1: \documentclass[preprint,10pt]{revtex4}
2: \usepackage{graphicx}% Include figure files
3: \def\beq{\begin{equation}}
4: \def\eeq{\end{equation}}
5: \def\bea{\begin{eqnarray}}
6: \def\eea{\end{eqnarray}}
7: \def\1{\c{c}}
8: \def\2{\c{C}}
9: \def\3{\u{g}}
10: \def\4{\u{G}}
11: \def\5{{\i}}
12: \def\6{\.{I}}
13: \def\7{\"{o}}
14: \def\8{\"{O}}
15: \def\9{\c{s}}
16: \def\0{\c{S}}
17: \def\*{\"{u}}
18: \def\,{\"{U}}
19: \begin{document}
20: \title{Scalar $f_{0}(980)$ meson effect in radiative $\phi\rightarrow
21: \pi^{+}\pi^{-}\gamma$ decay }
22: \author{Ay\9e K\*\1\*karslan }
23: \email{kucukarslan@metu.edu.tr}
24: \affiliation{Middle East Technical University, Physics Department. (06531), Ankara/Turkey}%
25: \author{Saime Solmaz}
26: \email{skerman@balikesir.edu.tr}
27: \affiliation{Balikesir University, Physics Department.(10100),
28: Balikesir/Turkey}%
29: \date{\today}
30: \begin{abstract}
31: We study the effect of scalar-isoscalar $f_{0}(980)$ meson in the
32: mechanism of the radiative $\phi\rightarrow \pi^{+}\pi^{-}\gamma$
33: decay. A phenomenological approach is used to study this decay by
34: considering the contributions of $\sigma$-meson, $\rho$-meson and
35: $f_{0}(980)$-meson. The interference effects between different
36: contributions are analyzed and the branching ratio for this decay
37: is calculated. We observe that $f_0$ meson contribution is much
38: larger than the contributions of the other terms.
39: \end{abstract}
40: \maketitle
41: \section{Introduction}
42:
43: Radiative decays of vector mesons offer the possibility of
44: investigating new physics features about the interesting mechanism
45: involved in these decays. One particular mechanism involves the
46: exchange of scalar mesons. The scalar mesons, isoscalar $\sigma$
47: and $f_{0}(980)$ and isovector $a_{0}(980)$, with vacuum quantum
48: numbers $J^{PC}=0^{++}$ are known to be crucial for a full
49: understanding of the low energy QCD phenomenology and the symmetry
50: breaking mechanisms in QCD. The scalar mesons have been a
51: persistent problem in hadron spectroscopy. In addition to the
52: identification of their nature, the role of scalar mesons in
53: hadronic processes is of extreme importance and the study of
54: radiative decays of vector mesons may provide insights about their
55: role.
56:
57: In particular, radiative $\phi$ meson decays,
58: $\phi\rightarrow\pi\pi\gamma$ and
59: $\phi\rightarrow\pi^{0}\eta\gamma$, can play a crucial role in the
60: clarification of the structure and properties of scalar
61: $f_{0}(980)$ and $a_{0}(980)$ mesons since these decays primarily
62: proceed through processes involving scalar resonances such as
63: $\phi\rightarrow f_{0}(980)\gamma$ and $\phi\rightarrow
64: a_{0}(980)\gamma$, with the subsequent decays into $\pi\pi\gamma$
65: and $\pi^{0}\eta\gamma$ \cite{R1,R2}. Achasov and Ivanchenko
66: \cite{R1} showed that if the $f_{0}(980)$ and $a_{0}(980)$
67: resonances are four-quark $(q^{2}\bar{q}^{2})$ states the
68: processes $\phi\rightarrow f_{0}(980)\gamma$ and $\phi\rightarrow
69: a_{0}(980)\gamma$ are dominant and enhance the decays
70: $\phi\rightarrow\pi\pi\gamma$ and
71: $\phi\rightarrow\pi^{0}\eta\gamma$ by at least an order of
72: magnitude over the results predicted by the Wess-Zumino terms.
73: Then Close et al. \cite{R2} noted that the study of the scalar
74: states in $\phi\rightarrow S\gamma$, where $S=f_{0}~ or~ a_{0}$,
75: may offer unique insights into the nature of the scalar mesons.
76: They have shown that although the transition rates
77: $\Gamma(\phi\rightarrow f_{0}\gamma)$ and $\Gamma(\phi\rightarrow
78: a_{0}\gamma)$ depend on the unknown dynamics, the ratio of the
79: decay rates $\Gamma(\phi\rightarrow
80: a_{0}\gamma)/\Gamma(\phi\rightarrow f_{0}\gamma)$ provides an
81: experimental test which distinguishes between alternative
82: explanations of their structure. On the experimental side, the
83: Novosibirsk CMD-2 \cite{R3,R4} and SND \cite{R5} collaborations
84: give the following branching ratios for
85: $\phi\rightarrow\pi^{+}\pi^{-}\gamma$ and
86: $\phi\rightarrow\pi^{0}\eta\gamma$ decays:
87: $BR(\phi\rightarrow\pi^{+}\pi^{-}\gamma)=(0.41\pm0.12\pm0.04)\times10^{-4}$
88: \cite{R3},
89: $BR(\phi\rightarrow\pi^{0}\eta\gamma)=(0.90\pm0.24\pm0.10)\times10^{-4}$
90: \cite{R4},
91: $BR(\phi\rightarrow\pi^{0}\eta\gamma)=(0.88\pm0.14\pm0.09)\times10^{-4}$
92: \cite{R5}, where the first error is statistical and the second one
93: is systematic.
94:
95: Theoretically, the role of $f_{0}(980)$-meson in the radiative
96: decay processes $\phi\rightarrow\pi\pi\gamma$ was also
97: investigated by Achasov et al. \cite{R6}. They calculated the
98: branching ratio for this decay by considering only
99: $f_{0}(980)$-meson contribution. They used two different models of
100: $f_{0}(980)$-meson: the four-quark model and $K\bar{K}$ molecular
101: model. In the four-quark model they obtained the value for the
102: branching ratio as $BR(\phi\rightarrow
103: f_{0}\gamma\rightarrow\pi\pi\gamma)=2.3\times10^{-4}$ and in case
104: of the $K\bar{K}$ molecular model, the branching ratio was
105: $BR(\phi\rightarrow
106: f_{0}\gamma\rightarrow\pi\pi\gamma)=1.7\times10^{-5}$. Later,
107: Marco et al. considered the radiative $\phi$ meson decays
108: \cite{R7} as well as other radiative vector meson decays within
109: the framework of chiral unitary theory developed earlier by Oller
110: \cite{R8}. They obtained the result
111: $BR(\phi\rightarrow\pi^{+}\pi^{-}\gamma)=1.6\times10^{-4}$ for the
112: branching ratio of the $\phi\rightarrow\pi^{+}\pi^{-}\gamma$ decay
113: and emphasized that the branching ratio for
114: $\phi\rightarrow\pi^{+}\pi^{-}\gamma$ decay is twice the one for
115: $\phi\rightarrow\pi^{0}\pi^{0}\gamma$ decay. Recently, the
116: radiative $\phi\rightarrow\pi^{0}\pi^{0}\gamma$ decay, where the
117: scalar $f_{0}(980)$-meson plays an important role was studied by
118: G\7kalp and Y\5lmaz \cite{R9} within the framework of a
119: phenomenological approach in which the contributions of
120: $\sigma$-meson, $\rho$-meson and $f_{0}$-meson are considered.
121: They analyzed the interference effects between different
122: contributions. Their analysis showed that $f_{0}(980)$-meson
123: amplitude makes a substantial contribution to the branching ratio
124: of this decay. Furthermore, recently Escribano has been studied
125: the scalar meson exchange in $V\rightarrow\pi^{0}\pi^{0}\gamma$
126: decays \cite{R10}. He discussed the scalar contributions to the
127: $\phi\rightarrow\pi^{0}\pi^{0}\gamma$,
128: $\phi\rightarrow\pi^{0}\eta\gamma$ and
129: $\rho^{0}\rightarrow\pi^{0}\pi^{0}\gamma$ decays in the framework
130: of the linear sigma model ($L \sigma M$). He obtained the result
131: $BR(\phi\rightarrow\pi^{0}\pi^{0}\gamma)=1.16\times10^{-4}$ for
132: the branching ratio of the $\phi\rightarrow\pi^{0}\pi^{0}\gamma$
133: decay and noted that, the branching ratio for this decay is
134: dominated by $f_{0}(980)$ meson amplitude.
135:
136: In this work, we study the radiative vector meson decay
137: $\phi\rightarrow\pi^{+}\pi^{-}\gamma$ to investigate the role of
138: the scalar $f_{0}(980)$ meson and to extract the relevant
139: information on the properties of this scalar meson. Theoretically,
140: the radiative $\phi\rightarrow\pi^{+}\pi^{-}\gamma$ decay has not
141: been studied extensively up to now. One of the rare studies of
142: this decay was by Marco et al. \cite{R7} who neglected the
143: contributions coming from intermediate vector meson states.
144: Therefore, this decay should be reconsidered and the VMD amplitude
145: should be added to the $f_{0}$-meson and $\sigma$-meson
146: amplitudes.
147:
148: %%%CHAPTER 2
149: \section{Formalism}
150:
151: We study the radiative decay $\phi\rightarrow
152: \pi^{+}\pi^{-}\gamma$ within the framework of a phenomenological
153: approach in which the contributions of $\sigma$-meson,
154: $\rho$-meson and $f_{0}$-meson are considered and we do not make
155: any assumption about the structure of the $f_0$ meson. In our
156: phenomenological approach we describe the $\phi KK$-vertex by the
157: effective Lagrangian
158: \begin{eqnarray}\label{e1}
159: {\cal L}^{eff.}_{\phi KK}=-ig_{\phi KK}\phi^{\mu}
160: \left(K^{+}\partial_{\mu}K^{-}-K^{-}\partial_{\mu}K^{+}\right)~~,
161: \end{eqnarray}
162: and for the $f_{0} KK$-vertex we use the phenomenological
163: Lagrangian
164: \begin{eqnarray}\label{e2}
165: {\cal L}^{eff.}_{f_{0} KK}=g_{f_{0} KK}M_{f_{0}}K^{+}K^{-}f_{0}~~.
166: \end{eqnarray}
167: \begin{figure}[t]
168: $\left. \right.$ \vskip -2cm \special{psfile=fig21.eps hoffset=85
169: voffset=-180 hscale=60 vscale=60 angle=0} \vskip 7cm
170: \caption{Feynman diagrams for the decay $\phi\rightarrow
171: f_{0}\gamma$}
172: \end{figure}
173: The effective Lagrangians for the $\phi KK$- and $f_{0}
174: KK$-vertices also serve to define the coupling constants $g_{\phi
175: KK}$ and $g_{f_{0}KK}$ respectively. The decay width for the
176: $\phi\rightarrow K^{+}K^{-}$ decay is obtained from the Lagrangian
177: given in Eq. 1 and this decay width is
178: \begin{eqnarray}\label{e3}
179: \Gamma(\phi\rightarrow K^{+}K^{-})=\frac{g^{2}_{\phi KK}}{48 \pi}
180: M_{\phi} \left[1-\left(\frac{2M_{K}}{M_{\phi}}\right)^{2}\right]^{3/2}~~.
181: \end{eqnarray}
182: We then obtain the coupling constant $g_{\phi KK}$ from the
183: experimental partial width \cite{R11} of the radiative decay
184: $\phi\rightarrow K^{+}K^{-}$ as $g_{\phi KK}=(4.59\pm 0.05)$. The
185: amplitude of the radiative decay $\phi\rightarrow f_{0}\gamma$ is
186: obtained from the diagrams shown in Fig. 1 where the last diagram
187: assures gauge invariance \cite{R1,R12}. This amplitude is
188: \begin{eqnarray}\label{e4}
189: {\cal M }\left(\phi\rightarrow f_{0}\gamma\right)=-\frac{1}{2\pi^{2}M_{K}^{2}}\left(g_{f_{0}KK}M_{f_{0}}\right)
190: \left(eg_{\phi KK}\right)I(a,b)\left[\epsilon\cdot u ~k\cdot p-\epsilon\cdot p~ k\cdot u\right]~
191: \end{eqnarray}
192: where $(u,p)$ and $(\epsilon,k)$ are the polarizations and
193: four-momenta of the $\phi$ meson and the photon respectively, and
194: also $a=M_{\phi}^{2}/M_{K}^{2}$, $b=M_{f_{0}}^{2}/M_{K}^{2}$. The
195: $I(a,b)$ function has been calculated in different contexts
196: \cite{R2,R8,R13} and is defined as
197: \begin{eqnarray}\label{e5}
198: I(a,b)=\frac{1}{2(a-b)} -\frac{2}{(a-b)^{2}}
199: \left [f(\frac{1}{b})-f(\frac{1}{a})\right ] +\frac{a}{(a-b)^{2}}\left [
200: g(\frac{1}{b})-g(\frac{1}{a})\right ]~~,
201: \end{eqnarray}
202: where
203: \begin{eqnarray}\label{e6}
204: &&f(x)=\left \{ \begin{array}{rr}
205: -\left [ \arcsin (\frac{1}{2\sqrt{x}})\right ]^{2}~,& ~~x>\frac{1}{4} \\
206: \frac{1}{4}\left [ \ln (\frac{\eta_{+}}{\eta_{-}})-i\pi\right]^{2}~, & ~~x<\frac{1}{4}
207: \end{array} \right.\nonumber \\
208: && \nonumber \\
209: &&g(x)=\left \{ \begin{array}{rr}
210: (4x-1)^{\frac{1}{2}} \arcsin(\frac{1}{2\sqrt{x}})~, & ~~ x>\frac{1}{4} \\
211: \frac{1}{2}(1-4x)^{\frac{1}{2}}\left [\ln (\frac{\eta_{+}}{\eta_{-}})-i\pi \right ]~, & ~~ x<\frac{1}{4}
212: \end{array} \right.\nonumber \\
213: && \nonumber \\
214: &&\eta_{\pm}=\frac{1}{2x}\left [ 1\pm(1-4x)^{\frac{1}{2}}\right ]
215: ~.
216: \end{eqnarray}
217: Then, the decay rate for the $\phi\rightarrow f_{0}\gamma$ decay
218: is
219: \begin{eqnarray}\label{e7}
220: \Gamma(\phi\rightarrow f_{0}\gamma)=\frac{\alpha}{6 (2\pi)^4}
221: \frac{M_{\phi}^{2}-M_{f_{0}}^{2}}{M_{\phi}^{3}}g^{2}_{\phi KK}
222: \left(g_{f_{0}KK} M_{f_{0}}\right)^2
223: \left|(a-b)I(a,b)\right|^{2}~~.
224: \end{eqnarray}
225: Utilizing the experimental value for the branching ratio
226: $BR(\phi\rightarrow f_{0}\gamma)=(3.4\pm 0.4)\times 10^{-4}$ for
227: the decay $\phi\rightarrow f_{0}\gamma$ \cite{R11}, we determine
228: the coupling constant $g_{f_{0}KK}$ as $g_{f_{0}KK}=(4.13\pm
229: 1.42)$. In our calculation, we assume that the radiative decay
230: $\phi\rightarrow \pi^{+}\pi^{-}\gamma$ proceeds through the
231: reactions $\phi\rightarrow\sigma\gamma\rightarrow
232: \pi^{+}\pi^{-}\gamma$,
233: $\phi\rightarrow\rho^{\mp}\pi^{\pm}\rightarrow
234: \pi^{+}\pi^{-}\gamma$ and $\phi\rightarrow f_{0}\gamma\rightarrow
235: \pi^{+}\pi^{-}\gamma$. Therefore, our calculation is based on the
236: Feynman diagrams shown in Fig. 2. For the
237: $\phi\sigma\gamma$-vertex, we use the effective Lagrangian
238: \begin{figure}[t]
239: $\left. \right.$ \vskip 1.5cm \special{psfile=fig22.eps
240: hoffset=40 voffset=-180 hscale=60 vscale=60 angle=0} \vskip 7cm
241: \caption{Feynman diagrams for the decay $\phi\rightarrow
242: \pi^+\pi^-\gamma$}
243: \end{figure}
244: \begin{eqnarray}\label{e8}
245: {\cal L}^{eff.}_{\phi\sigma\gamma}=\frac{e}{M_{\phi}}g_{\phi\sigma\gamma}
246: [\partial^{\alpha}\phi^{\beta}\partial_{\alpha}A_{\beta}
247: -\partial^{\alpha}\phi^{\beta}\partial_{\beta}A_{\alpha}]\sigma~~,
248: \end{eqnarray}
249: which also defines the coupling constant $g_{\phi\sigma\gamma}$.
250: The coupling constant $g_{\phi\sigma\gamma}$ is determined by
251: G\7kalp and Y\5lmaz \cite{R9} as $g_{\phi\sigma\gamma}=(0.025\pm
252: 0.009)$ using the experimental value of the branching ratio for
253: the radiative decay $\phi\rightarrow \pi^{0}\pi^{0}\gamma$
254: \cite{R14}. For the $\sigma\pi\pi$-vertex we use the effective
255: Lagrangian
256: \begin{eqnarray}\label{e9}
257: {\cal L}^{eff.}_{\sigma\pi\pi}=\frac{1}{2}g_{\sigma\pi\pi}
258: M_{\sigma}\vec{\pi}\cdot\vec{\pi}\sigma~~.
259: \end{eqnarray}
260: The decay width of the $\sigma$-meson that results from this
261: effective Lagrangian is given as
262: \begin{eqnarray}\label{e10}
263: \Gamma_{\sigma}\equiv\Gamma(\sigma\rightarrow\pi\pi)=
264: \frac{g^{2}_{\sigma\pi\pi}}{4\pi}\frac{3M_{\sigma}}{8}
265: \left[1-\left(\frac{2M_{\pi}}{M_{\sigma}}\right)^{2}\right]^{1/2}~~.
266: \end{eqnarray}
267: For given values of $M_{\sigma}$ and $\Gamma_{\sigma}$, we use
268: this expression to determine the coupling constant
269: $g_{\sigma\pi\pi}$. Therefore, using the experimental values for
270: $M_{\sigma}$ and $\Gamma_{\sigma}$ \cite{R15}, given as
271: $M_{\sigma}=(478\pm 17)~MeV$ and $\Gamma_{\sigma}=(324\pm
272: 21)~MeV$, we obtain the coupling constant
273: $g_{\sigma\pi\pi}=(5.25\pm 0.32)$. The $\phi\rho\pi$-vertex is
274: conventionally described by the effective Lagrangian
275: \begin{eqnarray}\label{e11}
276: {\cal L}^{eff.}_{\phi\rho\pi}=\frac{g_{\phi\rho\pi}}{M_\phi}
277: \epsilon^{\mu\nu\alpha\beta}\partial_{\mu}\phi_{\nu}
278: \partial_{\alpha}\vec{\rho_{\beta}}\cdot\vec{\pi}~~.
279: \end{eqnarray}
280: The coupling constant $g_{\phi\rho\pi}$ is calculated as
281: $g_{\phi\rho\pi}=(0.811\pm 0.081)~GeV^{-1}$ by Achasov and Gubin
282: \cite{R16} using the data on the decay
283: $\phi\rightarrow\rho\pi\rightarrow\pi^{+}\pi^{-}\pi^{0}$
284: \cite{R11}. For the $\rho\pi\gamma$-vertex the effective
285: Lagrangian
286: \begin{eqnarray}\label{e12}
287: {\cal L}^{eff.}_{\rho\pi\gamma}=\frac{e}{M_{\rho}}g_{\rho\pi\gamma}
288: \epsilon^{\mu\nu\alpha\beta}\partial_{\mu}\vec{\rho_{\nu}}\cdot\vec{\pi}~\partial_{\alpha}A_{\beta}~~,
289: \end{eqnarray}
290: is used. At present there is a discrepancy between the
291: experimental widths of the $\rho^0\rightarrow\pi^{0}\gamma$ and
292: $\rho^+\rightarrow\pi^{+}\gamma$ decays. We use the experimental
293: rate for the decay $\rho^0\rightarrow\pi^{0}\gamma$ \cite{R11} to
294: extract the coupling constant $g_{\rho\pi\gamma}$ as
295: $g_{\rho\pi\gamma}=(0.69\pm 0.35)$ since the experimental value
296: for the decay rate of $\phi\rightarrow\pi^{0}\pi^{0}\gamma$ was
297: used by G\7kalp and Y\5lmaz \cite{R9} to estimate the coupling
298: constant $g_{\phi\sigma\gamma}$. Finally, the $f_{0}\pi\pi$-vertex
299: is described conventionally by the effective Lagrangian
300: \begin{eqnarray}\label{e13}
301: {\cal L}^{eff.}_{f_{0}\pi\pi}=\frac{1}{2}g_{f_{0}\pi\pi}
302: M_{f_{0}}\vec{\pi}\cdot\vec{\pi}f_{0}~~.
303: \end{eqnarray}
304: In our calculation of the invariant amplitude, we make the
305: replacement $q^{2}-M^{2}\rightarrow q^{2}-M^{2}+iM\Gamma $, where
306: $q$ and $M$ are four-momentum and mass of the virtual particles
307: respectively, in $\rho$-, $\sigma$- and $f_{0}$- propagators in
308: order to take into account the finite widths of these unstable
309: particles and use the experimental value $\Gamma_{\rho}=(150.2\pm
310: 0.8)~MeV$ \cite{R11} for $\rho$-meson. However, since the mass
311: $M_{f_{0}}=980~MeV$ of $f_{0}$-meson is very close to the
312: $K^{+}K^{-}$ threshold this gives rise to a strong energy
313: dependence on the width of the $f_{0}$-meson and to include this
314: energy dependence different expressions for $\Gamma_{f_{0}}$ can
315: be used. First option is to use an energy dependent width for
316: $f_{0}$
317: \begin{eqnarray}\label{e14}
318: \Gamma_{f_{0}}(q^{2})=\Gamma_{\pi\pi}^{f_{0}}(q^{2})~\theta\left(\sqrt{q^{2}}-2M_{\pi}\right)
319: +\Gamma_{K\overline{K}}^{f_{0}}(q^{2})~\theta\left(\sqrt{q^{2}}-2M_{K}\right)~~,
320: \end{eqnarray}
321: where $q^{2}$ is the four-momentum square of the virtual
322: $f_{0}$-meson and the width $\Gamma_{\pi\pi}^{f_{0}}(q^{2})$ is
323: given as
324: \begin{eqnarray}\label{e15}
325: \Gamma_{\pi\pi}^{f_{0}}(q^{2})=\Gamma_{\pi\pi}^{f_{0}}~\frac{M_{f_{0}}^2}{q^2}
326: \sqrt{\frac{q^{2}-4M_{\pi}^{2}}{M_{f_{0}}^{2}-4M_{\pi}^{2}}}~~.
327: \end{eqnarray}
328: We use the experimental value for $\Gamma_{\pi\pi}^{f_{0}}$ as
329: $\Gamma_{\pi\pi}^{f_{0}}=40-100~MeV$ \cite{R11}. The width
330: $\Gamma_{K\overline{K}}^{f_{0}}(q^{2})$ is given by a similar
331: expression as for $\Gamma_{\pi\pi}^{f_{0}}(q^{2})$. Another and
332: widely accepted option is the work of Flatt\'{e} \cite{R17}. In
333: his work, the expression for
334: $\Gamma_{K\overline{K}}^{f_{0}}(q^{2})$ is extended below the
335: $K\overline{K}$ threshold where $\sqrt{q^{2}-4M_{K}^{2}}$ is
336: replaced by $i\sqrt{4M_{K}^{2}-q^{2}}$ so
337: $\Gamma_{K\overline{K}}^{f_{0}}(q^{2})$ becomes purely imaginary.
338: However in our work, we take into account both options. The
339: invariant amplitude ${\cal M}(E_{\gamma}, E_{1})$ is expressed as
340: ${\cal M}(E_{\gamma}, E_{1})={\cal M}_{a}+{\cal M}_{b}+{\cal
341: M}_{c}+{\cal M}_{d}$ where ${\cal M}_{a}$, ${\cal M}_{b}$, ${\cal
342: M}_{c}$ and ${\cal M}_{d}$ are the invariant amplitudes resulting
343: from the diagrams $(a)$, $(b)$, $(c)$ and $(d)$ in Fig. 2
344: respectively. Therefore, the interference between different
345: reactions contributing to the decay $\phi\rightarrow
346: \pi^{+}\pi^{-}\gamma$ is taken into account. The differential
347: decay probability for an unpolarized $\phi$-meson at rest is given
348: as
349: \begin{eqnarray}\label{e16}
350: \frac{d\Gamma}{dE_{\gamma}dE_{1}}=\frac{1}{(2\pi)^{3}}~\frac{1}{8M_{\phi}}~
351: \mid {\cal M}\mid^{2}~~,
352: \end{eqnarray}
353: where E$_{\gamma}$ and E$_{1}$ are the photon and pion energies
354: respectively. We perform an average over the spin states of
355: $\phi$-meson and a sum over the polarization states of the photon.
356: The decay width $\Gamma(\phi\rightarrow\pi^{+}\pi^{-}\gamma)$ is
357: then obtained by integration
358: \begin{eqnarray}\label{e17}
359: \Gamma=\int_{E_{\gamma,min.}}^{E_{\gamma,max.}}dE_{\gamma}
360: \int_{E_{1,min.}}^{E_{1,max.}}dE_{1}\frac{d\Gamma}{dE_{\gamma}dE_{1}}~~,
361: \end{eqnarray}
362: where the minimum photon energy is E$_{\gamma, min.}=0$ and the
363: maximum photon energy is given as
364: $E_{\gamma,max.}=(M_{\phi}^{2}-4M_{\pi}^{2})/2M_{\phi}=471.8~MeV$.
365: The maximum and minimum values for the pion energy E$_{1}$ are
366: given by
367: \begin{eqnarray}\label{e18}
368: \frac{1}{2(2E_{\gamma}M_{\phi}-M_{\phi}^{2})} [
369: -2E_{\gamma}^{2}M_{\phi}+3E_{\gamma}M_{\phi}^{2}-M_{\phi}^{3}
370: ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ \nonumber \\
371: \pm E_{\gamma}\sqrt{(-2E_{\gamma}M_{\phi}+M_{\phi}^{2})
372: (-2E_{\gamma}M_{\phi}+M_{\phi}^{2}-4M_{\pi}^{2})}~]~~.
373: \end{eqnarray}
374:
375: %%%CHAPTER 3
376:
377: \section{Results and Discussion}
378:
379: In order to determine the coupling constant $g_{f_{0}\pi\pi}$, we
380: choose for the $f_{0}$-meson parameters the values
381: $M_{f_{0}}=980~MeV$ and $\Gamma_{f_{0}}=(70\pm30)~MeV$. Therefore,
382: through the decay rate that results from the effective Lagrangian
383: given in Eq. 13 we obtain the coupling constant $g_{f_{0}\pi\pi}$
384: as $g_{f_{0}\pi\pi}=(1.58\pm0.30)$. If we use the form for
385: $\Gamma^{f_{0}}_{K\bar{K}}(q^2)$, proposed by Flatt\'{e}
386: \cite{R17}, the desired enhancement in the invariant mass spectrum
387: appears in its central part rather than around the $f_{0}$ pole.
388: Bramon et al. \cite{R18} also encountered a similar problem in
389: their study of the effects of the $a_{0}(980)$ meson in the
390: $\phi\rightarrow\pi^0 \eta\gamma$ decay. Therefore, in the
391: analysis which we present below for $\Gamma_{f_{0}}(q^2)$ we use
392: the form given in Eq. 14. The invariant mass distribution
393: $dB/dM_{\pi\pi}=(M_{\pi\pi}/M_{\phi})dB/dE_{\gamma}$ for the
394: radiative decay $\phi\rightarrow \pi^+\pi^-\gamma$ is plotted in
395: Fig. 3 as a function of the invariant mass $M_{\pi\pi}$ of
396: $\pi^+\pi^-$ system. In this figure we indicate the contributions
397: coming from different reactions
398: $\phi\rightarrow\sigma\gamma\rightarrow\pi^+\pi^-\gamma$,
399: $\phi\rightarrow\rho^{\mp}\pi^{\pm}\rightarrow\pi^+\pi^-\gamma$
400: and $\phi\rightarrow f_{0}\gamma\rightarrow\pi^+\pi^-\gamma$ as
401: well as the contribution of the total amplitude which includes the
402: interference terms as well. It is clearly seen from Fig. 3 that
403: the spectrum for the decay $\phi\rightarrow \pi^+\pi^-\gamma$ is
404: dominated by the $f_{0}$-amplitude. On the other hand the
405: contribution coming from $\sigma$-amplitude can only be noticed in
406: the region $M_{\pi\pi}<0.7~GeV$ through interference effects.
407: Likewise $\rho$-meson contribution can be seen in the region
408: $M_{\pi\pi}<0.8~GeV$ so we can say that the contribution of the
409: $f_{0}$-term is much larger than the contributions of the
410: $\sigma$-term and $\rho$-term as well as the contribution of the
411: total interference term having opposite sign.
412: \begin{figure}[t]
413: $\left. \right.$ \vskip 8.4cm \special{psfile=fig31.eps
414: hoffset=40 voffset=-130 hscale=65 vscale=55 angle=0} \vskip 2cm
415: \caption{ The $\pi\pi$ invariant mass spectrum for the decay
416: $\phi\rightarrow \pi^+\pi^-\gamma$. The contributions of different
417: terms are indicated.}
418: \end{figure}
419: The dominant $f_{0}$-term characterizes the invariant mass
420: distribution in the region where $M_{\pi\pi}>0.7~GeV$. In our
421: study contributions of different amplitudes to the branching ratio
422: of the decay $\phi\rightarrow \pi^+\pi^-\gamma$ are
423: $BR(\phi\rightarrow
424: f_{0}\gamma\rightarrow\pi^+\pi^-\gamma)=2.54\times 10^{-4}$,
425: $BR(\phi\rightarrow\sigma\gamma\rightarrow\pi^+\pi^-\gamma)=0.07\times
426: 10^{-4}$,
427: $BR(\phi\rightarrow\rho^{\mp}\pi^{\pm}\rightarrow\pi^+\pi^-\gamma)=0.26\times
428: 10^{-4}$,
429: $BR(\phi\rightarrow(f_{0}\gamma+\pi^{\pm}\rho^{\mp})\rightarrow\pi^+\pi^-\gamma)=2.74\times
430: 10^{-4}$,
431: $BR(\phi\rightarrow(f_{0}\gamma+\sigma\gamma)\rightarrow\pi^+\pi^-\gamma)=2.29\times
432: 10^{-4}$ and for the total interference term
433: $BR(\textrm{interference})=-0.29\times 10^{-4}$. We then calculate
434: the total branching ratio as $BR(\phi\rightarrow
435: \pi^+\pi^-\gamma)=2.57\times 10^{-4}$. Our result is twice the
436: theoretical result for $\phi\rightarrow \pi^0\pi^0\gamma$ decay,
437: obtained by G\7kalp and Y\5lmaz \cite{R9}, as it should be. They
438: obtained the following values: $BR(\phi\rightarrow
439: f_{0}\gamma\rightarrow\pi^0\pi^0\gamma)=1.29\times 10^{-4}$,
440: $BR(\phi\rightarrow\sigma\gamma\rightarrow\pi^0\pi^0\gamma)=0.04\times
441: 10^{-4}$,
442: $BR(\phi\rightarrow\rho^{0}\pi^{0}\rightarrow\pi^0\pi^0\gamma)=0.14\times
443: 10^{-4}$,
444: $BR(\phi\rightarrow(f_{0}\gamma+\pi^{0}\rho^{0})\rightarrow\pi^0\pi^0\gamma)=1.34\times
445: 10^{-4}$,
446: $BR(\phi\rightarrow(f_{0}\gamma+\sigma\gamma)\rightarrow\pi^0\pi^0\gamma)=1.16\times
447: 10^{-4}$ and $BR\textrm{(interference)}=-0.25\times 10^{-4}$.
448: Moreover, our calculation for the branching ratio of the radiative
449: decay $\phi\rightarrow\pi^+\pi^-\gamma$ is nearly twice the value
450: for the branching ratio of the radiative decay
451: $\phi\rightarrow\pi^0\pi^0\gamma$ that was obtained by Achasov and
452: Gubin \cite{R16}. Besides, $\phi\rightarrow\pi^{+}\pi^{-}\gamma$
453: decay was considered by Marco et al. \cite{R7} in the framework of
454: unitarized chiral perturbation theory. The branching ratio for
455: $\phi\rightarrow\pi^{+}\pi^{-}\gamma$, they obtained, was
456: $BR(\phi\rightarrow\pi^{+}\pi^{-}\gamma)=1.6\times 10^{-4}$ and
457: for $\phi\rightarrow\pi^{0}\pi^{0}\gamma$ was
458: $BR(\phi\rightarrow\pi^{0}\pi^{0}\gamma)=0.8\times 10^{-4}$. As we
459: mentioned above, they noted that the branching ratio for
460: $\phi\rightarrow\pi^{0}\pi^{0}\gamma$ is one half of
461: $\phi\rightarrow\pi^{+}\pi^{-}\gamma$. Therefore our calculation
462: for the branching ratio of $\phi\rightarrow\pi^{+}\pi^{-}\gamma$
463: decay is in accordance with the theoretical expectations. A
464: similar relation can be seen between the decay rates of
465: $\omega\rightarrow\pi^{+}\pi^{-}\gamma$ and
466: $\omega\rightarrow\pi^{0}\pi^{0}\gamma$ \cite{R19}. It was noticed
467: that
468: $\Gamma(\omega\rightarrow\pi^{0}\pi^{0}\gamma)=1/2\Gamma(\omega\rightarrow\pi^{+}\pi^{-}\gamma)$
469: and the factor $1/2$ is a result of charge conjugation invariance
470: to order $\alpha$ which imposes pion pairs of even angular
471: momentum. The experimental value of the branching ratio for
472: $\phi\rightarrow\pi^{+}\pi^{-}\gamma$, measured by Akhmetshin et
473: al., is
474: $BR(\phi\rightarrow\pi^{+}\pi^{-}\gamma)=(0.41\pm0.12\pm0.04)\times
475: 10^{-4}$ \cite{R3}. So the value of the branching ratio that we
476: obtained is approximately six times larger than the value of the
477: measured branching ratio. As it was stated by Marco et al.
478: \cite{R7}, we should not compare our calculation for the branching
479: ratio of the radiative decay $\phi\rightarrow\pi^{+}\pi^{-}\gamma$
480: directly with experiment since the experiment is done using the
481: reaction $e^{+}e^{-}\rightarrow\phi\rightarrow\pi^+\pi^-\gamma$,
482: which interferes with the off-shell $\rho$ dominated amplitude
483: coming from the reaction
484: $e^{+}e^{-}\rightarrow\rho\rightarrow\pi^+\pi^-\gamma$ \cite{R20}.
485: Also the result in \cite{R3} is based on model dependent
486: assumptions.
487: \section{Acknowledgement}
488: We thank A. G\7kalp and O. Y\5lmaz for their invaluable comments
489: and suggestions during this work.
490: %%%REFERENCES
491:
492:
493: \begin{thebibliography}{99}
494:
495: \bibitem{R1} N. N. Achasov, V. N. Ivanchenko, Nucl. Phys. {\bf B315}, 465 (1989).
496: \bibitem{R2} F. E. Close, N. Isgur, S. Kumona, Nucl. Phys. {\bf B389}, 513 (1993).
497: \bibitem{R3} R. R. Akhmetshin et al., Phys. Lett. {\bf B462}, 371 (1999).
498: \bibitem{R4} R. R. Akhmetshin et al., Phys. Lett. {\bf B462}, 380 (1999).
499: \bibitem{R5} M. N. Achasov et al., Phys. Lett. {\bf B479}, 53 (2000).
500: \bibitem{R6} N. N. Achasov, V. V. Gubin and E. P. Solodov, Phys. Rev. {\bf D55}, 2672 (1997).
501: \bibitem{R7} E. Marco, S. Hirenzaki, E. Oset and H. Toki, Phys. Lett. {\bf B470}, 20 (1999).
502: \bibitem{R8} J. A. Oller, Phys. Lett. {\bf B426}, 7 (1998).
503: \bibitem{R9} A. G\7kalp and O. Y\5lmaz, Phys. Rev. {\bf D64}, 053017 (2001).
504: \bibitem{R10} R. Escribano, Talk presented at the 9th International High-Energy Physics Conference in
505: Quantum Chromodynamics (QCD 2002), Montpellier, France, 2-9 July
506: 2002, hep-ph/0209375 (2002).
507: \bibitem{R11} Particle Data Group, D. E. Groom et al., Eur. Phys. J.{\bf C15}, 1 (2000).
508: \bibitem{R12} V. E. Markushin, Eur. Phys. J. {\bf A8}, 389 (2000).
509: \bibitem{R13} J. L. Lucio M., J. Pestieau, Phys. Rev. {\bf D42}, 3253 (1990); {\bf D43}, 2447 (1991).
510: \bibitem{R14} M. N. Achasov et al., Phys. Lett. {\bf B485}, 349 (2000).
511: \bibitem{R15} E791 Collaboration, E. M. Aitala et al., Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf 86}, 770 (2001).
512: \bibitem{R16} N. N. Achasov and V. V. Gubin, Phys. Rev. {\bf D63}, 094007 (2001).
513: \bibitem{R17} S. M. Flatt\'{e}, Phys. Lett. {\bf B63}, 224 (1976).
514: \bibitem{R18} A. Bramon, R. Escribano, J. L. Lucio M., M. Napsuciale, G. Pancheri, Phys. Lett. {\bf B494}, 221 (2000).
515: \bibitem{R19} P. Singer, Phys. Rev. {\bf 128}, 2789 (1962); {\bf 130}, 2441 (1963); {\bf 161}, 1694 (1967).
516: \bibitem{R20} A. Bramon, G. Colangelo and M. Greco, Phys. Lett. {\bf B287}, 263 (1992).
517:
518: \end{thebibliography}
519: \end{document}
520: