturbation theory.}
84: \end{abstract}
85: \bigskip
86:
87: PACS number(s): 13.25.Jx \hspace{.2cm}14.40.Cs
88: \hspace{.2cm} 12.39.Ki \hspace{.2cm} 12.38.Bx
89:
90: Keywords: $\pi_2(1670)$, $^3P_0$ model, gluon exchange, pion exchange,
91: instanton
92:
93: \section{Analyses of experimental data on $\pi_2(1670)\rightarrow b_1(1235)\:\pi$}
94:
95: Recently, the VES Collaboration published for the first time an upper
96: bound of $0.0019$ on the branching fraction for Br$[\pi_2\rightarrow
97: b_1\pi]$, at the $97.7$\% confidence level. This branching fraction is
98: measured in $37$ GeV $\pi^-$ collisions on a nucleus, in the reaction
99: $\pi^- A \rightarrow \omega\pi^-\pi^0 A^\ast$~\cite{amelin}. This
100: small branching fraction is consistent with a preliminary analysis
101: performed by the E852 Collaboration~\cite{popov} of data on the
102: reaction $\pi^- p \rightarrow \omega\pi^-\pi^0 p$, in collisions of an
103: $18$ GeV $\pi^-$ beam with a proton target.
104:
105: \begin{table}[t]
106: \begin{center}
107: \caption{ Branching fractions, and ratios $R(X) = |{\cal M}(X)|^2\; /
108: \; |{\cal M}(f_2\pi)|^2$ and $\tilde{R}(X) = |\tilde{\cal M}(X)|^2\; /
109: \; |\tilde{\cal M}(f_2\pi)|^2$ of partial widths with phase space and flavor
110: factors removed to those of the dominant decay mode.
111: ${\cal M}$ and $\tilde{\cal M}$ are defined in the text. The decay is
112: assumed to proceed via the bold-faced $L$ wave, since in all modes
113: [except for $f_2\pi$, where~\protect\cite{pdg00} the $D$ wave is
114: $(0.18\pm 0.06)^2=(3.2\pm 2.2)\%$ of the $S$ wave] the contributions
115: from the different partial waves are not known. Although the branching
116: fractions do not add to unity, since Ref.~\protect\cite{pdg00}
117: constrained a subset of these modes by unitarity, those outside of
118: this subset were defined relative to the dominant $f_2\pi$ mode, and
119: so this does not affect the ratios $R(X)$ and $\tilde{R}(X)$.
120: The constraint for the $\rho(1450)\pi$ mode is incorrectly
121: quoted~\protect\cite{dorofeev} in
122: Refs.~\protect\cite{amelin,pdg00} and should read $Br[\pi_2(1670)\rightarrow
123: \rho(1450)\pi]\; Br[\rho(1450)\rightarrow \omega\pi] < 0.36 \%$.
124: Since $Br[\rho(1450)\rightarrow \omega\pi]$ is poorly known,
125: estimates for a branching ratio of a third are provided.
126: \plabel{wid}}
127: \begin{tabular}{|c|l|l|c|c||r|r|}
128: \hline %------------------------
129: Mode $X$ & $p$ (GeV) & $L$ & $f^2$ & Br$(\pi_2\rightarrow X)$
130: (\%)~\protect\cite{pdg00} &
131: $R(X)$ & $\tilde{R}(X)$\\
132: \hline \hline %------------------------------
133: $f_2\pi$ & 0.326 & {\bf S}, D, G & 2 &$56.2\pm 3.2$& 1.00 & 1.00 \\
134: $\sigma\pi$ & 0.634 & {\bf D} & 2 &$13\pm 6$ & 0.73 & 1.00 \\
135: $\omega\rho$ & 0.308 & {\bf P}, F & 2 &$ 2.7\pm 1.1$& 0.53 & 0.53 \\
136: $\rho(1450)\pi$& 0.143 & {\bf P}, F & 4 &$<0.36\times 3$ &$<0.36\times 3$&$<0.33\times 3$\\
137: $\rho\pi$ & 0.649 & {\bf P}, F & 4 &$31\pm 4$ & 0.33 & 0.46 \\
138: $K\bar{K}^\ast$& 0.450 & {\bf P}, F & 2 &$ 4.2\pm 1.4$ & 0.27 & 0.30 \\
139: $b_1\pi$ & 0.363 & {\bf D} & 4 &$<0.19$ &$<0.09$&$<0.09$\\
140: \hline %------------------------------
141: \end{tabular}
142: \end{center}
143: \end{table}
144:
145: The decay $\pi_2\rightarrow b_1\pi$ is allowed by conservation of
146: parity, angular momentum, isospin and G-parity, and so its strength
147: should be comparable with that of other decays which are allowed by
148: the same quantum numbers, which are conserved to an extraordinary
149: degree by the strong interactions. In order to show that the branching
150: ratio is small for dynamical reasons, independent of any model,
151: factors due to phase space and flavor should be removed. The standard
152: expression for the partial width is~\cite{pdg00}
153: %
154: \beqn
155: \Gamma = \frac{p}{8\pi \; (2 J_{\pi_2} +1) \;
156: m_{\pi_2}^2}\; |p^L f {\cal M}|^2
157: \eeqn
158: %
159: where $m_{\pi_2}$ and $J_{\pi_2}$ are the mass and total angular momentum of
160: the decaying $\pi_2$, the decay momentum $p$ is measured in the rest
161: frame of the $\pi_2$, the relative orbital angular momentum of the decay
162: products is $L$, and $p^L f {\cal M}$ is the decay amplitude. The
163: amplitude with the phase space ($p^L$) and flavor ($f$) factors
164: removed is ${\cal M}$. In Table~\ref{wid} we show the ratios of
165: $|{\cal M}|^2$ for the observed decay modes of the $\pi_2$ to that of
166: the dominant decay mode ($f_2\pi$). A further refinement is to remove
167: the dependence on the kinematics of the decays from the form
168: factors of the initial and final mesons. With universal Gaussian wave functions for the mesons, this can be accomplished by defining ${\cal M} = \exp
169: (-p^2/[12\beta^2])\:\tilde{\cal M}$, where $\beta =
170: 0.4$ GeV~\cite{d2637}.
171:
172: The ratios of the squares of these amplitudes with the flavor, phase
173: space, and kinematic factors removed is also shown in
174: Table~\ref{wid}. It is evident that the $b_1\pi$ decay is a factor of
175: between 3 and 11 weaker than the other decay modes for dynamical
176: reasons, making it anomalously small. This is emphasized by
177: Fig.~\ref{merc}, which shows the $|{\cal M}|^2$ ratios plotted
178: logarithmically. Since there is only an experimental upper bound on
179: the $b_1\pi$ mode, this suppression factor could be even larger. There
180: is also evidence from recent analyses of E852 data~\cite{KuhnEugenio}
181: of a $\pi_2(1670)$ signal in the $f_1\pi$ and $a_2\eta$ final
182: states. The discovery of additional final states will have the effect
183: of further reducing the $b_1\pi$ branching fraction. We urge future
184: experiments to put more restrictive bounds on the $\pi_2\to b_1\pi$
185: decay mode.
186:
187: \begin{figure}[t]
188: \begin{center}
189: \epsfig{file=ln.eps,width=1.0\linewidth,clip=}
190: \end{center}
191: \vspace{-1.0cm}\caption{\plabel{merc} Ratios
192: ($|{\cal M}(X)|^2\; / \; |{\cal M}(f_2\pi)|^2$ ) plotted logarithmically.}
193: \end{figure}
194:
195: \section{Models that can accommodate $\pi_2(1670)\rightarrow b_1(1235)\:\pi$}
196:
197: The decay $\pi_2\rightarrow b_1\pi$ is particularly clean in the sense
198: that it is only sensitive to OZI allowed decays. This is because
199: OZI-forbidden decay processes, which allow the creation of either the
200: isovector $\pi_2$, $b_1$ or $\pi$ out of isoscalar gluons, are
201: forbidden by isospin symmetry (see Fig. \ref{OZI}).
202: The suppression of isospin symmetry breaking amplitudes is
203: much greater than that of OZI forbidden amplitudes, the latter being
204: about a factor of 10.
205: \begin{figure}[t]
206: \begin{center}
207: \epsfig{file=OZI-viol.eps,width=0.3\linewidth,clip=}
208: \end{center}
209: \vspace{-0.5cm}\caption{\plabel{OZI} OZI forbidden decays of an isovector meson to a
210: pair of isovector mesons.}
211: \end{figure}
212:
213: In non-relativistic quark-pair-creation models, where OZI-allowed
214: meson decay processes are modeled by an initial $q\bar{q}^\prime$ pair
215: decaying to the two pairs $q\bar{q}^{\prime\prime}$ and
216: $q^{\prime\prime}\bar{q}^\prime$ (see Fig.~\ref{diag}),
217: a simple selection rule arises when
218: all the mesons have quark-spin $S=0$. If the
219: $q^{\prime\prime}\bar{q}^{\prime\prime}$ pair is created with
220: quark-spin $S_{\mbox{\small pair}}=1$, then conservation of quark-spin implies that the
221: amplitude is zero~\cite{close,barnes}. In the quark model, conventional mesons with
222: $S=0$ have $J^{PC} = 0^{-+},\; 1^{+-},\; 2^{-+},\;
223: 3^{+-},\; 4^{-+},\; 5^{+-}, \ldots$, of which only states
224: corresponding to the first three $J^{PC}$ have been established
225: experimentally~\cite{pdg00}. The isovector resonances with these three
226: $J^{PC}$ and in their radial ground states are $\pi, b_1$ and $\pi_2$,
227: respectively. The only kinematically allowed decay involving these
228: three $S=0$ resonances is $\pi_2\rightarrow b_1\pi$. Moreover, all other
229: kinematically allowed decays involving $\pi, b_1, \pi_2$, and their
230: isoscalar partners, are forbidden by the quantum numbers conserved by
231: the strong interaction. The first explicit mention of the quark-spin
232: selection rule or its application to $\pi_2\rightarrow b_1\pi$
233: was in Refs.~\cite{close}, although it is implicit in Ref.~\cite{pene}.
234:
235: No other strong decay involving conventional mesons composed of quarks
236: other than $u,d$ quarks currently appears to be able to test the
237: selection rule. Decays $q\bar{q}\rightarrow q\bar{q}+q\bar{q}$ with
238: $q \in \{ {s,c,b} \}$, where each meson is in its radial ground state with
239: the $S=0$ quantum numbers $J^{PC} = 0^{-+},\; 1^{+-}$ or $2^{-+}$, are
240: forbidden for the same reasons as decays between the isoscalar
241: resonances above. With the exception of the pseudoscalars, quark-model
242: mesons with
243: the open flavor structure $K,\; D,\; D_s,\; B,\; B_s$ or $B_c$, and
244: lying on the un-natural parity sequence $J^P=0^-,\; 1^+,\; 2^-,\; 3^+,
245: \; 4^-,\; 5^+,\ldots$ are mixtures of $S=0$ and $S=1$ states, since
246: $S=1$ components are no longer excluded by charge conjugation symmetry.
247: In QCD, if one of the initial or final mesons in the decay has this
248: open flavor structure, a second meson must also. This implies that the
249: selection rule can only be tested in decays involving open flavor
250: mesons if there are two open flavor pseudoscalar mesons
251: involved. Since two pseudoscalars with an arbitrary relative angular
252: momentum couple to the natural-parity sequence $J^P=0^+,\; 1^-,\;
253: 2^+,\; 3^-, \; 4^+,\; 5^-,\ldots$, the $S=0$ selection rule cannot be
254: tested with decays involving open flavor mesons. It is, therefore,
255: evident how central and unique the decay mode $\pi_2\rightarrow
256: b_1\pi$ is for testing this selection rule.
257: %
258: \begin{figure}[t]
259: \begin{center}
260: \vspace{-1cm}\epsfig{file=nr_new.eps,width=1.0\linewidth,clip=}
261: \end{center}
262: \vspace{-1.0cm}\caption{\plabel{diag} The OZI allowed decay of an initial meson to two
263: final mesons in various models.}
264: \end{figure}
265:
266: The selection rule obtains when the $\pi_2,\; b_1$ and $\pi$ are
267: treated non-relativistically as $S=0$ mesons in the quark model. Remarkably,
268: relativistic interactions cannot introduce $S=1$ components
269: in the $\pi_2$, $b_1$ and $\pi$ wave functions, so that the
270: selection rule remains valid after relativistic interaction corrections
271: to the quark model.
272: This is because the $q\bar{q}'$ Fock state
273: wave function of the $\pi_2$ can only have $^1D_2$
274: quantum numbers before relativistic interactions, and the interactions
275: cannot change that. The analogous argument holds for $b_1$ and $\pi$.
276: %
277: Even in the fully relativistic equal-time Bethe-Salpeter equation
278: the selection rule is exact~\cite{ricken}.
279: %
280: It remains an open question whether a selection rule would be found
281: in field theoretic calculations of
282: $\pi_2\rightarrow b_1\pi$, e.g. in the lattice QCD,
283: QCD sum rule, and Dyson-Schwinger equation approaches.
284:
285: It has been pointed out that a success of the non-relativistic $^3P_0$
286: pair-creation model (Fig.~\ref{diag}), where
287: $S_{\mbox{\small pair}}=1$, is the fact
288: that the decay $\pi_2\rightarrow b_1\pi$ is predicted to
289: vanish~\cite{barnes}. Other decay models where
290: $S_{\mbox{\small pair}}=1$, such as the non-relativistic
291: chromo-electric string-breaking model where the pair has $^3S_1$ or
292: $^3D_1$ quantum numbers~\cite{alcock} (Fig.~\ref{diag}), will also have this
293: suppression. Both the $^3P_0$ and $^3S_1$ models involve a decay
294: operator proportional to $\lpmb{\sigma} \cdot \bp$, where the
295: $\lpmb{\sigma}$ is the spin of the created quark anti-quark pair, and
296: $\bp$ is a momentum operator. It is not surprising that the $^3P_0$,
297: $^3S_1$ and $^3D_1$ models obey the selection rule, since these all
298: treat the quarks non-relativistically, as though they are heavy. This
299: is a special case of a result that is shown in Appendix~\ref{app}:
300: when each of the mesons participating in the decay is composed of a
301: very heavy quark and anti-quark, the selection rule is exact to all
302: orders of QCD perturbation theory.
303:
304: Since 't Hooft's instanton-induced six-quark vertices only affects strong
305: decays where all participating mesons have J=0, and their singlet flavor
306: structure requires the presence of a strange quark (and anti-quark), decay
307: models based on these vertices also predict vanishing $\pi_2\to b_1\pi$
308: decay~\cite{munz}.
309:
310: %At was argued that in the limit where there pair creation
311: %is performed with infinitely heavy quarks, the interaction Hamiltonian
312: %for QCD in Coulomb gauge is of the form~\cite{swanson}
313:
314: %\begin{equation}
315: %H = - \int h^\dagger \vec{\sigma}\cdot\vec{D} \chi
316: %+ \mbox{H.c.} \hspace{1cm}
317: %\vec{D} = i\vec{\nabla} + g \vec{A}
318: %\end{equation}
319: %where $h^\dagger$ creates a quark and $\chi$ creates an anti-quark.
320: %The interaction Hamiltonian implies that
321: %the selection rule follows for pair creation
322: %of infinitely heavy quarks.
323: %
324: \section{One-boson emission models}
325:
326: The one-boson exchange (OBE) model describes the coarse features of the
327: baryon spectrum as being due to confinement and the exchange of
328: pseudoscalar~\cite{GR} and scalar and vector~\cite{Graz} bosons
329: between the quarks. For light-quark baryons an important pseudoscalar
330: exchange potential comes from pion exchange. This model is not applied
331: to meson spectroscopy. Two reasons are often given for this. The first
332: is that if the light pseudoscalar bosons are the
333: pseudo-Goldstone bosons of spontaneously-broken chiral symmetry, then
334: it is inconsistent to also treat them as quark-anti-quark bound states and
335: allow OBE to act between the quark and anti-quark. This argument would
336: not appear to be applicable to heavier quark-anti-quark bound states
337: such as the $\pi_2(1670)$ and $b_1(1235)$.
338:
339: A second reason for not applying this model to the meson spectrum is
340: that if one-boson-exchange in baryons is viewed microscopically, with
341: the pion treated as a $q\bar{q}$ pair, an exchange of quarks in the
342: process $q q^\prime \rightarrow q^\prime q$ can be viewed in one time
343: ordering as an exchange of $q\bar{q}^\prime$, which can be identified
344: with a meson. In a meson the exchange of quarks occurs in the process
345: $q \bar{q}^\prime \rightarrow \bar{q}^\prime q$, which in one time
346: ordering is the exchange of a di-quark $q q^\prime$ and not a meson.
347: Exchange of mesons like the pion between quarks is, therefore, not
348: expected to be important to the structure of mesons, even if it is
349: important for baryons.
350:
351: Once one admits a quark-pseudoscalar meson vertex as employed in baryon
352: spectroscopy, this vertex naturally leads baryons to decay to a
353: baryon plus a pseudoscalar meson, and mesons to decay to a meson and a
354: pseudoscalar meson. For this reason the OBE model of
355: baryon spectroscopy {\it implies} a one-boson emission decay
356: model in baryons and in spatially excited mesons. This model should,
357: therefore, be confronted with $\pi_2\rightarrow b_1\pi$.
358:
359: In the $^3P_0$, $^3S_1$ and $^3D_1$ models,
360: pionic decay of mesons proceeds via
361: $q\bar{q}^\prime$ pair decaying to the two final meson pairs
362: $q\bar{q}^{\prime\prime}$ and $q^{\prime\prime}\bar{q}^\prime$, one of
363: which is identified with the pseudoscalar boson. As shown in
364: Fig.~\ref{diag}, the one-pion emission
365: model has either $q\rightarrow q^{\prime\prime}\pi$, or
366: $\bar{q}^\prime\rightarrow\bar{q}^{\prime\prime}\pi$. The
367: lowest order one-pion coupling to the quark or anti-quark is given by
368: the Lagrangian density~\cite{Becchi,Hen,Goity}
369: %
370: \beqn {\cal L}_\pi = i \frac{g_A^q}{2f_{\pi}}
371: \bar{\psi}(x)\gamma_5\gamma_{\mu}
372: \partial^{\mu}\vec{\pi}(x)\cdot\vec{\tau}\psi(x) + \mbox{H.c.} \eeqn
373: %
374: An expansion of this axial current gives a decay operator of the form
375: $\lpmb{\sigma}_q \cdot \bk$ (Eqs. 2 and 28 of Ref.~\cite{Hen}), where
376: $\lpmb{\sigma}_q$ is the spin of the quark emitting the pion, and
377: $\bk$ is the pion momentum. This means that the operator creating the
378: boson is a vector operator in the space of the spin of the decaying
379: meson, and so cannot link an initial $S=0$ meson to a final $S=0$
380: meson, so the selection rule is also valid for lowest order one-boson
381: emission.
382:
383: We conclude that the phenomenologically successful pair-creation model
384: for light-light mesons (the $^3P_0$ model)~\cite{barnes}, the
385: chromo-electric string-breaking model ($^3S_1$ or $^3D_1$ model),
386: instantons~\cite{munz}, and
387: the lowest order one-boson emission model, which has successfully been
388: applied to the decay of heavy-light
389: %and heavy-heavy
390: mesons~\cite{Hen,Goity}, are consistent with the experimental decay width of
391: $\pi_2\rightarrow b_1\pi$.
392:
393: \section{Models possibly constrained by $\pi_2(1670)\rightarrow b_1(1235)
394: \:\pi$}
395:
396: Higher order contributions in one-boson emission models contain terms that
397: are not of the form $\lpmb{\sigma}_q \cdot \bp$, which violate the
398: selection rule. An example is interactions where {\it both} a
399: pseudoscalar boson is emitted, {\it and} a particle is exchanged
400: between the quark and anti-quark in the initial meson (Eqs.~13, 38 and
401: 39 of Ref.~\cite{Hen}). The amplitudes corresponding to the higher
402: order contributions can be similar in size to those corresponding to
403: the lowest order contribution\footnote{See Table 4 of
404: Ref.~\cite{Hen}. Note that the size of the part of the higher-order
405: interaction that is not of the form $\lpmb{\sigma}\cdot\bp$ is not
406: evaluated in Ref.~\protect\cite{Hen}.}. This suggests that consistency
407: with the small decay branch for $\pi_2\rightarrow b_1\pi$ can
408: constrain models which do not obey the selection rule, such as the
409: higher order contributions introduced in one-pseudoscalar-boson emission
410: models~\cite{Hen} to cure problems with the lowest order
411: contribution~\cite{Hen,Goity}. It can also provide a viability check on
412: proposed decay mechanisms. An example, depicted in Fig.~\ref{diag},
413: is where there is a single
414: gluon exchanged between a quark in the decaying hadron and the vertex
415: at which the quark pair is created. Although this one-gluon exchange
416: quark pair creation decay mechanism violates the selection
417: rule\footnote{One-gluon exchange involves both Coulomb and transverse
418: interactions. The former has a simple $\lpmb{\sigma}\cdot{\bp}$ pair
419: creation operator, but the latter involves {\it both} spin vector pair
420: creation, and an additional term at the vertex where the quark or
421: anti-quark emits a gluon (See Eqs. B5-B7 of
422: Ref.~\protect\cite{ackleh}). This additional term includes a
423: $\lpmb{\sigma}\cdot \bp/m$ contribution~\protect\cite{ackleh}, so that
424: the overall transverse gluon interaction has spin vector operators at
425: {\it both} interaction vertices of the gluon, giving rise to a
426: violation of the selection rule.}, it is found to be sub-dominant
427: relative to the $^3P_0$ model~\cite{ackleh}, so that it is not
428: expected to be constrained by $\pi_2\rightarrow b_1\pi$.
429: If appreciable strength for
430: $\pi_2\rightarrow b_1\pi$, inconsistent with experiment,
431: is predicted by either higher order terms present in the one-boson
432: emission decay mechanism, or by the one-gluon exchange pair creation
433: decay mechanism, one of these decay models could be ruled out. This
434: could distinguish between the OBE and one-gluon
435: exchange models of the coarse features of the light baryon spectrum.
436: % in a more model independent way than other constraints \cite{chizma}
437:
438: Even though the main models commonly applied to strong decays have been
439: discussed, a comprehensive discussion of all proposed decay mechanisms
440: has not been given. Such mechanisms should be confronted with
441: the experimental data on $\pi_2\rightarrow b_1\pi$.
442:
443: \section{Further constraints due to $\pi_2(1670)\rightarrow b_1(1235)
444: \:\pi$}
445:
446: In addition to
447: aspects of the decay models discussed in the previous section, further
448: breaking of the selection rule can arise from
449: mixing with other Fock states. The mixing of mesons
450: participating in the decay with non-$q\bar{q}'$ Fock states is constrained
451: by the experimentally measured $\pi_2\rightarrow b_1\pi$ width.
452: Examples of such mixing are mixing between the $S=0$ meson $\pi_2$
453: and the $S=1$ hybrid $\pi_2$ meson expected nearby in mass,
454: and non-mesonic Fock states in the pseudo-Goldstone boson $\pi$.
455:
456: \section*{Acknowledgments}
457:
458: Helpful discussions with P.~Eugenio and V.A.~Dorofeev are gratefully
459: acknowledged. This research is supported by the U.S. Department of
460: Energy under contracts DE-FG02-86ER40273 (SC), and W-7405-ENG-36
461: (PRP).
462:
463: \appendix
464:
465: \section{Appendix: The quark-spin selection rule is exact for heavy
466: quarks\plabel{app}}
467:
468: The quark-gluon interaction in the QCD Lagrangian density
469: (suppressing flavor and color) is
470: %
471: \beqn\plabel{lag}
472: {\cal L} = g \bar{\psi}(x) \gamma_{\mu} {A}^{\mu} (x) \psi(x) + \mbox{H.c.}
473: %\hspace{1cm} {\cal D}^{\mu} (x) = i\partial^\mu + g A^\mu(x)
474: \eeqn
475: %where we suppressed the mass term.
476: %The full quark content of the
477: %Lagrangian density which is simply obtained by replacing
478: %$\gamma_{\mu} {\cal D}^{\mu} (x)$ by
479: %$\gamma_{\mu} {\cal D}^{\mu} (x) + m$.
480: %
481: Second quantize the free quark fields in the usual way,
482: %
483: \beqn\plabel{qua}
484: \psi(x) = \int \frac{d^3 p}{\sqrt{(2\pi)^32E(p)}} \sum_\nu \;
485: \left[\: a^\nu(p) u^\nu(p)e^{ip\cdot x}
486: + b^{\nu\dagger}(p) v^\nu(p)e^{-ip\cdot x}\: \right],
487: \eeqn
488: %
489: where $a^\nu(p)$ and $b^{\nu}(p)$ are the quark and anti-quark
490: annihilation operators. Substituting Eq.~\ref{qua} into Eq.~\ref{lag}
491: yields
492: %
493: \beqna\plabel{big}
494: {\cal L} &=& g \int \frac{d^3p d^3p'}{(2\pi)^3\sqrt{(2E(p))(2E(p'))}} \;
495: \sum_{\nu\nu'} \;
496: \left[\: u^{\nu\dagger}(p) \gamma_0\gamma_\mu u^{\nu'}(p') \: {A}^{\mu} (x)
497: e^{i(p'-p)\cdot x} \: a^{\nu\dagger}(p)a^{\nu'}(p') \right. \nonumber \\
498: &+& v^{\nu\dagger}(p) \gamma_0\gamma_\mu v^{\nu'}(p') \: {A}^{\mu} (x)
499: e^{i(p-p')\cdot x} \: b^{\nu}(p)b^{\nu'\dagger}(p') \nonumber \\
500: &+& u^{\nu\dagger}(p) \gamma_0\gamma_\mu v^{\nu'}(p') \: {A}^{\mu} (x)
501: e^{-i(p+p')\cdot x} \: a^{\nu\dagger}(p)b^{\nu'\dagger}(p') \nonumber \\
502: &+& \left. v^{\nu\dagger}(p) \gamma_0\gamma_\mu u^{\nu'}(p') \: {A}^{\mu} (x)
503: e^{i(p+p')\cdot x} \: b^{\nu}(p)a^{\nu'}(p')
504: \:\right] + \mbox{H.c.}
505: \eeqna
506: %
507: The first and second terms describe the quark and anti-quark
508: interactions with the gluon field, respectively, the third term
509: describes creation of a quark-anti-quark pair, and the fourth term
510: annihilation of a quark-anti-quark pair.
511:
512: In the limit of very heavy quarks
513: %
514: \beqn
515: u^\nu(p) = \sqrt{2m_Q} \left( \barr{c} \chi^\nu \\ 0 \earr \right)
516: \hspace{0.5cm}
517: v^\nu(p) = \sqrt{2m_Q} \left( \barr{c} 0 \\ \chi^\nu \earr \right),
518: \hspace{0.5cm}
519: %\chi^\nu = \left( \barr{c} 1 \\ 0 \earr \right) \mbox{if } \nu = \frac{1}{2}
520: %\hspace{0.5cm}
521: %\chi^\nu = \left( \barr{c} 0 \\ 1 \earr \right) \mbox{if } \nu = -\frac{1}{2}
522: %\chi^\nu = \left\{ \barr{ccl}
523: %\left( \barr{c} 1 \\ 0 \earr \right) & \mbox{if} & \nu = \frac{1}{2} \\
524: %\left( \barr{c} 0 \\ 1 \earr \right) & \mbox{if} & \nu = -\frac{1}{2}
525: %\earr \right.
526: \eeqn
527: %
528: where the $\chi^\nu$ are the usual Pauli spinors. Then the first
529: and second terms in Eq.~\ref{big} contain
530: %
531: \beqn\label{forward}
532: u^{\nu\dagger}(p) \gamma_0\gamma_\mu u^{\nu'}(p') =
533: v^{\nu\dagger}(p) \gamma_0\gamma_\mu v^{\nu'}(p')=
534: 2m_Q\: \chi^{\nu\dagger} \chi^{\nu'} \delta_{\mu 0} =
535: 2m_Q \delta_{\nu\nu'}\delta_{\mu 0},
536: \eeqn
537: %
538: so quark-gluon and anti-quark-gluon interactions do not change the
539: spin of heavy quarks or anti-quarks. The third and fourth terms in
540: Eq.~\ref{big} contain
541: %
542: \beqn\label{pair}
543: u^{\nu\dagger}(p) \gamma_0\gamma_\mu v^{\nu'}(p') =
544: v^{\nu\dagger}(p) \gamma_0\gamma_\mu u^{\nu'}(p') =
545: 2m_Q \: \chi^{\nu\dagger}\sigma_i\chi^{\nu'}\: \delta_{\mu i}
546: \eeqn
547: %
548: where $i\in \{1,2,3\}$. Hence quark-anti-quark pair
549: creation and annihilation involve a spin change
550: described by the Pauli matrices $\sigma_i$.
551:
552: The spin of a propagating heavy quark remains unchanged by quark-gluon
553: interactions, according to the first and second terms of the
554: interaction in Eq.~\ref{big}, and Eq.~\ref{forward}. The exception to
555: this is when the the quark travels in a Z-graph, which corresponds to
556: quark-anti-quark pair creation and then annihilation via the third and
557: fourth terms of the interaction in Eq.~\ref{big}. However, these
558: Z-graphs are suppressed by powers of $1/m_Q$, so that
559: for very heavy quarks they do not contribute. The spin of a
560: propagating heavy quark remains unchanged to all orders in QCD
561: perturbation theory.
562:
563: This implies that the spin of a quark or anti-quark is changed only
564: when a quark-anti-quark pair is created or annihilated, through an
565: operator of the form $\lpmb{\sigma}\cdot{\bf A}$ (Eqs.~\ref{big}
566: and~\ref{pair}). When an initial heavy-quark meson $Q\bar{Q}^\prime$
567: pair undergoes an OZI allowed decay to the two final heavy-quark meson
568: pairs $Q\bar{Q}^{\prime\prime}$ and $Q^{\prime\prime}\bar{Q}^\prime$,
569: the spin is only changed when the
570: $Q^{\prime\prime}\bar{Q}^{\prime\prime}$ pair is created\footnote{
571: According to Eqs.~\protect\ref{big},~\protect\ref{forward}
572: and~\protect\ref{pair}, only the time-like component of the gluon field
573: couples to the propagating quark or anti-quark, while only the
574: space-like component couples in the case of quark-anti-quark pair
575: creation or annihilation. The time-like component can change into the
576: space-like component via gluon-loop diagrams in both covariant and
577: Coulomb gauge, and also via ghost-loop diagrams in covariant gauge.}.
578: Also, since the individual mesons are composed of very heavy quarks,
579: moving non-relativistically, they have a specific quark-spin (assuming
580: no accidental mixing with states nearby in mass). It follows that the
581: spin selection rule is exact to all orders in QCD perturbation theory
582: when the mesons participating in the decay are built from very
583: heavy quarks and anti-quarks. Light quark loops do not change these
584: conclusions. For very heavy quarks, $1/m_Q$ corrections are negligible
585: compared to higher order corrections in $\alpha_s$,
586: because $\alpha_s(m_Q)$ depends only logarithmically on $m_Q$.
587: \question{what does NRQCD say?}
588:
589:
590: \begin{thebibliography}{9}
591:
592: \pbibitem{amelin} D.V.~Amelin {\it et al.} (VES Collab.),
593: Phys. At. Nucl. {\bf 62}, 445 (1999).
594:
595: \pbibitem{popov} A.~Popov (E852 Collab.), {\it Proc. of 9$^{th}$ Int. Conf.
596: on Hadron Spectroscopy (HADRON 2001)} (Protvino, Russia,
597: 25 Aug. -- 1 Sep. 2001); M. Lu {\it et al.}, Bull. Am. Phys. Soc.
598: {\bf 47}, 33 (2002).
599:
600: \pbibitem{pdg00} K.~Hagiwara {\it et al.} (Particle Data Group),
601: Phys. Rev. D {\bf 66}, 010001 (2002).
602: % 2002 Particle Data Group
603:
604: \pbibitem{d2637} See discussion in
605: P.R.~Page, Phys. Rev. D {\bf 60}, 057501 (1999).
606:
607: \pbibitem{KuhnEugenio} J.~Kuhn (E852 Collab.),
608: {\it Proc. of HADRON 2001}~\cite{popov},
609: p. 569; P. Eugenio, {\it ibid}., p. 573.
610:
611: \pbibitem{close} F.E.~Close and P.R.~Page, Nucl. Phys. B {\bf 443}, 233
612: (1995); {\it ibid.} Phys. Rev. D {\bf 52}, 1706 (1995).
613:
614: \pbibitem{barnes} T.~Barnes, {\it Proc. of $3^{rd}$ Workshop on Physics
615: and Detectors for DAPHNE (DAPHNE 99)} (Frascati, Italy, 16-19 Nov 1999),
616: eds. S. Bianco {\it et al.} (Frascati Physics Series Vol. 16, 1999),
617: p. 503.
618:
619: \pbibitem{pene} A.~Le Yaouanc, L.~ Oliver, O.~ P\`{e}ne and J.-C.~Raynal,
620: Phys. Rev. D {\bf 11}, 1272 (1975) gave the equations for the
621: conservation of quark-spin in Eq. (2.10).
622:
623: \pbibitem{ricken} R.~Ricken, M.~Koll, D.~Merten, B.C.~Metsch, hep-ph/0302124.
624:
625: \pbibitem{alcock} J.W.~Alcock, M.J.~Burfitt and W.N.~Cottingham,
626: Zeit. Phys. C {\bf 25} (1984) 161; P. Geiger and E.S. Swanson,
627: Phys. Rev. D {\bf 50}, 6855 (1994).
628:
629: \pbibitem{munz} C.~Ritter, B.C.~Metsch, C.R.~M\"{u}nz, H.R.~Petry,
630: Phys. Lett. {\bf B380}, 431 (1996).
631:
632: %\pbibitem{swanson} E.S.~Swanson and A.P.~Sczcepaniak, Phys. Rev. D {\bf 56}
633: %(1997) 5692.
634:
635: \pbibitem{GR}
636: L.Y.~Glozman and D.O.~Riska,
637: %``The Spectrum of the nucleons and the strange hyperons and chiral dynamics,''
638: Phys.\ Rept.\ {\bf 268}, 263 (1996);
639: L.Y.~Glozman, W.~Plessas, K.~Varga and R.F.~Wagenbrunn,
640: %``Unified description of light- and strange-baryon spectra,''
641: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 58}, 094030 (1998);
642:
643: \pbibitem{Graz} R.F.~Wagenbrunn,
644: L.Y.~Glozman, W.~Plessas and K.~Varga,
645: %``Extended Goldstone-Boson-Exchange Constituent Quark Model,''
646: Nucl.\ Phys.\ A {\bf 663}, 703 (2000);
647: %``Extension Of The Gbe Chiral Constituent Quark Model,''
648: Nucl.\ Phys.\ A {\bf 666}, 29 (2000).
649:
650: \pbibitem{Becchi} C.~Becchi and G.~Morpurgo, {Phys. Rev.} {\bf 149},
651: 1284 (1966).
652:
653: \pbibitem{Hen} K.O.E.~Henriksson, T.A.~L\"{a}hde, C.J.~Nyf\"{a}lt and
654: D.O.~Riska, Nucl. Phys. A {\bf 686}, 355 (2001).
655: % Decay via emission of single pion
656:
657: \pbibitem{Goity} J.L.~Goity and W.~Roberts, Phys. Rev. D {\bf 60}, 034001
658: (1999).
659: % Decay via emission of single pion
660:
661: \pbibitem{ackleh} E.S.~Ackleh, T.~Barnes and E.S.~Swanson,
662: Phys. Rev. D {\bf 54}, 6811 (1996).
663:
664: \pbibitem{dorofeev} V.A.~Dorofeev (VES Collab.), {\it Priv. Comm.}
665:
666: % J. Chizma and G. Karl, no reference
667:
668: \end{thebibliography}
669:
670: \end{document}
671: