1: \documentclass[fleqn]{article}
2: \usepackage{espcrc2}
3: \usepackage{graphicx}
4: \usepackage[figuresright]{rotating}
5: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
6: \newcommand{\BR}{{\cal B}}
7: \newcommand{\BRz}{{\cal B}_0}
8: \newcommand{\eff}{\varepsilon}
9: \newcommand{\psip}{\psi(2S)}
10: \newcommand{\psp}{\psi(2S)}
11: \newcommand{\psipp}{\psi(3770)}
12: \newcommand{\jpsi}{J/\psi}
13: \newcommand{\DDbar}{D\overline{D}}
14: \newcommand{\EE}{e^+e^-}
15: \newcommand{\MM}{\mu^+\mu^-}
16: \newcommand{\TT}{\tau^+\tau^-}
17: \newcommand{\GG}{\gamma\gamma}
18: \newcommand{\PP}{\pi^+\pi^-}
19: \newcommand{\KK}{K^+K^-}
20: \newcommand{\PPJP}{\pi^+\pi^- J/\psi}
21: \newcommand{\kskl}{K^0_SK^0_L}
22: \newcommand{\zz}{\bar{p} p}
23: \newcommand{\LL}{\ell^+\ell^-}
24: \newcommand{\OP}{\omega\pi^0}
25: \newcommand{\pip}{\pi^+}
26: \newcommand{\pim}{\pi^-}
27: \newcommand{\piz}{\pi^0}
28: \newcommand{\ppb}{p\bar{p}}
29: \newcommand{\jpsipp}{J/\psi \pi^+\pi^-}
30: \newcommand{\ppjpsi}{\pi^+\pi^- J/\psi}
31: \newcommand{\ra}{\rightarrow}
32: \newcommand{\jpsito}{J/\psi \rightarrow }
33: \newcommand{\pspto}{\psi(2S) \rightarrow }
34: \newcommand{\psppto}{\psi(3770) \rightarrow }
35: \newcommand{\rhopi}{\rho\pi}
36: \newcommand{\M}{\frac{\sqrt{3}}{2}M}
37: \newcommand{\beq}{\begin{equation}}
38: \newcommand{\eeq}{\end{equation}}
39: \newcommand{\beqn}{\begin{eqnarray}}
40: \newcommand{\eeqn}{\end{eqnarray}}
41: \newcommand{\beqns}{\begin{eqnarray*}}
42: \newcommand{\eeqns}{\end{eqnarray*}}
43: \newcommand{\bfg}{\begin{figure}}
44: \newcommand{\efg}{\end{figure}}
45: \newcommand{\bitm}{\begin{itemize}}
46: \newcommand{\eitm}{\end{itemize}}
47: \newcommand{\bnum}{\begin{enumerate}}
48: \newcommand{\enum}{\end{enumerate}}
49: \newcommand{\btbl}{\begin{table}}
50: \newcommand{\etbl}{\end{table}}
51: \newcommand{\btbu}{\begin{tabular}}
52: \newcommand{\etbu}{\end{tabular}}
53: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
54: \renewcommand{\thefootnote}{\fnsymbol{footnote}}
55:
56: \title{Relative phase between strong and electromagnetic
57: amplitudes in $\pspto 0^-0^-$ decays}
58: \author{C.~Z.~Yuan \address[IHEP]{Institute of High Energy Physics,
59: P.O.Box 918, Beijing 100039, China}
60: \thanks{Supported by 100 Talents Program of CAS (U-25)},
61: P.~Wang \addressmark[IHEP],
62: X.~H.~Mo\addressmark[IHEP]$^,$\address[CCAST]{China Center of Advanced
63: Science and Technology, Beijing 100080, China} }
64:
65: \date{\today}
66: \begin{document}
67:
68: \begin{abstract}
69: With the known branching ratios of $\pspto \PP$ and $\pspto \KK$, the
70: branching ratio of $\pspto \kskl$ is calculated as a function of the
71: relative phase between the strong and the electromagnetic amplitudes of the
72: $\psip$ decays. The study shows that the branching ratio of $\pspto \kskl$
73: is sensitive to the relative phase and a measurement of the $\kskl$
74: branching ratio will shed light on the relative phase determination in
75: $\pspto 0^-0^-$ decays.
76: \vspace{1pc}
77: \end{abstract}
78: \maketitle
79:
80: \section{Introduction}
81:
82: The relative phase between the strong and the electromagnetic
83: amplitudes of the charmonium decays is a basic parameter in understanding
84: the decay dynamics. Studies have been carried out for many $\jpsi$ two-body
85: decay modes: $1^-0^-$~\cite{dm2exp,mk3exp}, $0^-0^-$~\cite{a00,lopez,a11},
86: $1^-1^-$~\cite{a11} and $N\overline{N}$~\cite{ann}. These analyses revealed
87: that there exists a relative orthogonal phase between the strong and the
88: electromagnetic amplitudes in $\jpsi$
89: decays~\cite{dm2exp,mk3exp,a00,lopez,a11,ann,suzuki}.
90:
91: As to $\psip$, it has been argued~\cite{suzuki} that the only large energy
92: scale involved in the three-gluon decay of charmonia is the charm quark
93: mass, one expects that the corresponding phase should not be much different
94: between $\jpsi$ and $\psip$ decays. There is also a theoretical argument
95: which favors the $\pm90^\circ$ phase~\cite{gerard}. This large phase follows
96: from the orthogonality of the three-gluon and one-photon virtual processes.
97: But an extensively quoted work~\cite{suzuki} found that a fit to
98: $\psip\rightarrow 1^-0^-$ with a large phase $\pm 90^\circ$ is virtually
99: impossible and concluded that the relative phase between the strong and the
100: electromagnetic amplitudes should be around 180 degree\footnote{In
101: Ref.~\cite{suzuki}, the phase $\delta=0^\circ$ between the strong amplitude and
102: the $negative$ electromagnetic amplitude is corresponding to the phase
103: $\phi=180^\circ$ between the strong amplitude and the $positive$
104: electromagnetic amplitude here.}.
105:
106: However, it is pointed out in Ref.~\cite{wymz} that the contribution of the
107: continuum process via virtual photon was neglected in almost all the data
108: analyses in $\EE$ experiments. By including the contribution of the
109: continuum process, $\pspto 1^-0^-$ decays have been reanalyzed and it is
110: found \cite{wymphase} that the phase of $-90^\circ$ can not be ruled out.
111: Unfortunately the current experimental information on $\pspto 1^-0^-$ decays
112: are not precise enough to determine the phase.
113:
114: For the time being the experimental information for $\psip$ decays is
115: less abundant than that for $\jpsi$. Among the other modes used in $\jpsi$
116: decays to measure the relative phase, the only mode with experimental data
117: in $\psp$ decays is the $\pspto 0^-0^-$ ($i.e.$ pseudoscalar meson pairs),
118: including $\pspto \PP$ and $\pspto \KK$.
119: But this is not enough to extract the phase between the strong and the
120: electromagnetic amplitudes, since there are three free parameters, namely,
121: the absolute values of the strong and the electromagnetic amplitudes, and
122: the relative phase between them. Another $0^-0^-$ decay channel $\pspto
123: \kskl$ is thus needed to determine all these three parameters.
124:
125: Although, as has been pointed out in Ref.~\cite{feldmann},
126: $\pspto 0^-0^-$ is allowed in leading-twist pQCD while
127: $\pspto 1^-0^-$ is forbidden, the relative phases found in
128: these two modes may not necessarily be the same, it is still
129: interesting to test this since in $\jpsi$ decays, the phases in
130: these two modes are found to be rather similar.
131:
132: In this letter, the existing experimental data on $\psip$ decays to $\PP$ and
133: $\KK$ are used as inputs to calculate the branching ratio of $\pspto\kskl$
134: as a function of the relative phase. Once $\BR(\pspto \kskl)$ is known, the
135: relative phase between the strong and the electromagnetic amplitudes in
136: $\psip\rightarrow0^-0^-$ decays could be determined based on the calculations
137: in this letter.
138:
139: \section{Theoretical framework}
140:
141: In $\pspto 0^-0^-$ decays, the G-parity violating channel
142: $\PP$ is through electromagnetic process~(the contribution
143: from the isospin-violating part of QCD is expected to be
144: small~\cite{chernyak2} and is neglected), $\kskl$
145: through SU(3) breaking strong process, and $\KK$ through both. As has been
146: observed in $\jpsito \kskl$~\cite{pdg}, the SU(3) breaking strong decay
147: amplitude is not small. Following the convention in Ref.~\cite{a11}, the
148: $\psp\rightarrow 0^-0^-$ decay amplitudes are parametrized as
149: \beq
150: \begin{array}{lcl}
151: A_{\PP} &=& E~~, \\
152: A_{\KK} &=& E + \M~~,\\
153: A_{\kskl} &=& \M~~,
154: \end{array}
155: \label{em}
156: \eeq
157: where $E$ denotes the electromagnetic amplitude and $\M$ the SU(3) breaking
158: strong amplitude.
159:
160: As has been discussed in Refs.~\cite{wymz,wymplb}, if $\psip$ is produced in
161: $\EE$ experiment, the contribution of the continuum must be included in the
162: total amplitude, that is
163: \beq
164: \begin{array}{lcl}
165: A_{\PP}^{tot} &=& E_c + E~~, \\
166: A_{\KK}^{tot} &=& E_c + E + \M~~, \\
167: A_{\kskl}^{tot} &=& \M~~,
168: \end{array}
169: \label{emc}
170: \eeq
171: where $E_c$ is the amplitude of the continuum contribution.
172: Besides the common part, $E_c$, $E$ and $\M$ can be expressed explicitly as
173: \beq
174: \begin{array}{lcl}
175: E_c &\propto&{\displaystyle \frac{1}{s}}~~,{\rule[-3.5mm]{0mm}{7mm}} \\
176: E &\propto&{\displaystyle \frac{1}{s} B(s)}~~, \\
177: \M &\propto&{\displaystyle {\cal C} e^{i \phi} \cdot \frac{1}{s} B(s) }~~,
178: \end{array}
179: \label{ecem}
180: \eeq
181: where the real parameters $\phi$ and ${\cal C}$ are the relative phase and
182: the relative strength between the strong and the electromagnetic amplitudes,
183: and $B(s)$ is defined as
184: \beq
185: B(s)=\frac{3\sqrt{s}\Gamma_{ee}/\alpha}{s-M^2_{\psip}+iM_{\psip}\Gamma_t}~~.
186: \label{bexpr}
187: \eeq
188: Here $\sqrt{s}$ is the center of mass energy, $\alpha$ is the QED fine
189: structure constant; $M_{\psip}$ and $\Gamma_t$ are the mass and the total
190: width of $\psip$; $\Gamma_{ee}$ is the partial width to $\EE$.
191:
192: The Born order cross sections for the three channels are thus
193: \beqn
194: \lefteqn{\sigma^{Born}_{\PP}(s)=
195: \frac{4\pi\alpha^2}{s^{3/2}}[1+2\Re B(s)+|B(s)|^2]} \nonumber \\
196: & & \times |{\cal F}_\pi (s)|^2{\cal P}_{\PP} (s)~~, \label{bnpp}
197: \eeqn
198: \beqn
199: \lefteqn{\sigma^{Born}_{\KK}(s)=
200: \frac{4\pi\alpha^2}{s^{3/2}}[1+2\Re ({\cal C}_{\phi} B(s))+|{\cal C}_{\phi}
201: B(s)|^2]} \nonumber \\
202: & & \times |{\cal F}_\pi (s)|^2{\cal P}_{\KK} (s)~~, \label{bnkk}
203: \eeqn
204: \beq
205: \sigma^{Born}_{\kskl}(s)= \frac{4\pi\alpha^2}{s^{3/2}} {\cal C}^2 |B(s)|^2
206: |{\cal F}_\pi (s)|^2{\cal P}_{\kskl} (s) ,
207: \label{bnkskl}
208: \eeq
209: where ${\cal F}_\pi (s)$ is the pion form factor and the phase space factor
210: ${\cal P}_f (s)$
211: ($f=\PP,\KK,\kskl$) is expressed as
212: $$%\beq
213: {\cal P}_{f}(s) = \frac{2}{3s}q^3_{f}~~,
214: $$%\eeq
215: with $q_{f}$ the momentum of the final state particle in two-body decay.
216: The symbol ${\cal C}_{\phi} \equiv 1+ {\cal C} e^{i \phi} $ is
217: introduced for briefness.
218:
219: For the measurement of the narrow resonance like $\jpsi$ and $\psip$ in $\EE$
220: experiment, the radiative correction and the energy spread of the collider
221: must be considered in the calculation of the observed cross sections. In
222: fact, the observed cross sections and the proportions of the contributions
223: from resonance and continuum depend sensitively on the experiment
224: conditions~\cite{wymplb}.
225: For $\psip$ decays to $\PP$ and $\KK$, the
226: contributions of the continuum, as well as interference terms, must be
227: subtracted from the total cross sections to obtain the correct branching
228: ratios. For $\kskl$ mode, there is no continuum contribution. Although
229: the observed $\kskl$ cross section depends on the energy spread, the
230: branching ratio is simply the observed $\kskl$ cross section divided by the
231: total resonance cross section. The formulae to calculate the experimentally
232: observed cross section are presented in Ref.~\cite{wymplb}. In the following
233: analysis, the energy spread of different $\EE$ colliders, as listed in
234: Table~\ref{delta3}, are adopted in the corresponding calculations. In
235: addition, it is also assumed that experimental data are taken at the energy
236: which yields the maximum inclusive hadronic cross section~\cite{wymplb}.
237:
238: \begin{table}
239: \caption{\label{delta3} Energy spreads of different experiments.}
240: \begin{tabular}{r|ccc} \hline
241: Exp. & DASP/ & BESI/ & MARKIII/ \\
242: & DORIS & BEPC & SPEAR \\ \hline
243: $E_{cm}$ & $\psip$ & $\psip$ & $\jpsi$ \\
244: (GeV) & (3.686) & (3.686) & (3.096) \\ \hline
245: Energy & 2.0 MeV & 1.3 MeV & 2.4 MeV \\
246: spread & & & \\ \hline
247: \end{tabular}
248: \end{table}
249:
250: \section{Experimental data and predictions of $\BR(\pspto \kskl)$}
251:
252: Presently the experimental data on $\pspto 0^-0^-$ are limited. The
253: only results which have been published are from DASP~\cite{dasp}:
254: \beq
255: \BR(\pspto \PP) = (8\pm 5)\times 10^{-5}~~,
256: \label{dasp_pp}
257: \eeq
258: \beq
259: \BR(\pspto \KK) = (10\pm 7)\times 10^{-5}~~,
260: \label{dasp_kk}
261: \eeq
262: which are based on about $0.9\times 10^{6}$ produced $\psp$ events.
263: The uncertainties of the measurements are more than 60\% because of the
264: small data sample.
265:
266: Another attempt to measure the branching ratios of $\pspto \PP$ and $\KK$
267: is based on $2.3\times 10^{6}$ $\psp$ data collected by BESI, the results
268: are~\cite{yesw}:
269: \beq
270: \BR(\pspto \PP) = (0.84\pm 0.55^{+0.16}_{-0.35})\times 10^{-5},
271: \label{bes_pp}
272: \eeq
273: \beq
274: \BR(\pspto \KK) = (6.1\pm 1.4^{+1.5}_{-1.3})\times 10^{-5}.
275: \label{bes_kk}
276: \eeq
277: Here the uncertainty for $\PP$ is also considerably large, around 70\%;
278: while for $\KK$, the uncertainty is about 30\%.
279:
280: It should be emphasized that the aforementioned values without subtracting
281: the contributions from the continuum are not the real physical branching
282: ratios. These values should be multiplied by the experimentally measured
283: total resonance cross section of the corresponding experiment and the
284: products are to be interpreted as the observed cross sections of these two
285: modes under the particular experimental condition. More detailed discussion
286: of this point is in Ref.~\cite{wymplb}.
287:
288: Since in both of these two experiments, the $\PP$ branching ratios have
289: large uncertainties, and the central values differ by almost an order of
290: magnitude, an alternative way to do the analysis is to estimate
291: $\BR(\psip\rightarrow\PP)$ in terms of pion form factor extrapolated from
292: $\BR(\jpsi\rightarrow\PP)$ with better precision. For this purpose,
293: $\BR(\jpsi\rightarrow\PP)$ = $(1.58\pm 0.20\pm 0.15) \times 10^{-4} $ from
294: MARKIII/SPEAR~\cite{mk3pp} is used. Although the contribution of the
295: continuum is small for $\jpsi$ decays, it is taken into account in the
296: calculation here which yields
297: \begin{equation}
298: |F_{\pi}(M^2_{\jpsi})| = (9.3\pm 0.7)\times 10^{-2}~.
299: \label{Fpjpsi}
300: \end{equation}
301: Extrapolate the result by $1/s$ dependence~\cite{Manohar,chernyak}
302: the pion form factor becomes
303: \begin{equation}
304: |F_{\pi}(s)| = \frac{(0.89\pm0.07)\mbox{~GeV$^2$}}{s}~~.
305: \label{ff_pp}
306: \end{equation}
307:
308: With the pion form factor in Eq.~(\ref{ff_pp}), for example, BESI should
309: observe a $\PP$ cross section of 11.6~pb at $\psip$ energy, of which 4.8~pb
310: is from the resonance decays (the total $\psip$ cross section is 640~nb).
311:
312: With the input of the branching ratios of $\PP$ and $\KK$, the branching
313: ratio of $\kskl$ is calculated as a function of the phase between $E$ and
314: $\M$, as solved from Eqs.~(\ref{bnpp}), (\ref{bnkk}) and (\ref{bnkskl})
315: with radiative correction and energy spread of the $\EE$ collider considered.
316: Three sets of inputs are used for the calculations :
317: \begin{itemize}
318: \item {\bf Input~1}: DASP results in Eqs.~(\ref{dasp_pp})
319: and (\ref{dasp_kk});
320: \item {\bf Input~2}: BESI results in Eqs.~(\ref{bes_pp})
321: and (\ref{bes_kk});
322: \item {\bf Input~3}: pion form factor from Eq.~(\ref{ff_pp})
323: and $\BR(\pspto \KK)$ from BESI measurement in Eq.~(\ref{bes_kk}).
324: \end{itemize}
325:
326: \begin{figure}[htb]
327: \centerline{\includegraphics[width=8.0cm,height=7.0cm]{three.eps}}
328: \caption{\label{three} $\pspto \kskl$ branching ratio as a function of the
329: relative phase for three different inputs which are described in the text.}
330: \end{figure}
331:
332: Fig.~\ref{three} shows $\BR(\pspto \kskl)$ as a function of the phase
333: for the three sets of inputs. It could be seen that $\BR(\pspto \kskl)$ is
334: very sensitive to the relative phase. With all three sets of inputs, the
335: variation shows the same trend. They reach the maxima and minima at roughly
336: the same values of the phase. With the Input~1, $\BR (\psip\rightarrow\kskl)$
337: varies in a larger range than the other two sets of inputs. This is because
338: the $\PP$ branching ratio from DASP is large, so the electromagnetic
339: amplitude $E$ and the continuum amplitude $E_c$ are relatively large
340: compared with the strong decay amplitude $\M$, so the interference is more
341: important. On the contrary, with the Input~2, the $\PP$ branching ratio is
342: small from BESI experiment, which means that $E$ and $E_c$ are relatively
343: small, so the interference is less significant.
344:
345: Table~\ref{ksklbr} lists the predictions of the $\pspto \kskl$ branching
346: ratios, as well as the relative strength ${\cal C}$,
347: with some values of the phase which are most interesting from
348: theoretical point of view. These phases are $\phi=-90^{\circ}$,
349: $+90^{\circ}$, $180^{\circ}$ and $0^{\circ}$, for the three sets of inputs
350: as discussed above. The first two phases are favored by the
351: theory~\cite{gerard}, and are the fitted results from $\jpsi$ data; while
352: the third one is from an early fitting of $\psip\rightarrow1^-0^-$
353: mode~\cite{a00}. Here the uncertainties due to the experimental errors of
354: $\PP$ and $\KK$ measurements are included in the table. With the third set
355: of input, the theoretical uncertainty due to the extrapolation of the pion
356: form factor from $\jpsi$ to $\psip$ according to $1/s$ dependence is not
357: included.
358:
359: \begin{table}[t]
360: %\caption{\label{ksklbr} Predicated $\BR(\pspto \kskl)$ ($\times 10^{-5}$) at
361: %different phases for different inputs.}
362: \caption{\label{ksklbr} Predicated $\BR(\pspto \kskl)$ ($\times 10^{-5}$) and
363: relative strength parameter ${\cal C}=|\M/E|$ at different phases for
364: different inputs.}
365: \center
366: %\begin{tabular}{r|ccc}
367: \begin{tabular}{r|c|ccc} \hline \hline
368: Phase &
369: & Input~1 & Input~2 & Input~3 \\ \hline \hline
370: $-90^{\circ}$ {\rule[-3.5mm]{0mm}{9mm}} & ${\cal B}$
371: &$5.2^{+9.4}_{-5.2}$ &$6.3^{+2.2}_{-2.1}$ &$5.8^{+2.3}_{-2.2}$ \\
372: \mbox{} {\rule[-3.5mm]{0mm}{7mm}} & ${\cal C}$
373: &$1.5^{+1.2}_{-1.5}$ &$4.5^{+5.1}_{-1.4}$ &$2.9^{+0.7}_{-0.6}$ \\
374: $+90^{\circ}$ {\rule[-3.5mm]{0mm}{9mm}} & ${\cal B}$
375: &$1.5^{+6.9}_{-1.5}$ &$4.5^{+2.1}_{-1.9}$ &$3.4^{+1.8}_{-1.6}$ \\
376: \mbox{} {\rule[-3.5mm]{0mm}{7mm}} & ${\cal C}$
377: &$0.79^{+1.94}_{-0.79}$
378: &$3.8^{+5.1}_{-1.4}$ &$2.2^{+0.7}_{-0.6}$ \\
379: $180^{\circ}$ {\rule[-3.5mm]{0mm}{9mm}} & ${\cal B}$
380: &$14^{+11}_{-14}$ &$8.6^{+2.5}_{-2.7}$ &$9.4^{+2.7}_{-2.7}$ \\
381: \mbox{} {\rule[-3.5mm]{0mm}{7mm}} & ${\cal C}$
382: &$0.48^{+1.82}_{-0.48}$
383: &$3.3^{+5.0}_{-1.4}$ &$1.8^{+0.6}_{-0.7}$ \\
384: $ 0^{\circ}$ {\rule[-3.5mm]{0mm}{9mm}} & ${\cal B}$
385: &$0.6^{+4.5}_{-0.6}$ &$3.3^{+2.2}_{-1.7}$ &$2.1^{+1.4}_{-1.2}$ \\
386: \mbox{} {\rule[-3.5mm]{0mm}{7mm}} & ${\cal C}$
387: &$2.5^{+1.7}_{-2.5}$ &$5.2^{+5.0}_{-1.3}$ &$3.7^{+0.6}_{-0.5}$ \\ \hline \hline
388: \end{tabular}
389: \end{table}
390:
391: In principle, the electromagnetic amplitudes of $\pspto \PP$ ($E_\pi$)
392: and $\pspto \KK$ ($E_K$) are not necessarily the same as assumed
393: in Eq.~(\ref{em}), a variation of $E_K$ by $\pm (20\sim 30\%)$ from $E_\pi$
394: is tested for various input. The changes of the predicted branching
395: ratios of $\pspto \kskl$ are well within the quoted errors since the
396: uncertainties of the $\BR(\pspto \PP)$ are large for Input~1 and
397: Input~2; while for Input~3, the resulting branching ratio curve lies
398: between the two curves from Input~1 and Input~2 in Fig.~\ref{three}.
399:
400: \section{Discussions}
401:
402: From Fig.~\ref{three} and Table~\ref{ksklbr}, it can be seen that
403: with the Input 1, the central value of $\pspto \kskl$ changes dramatically
404: as the phase varies. Nevertheless, such predictions
405: come with huge uncertainties due to the large experimental errors of the
406: input $\BR (\pspto \PP)$ and $\BR (\pspto \KK)$. As a matter of fact,
407: the results by DASP in Eqs.~(\ref{dasp_pp}) and (\ref{dasp_kk}) can
408: accommodate the assumption within one standard deviation that $\M=0$ in
409: Eq.~(\ref{emc}), $i.e.$ the strong interaction is totally absent which
410: means $\BR (\pspto \kskl)=0$. Such huge uncertainties make it
411: virtually impossible to draw any useful conclusion about the phase
412: even with $\BR (\pspto \kskl)$ measured.
413:
414: However, with Input 2, because of the smaller error of $\BR(\pspto\KK)$
415: and the relatively small $\pspto\PP$ branching ratio,
416: $\BR(\pspto \kskl)$ are calculated with much smaller uncertainty.
417: The strong interaction amplitude $\M$ is nonzero within two standard
418: deviation, and $\BR(\pspto \kskl)$ is predicted at the order of
419: $10^{-5}$. The exact value depends on the phase and varies
420: by a factor 2.7 from the minimum to maximum. The uncertainty of the
421: prediction, depending on the phase, is between 33\% to 50\%.
422: So with this result, once $\BR (\pspto \kskl)$ is measured,
423: the phase between the strong and the electromagnetic amplitudes
424: can be determined to be within one of the following regions:
425: close to $0^\circ$, around $\pm90^\circ$, or close to $180^\circ$.
426:
427: With Input 3, the usage of the better measured pion form factor
428: at $\jpsi$ does not reduce the uncertainty
429: of the predicted $\BR (\pspto \kskl)$ very much. This is due to the larger
430: pion form factor and so larger contribution from the electromagnetic
431: interactions ($E$ and $E_c$ in Eq.~(\ref{emc})) than with Input 2.
432: But the predicted central values of $\BR (\pspto \kskl)$ vary in a larger
433: range, with a factor of 4.9 from the minimum to maximum. This makes it more
434: sensitive to determine the phase by $\BR (\pspto \kskl)$ than with Input~2.
435:
436: By virtue of the calculations with Input~2 and Input~3, once
437: $\BR(\pspto \kskl)$ is known, at least it can distinguish
438: whether the strong and the electromagnetic amplitudes are roughly orthogonal
439: (with phase around $\pm90^\circ$) or of the same or opposite phase
440: ($0^\circ$ or $180^\circ$). This is highly desirable from the theoretical
441: point of view.
442:
443: To determine the relative phase between the strong and the electromagnetic
444: interactions with small error, the branching ratios of $\psip\rightarrow\PP$
445: and $\psip\rightarrow\KK$ must also be measured to high precisions. These
446: are expected from the forthcoming CLEOc and BESIII
447: experiments~\cite{cleoc,bes3}.
448:
449: \section{Summary}
450:
451: $\pspto \kskl$ branching ratio is calculated as a function of the
452: relative phase between the strong and the electromagnetic amplitudes,
453: based on the available experimental information of $\pspto \PP$ and
454: $\pspto \KK$ decay branching ratios.
455: With the results in this letter, a measurement of the $\pspto \kskl$
456: branching ratio will shed light on answering the question that whether the
457: phase between the strong and the electromagnetic amplitudes is large
458: ($\pm90^\circ$) or small ($0^\circ$ or $180^\circ$) in the
459: $\psip \rightarrow 0^-0^-$ decays.
460:
461: \begin{thebibliography}{99}
462:
463: \bibitem{dm2exp}J.~Jousset {\em et al.}, (DMII Collab.),
464: Phys. Rev. {\bf D41} (1990) 1389.
465: \bibitem{mk3exp}D.~Coffman {\em et al.}, (Mark III Collab.),
466: Phys. Rev. {\bf D38} (1988) 2695.
467: \bibitem{a00}M.~Suzuki, Phys. Rev. {\bf D60} (1999) 051501.
468: \bibitem{lopez}G.~L\'{o}pez, J.~L.~Lucio M. and J.~Pestieau, hep-ph/9902300.
469: \bibitem{a11}L.~K\"{o}pke and N.~Wermes,
470: Phys. Rep. {\bf 74} (1989) 67.
471: \bibitem{ann}R.~Baldini {\em et al.}, Phys. Lett. {\bf B444} (1998) 111.
472: \bibitem{suzuki}M.~Suzuki, Phys. Rev. {\bf D63} (2001) 054021.
473: \bibitem{gerard}J.-M.~G\'{e}rard and J.~Weyers,
474: Phys. Lett. {\bf B462} (1999) 324.
475: \bibitem{wymz}P.~Wang, C.~Z.~Yuan, X.~H.~Mo and D.~H.~Zhang,
476: hep-ex/0210063, submitted to Phys. Rev. Lett.;
477: S.~Rudaz, Phys. Rev. {\bf D14} (1976) 298.
478: \bibitem{wymphase}P.~Wang, C.~Z.~Yuan, X.~H.~Mo, hep-ph/0303144,
479: submitted to Phys. Rev. Lett..
480: \bibitem{feldmann}T.~Feldmann and P.~Kroll, Phys. Rev.
481: {\bf D62} (2000) 074006.
482: \bibitem{chernyak2}V.~L.~Chernyak and A.~R.~Zhitnitsky,
483: Nucl. Phys. {\bf B201} (1982) 492.
484: \bibitem{pdg}Particle Data Group, K.~Hagiwara {\em et al.}, Phys. Rev.
485: {\bf D66} (2002) 010001.
486: \bibitem{wymplb}P.~Wang, X.~H.~Mo and C.~Z.~Yuan, Phys. Lett. {\bf B557}
487: (2003) 192.
488: \bibitem{dasp}R.~Brandelik {\em et al.}, (DASP Collab.),
489: Z. Phys. {\bf C1} (1979) 233.
490: \bibitem{yesw}S.~W.~Ye, ``Study of some {\bf VP} and
491: {\bf PP} modes of $\psip$ decays'', Ph.D. thesis,
492: University of Science and Technology of China,
493: 1997 (in Chinese).
494: \bibitem{mk3pp}R.~M.~Baltrusaitis {\em et al.}, (Mark III Collab.),
495: Phys. Rev. {\bf D32} (1985) 566.
496: \bibitem{Manohar}S.~J.~Brodsky and C.~R.~Ji, SLAC-PUB-3747~(1985).
497: \bibitem{chernyak}V.~Chernyak, hep-ph/9906387.
498: \bibitem{cleoc}CLEO-c Collab., ``CLEO-c and CESR-c:
499: A New Frontier of Weak and Strong Interactions'',
500: CLNS 01/1742.
501: \bibitem{bes3}H.~S.~Chen, ``BEPCII/BESIII project'', talk at ICHEP 2002,
502: Amsterdam, Netherland, July 24-31, 2002.
503: \end{thebibliography}
504:
505: \end{document}
506: