1: %%
2: %% This is file `template-6s.tex',
3: %% generated with the docstrip utility.
4: %%
5: %% The original source files were:
6: %%
7: %% template.raw (with options: `6s')
8: %%
9: %% Template for the LaTeX class aipproc.
10: %%
11: %% (C) 1998,2000,2001 American Institute of Physics and Frank Mittelbach
12: %% All rights reserved
13: %%
14: %%
15: %% $Id: template.raw,v 1.11 2004/10/31 08:06:14 frank Exp $
16: %%
17: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
18: %% Please remove the next line of code if you
19: %% are satisfied that your installation is
20: %% complete and working.
21: %%
22: %% It is only there to help you in detecting
23: %% potential problems.
24: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
25: %
26: %\input{aipcheck}
27: %
28: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
29: %% SELECT THE LAYOUT
30: %%
31: %% The class supports further options.
32: %% See aipguide.pdf for details.
33: %%
34: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
35:
36: \documentclass[
37: ,final % use final for the camera ready runs
38: %% ,draft % use draft while you are working on the paper
39: %% ,numberedheadings % uncomment this option for numbered sections
40: %% , % add further options here if necessary
41: ]
42: {aipproc}
43:
44: \layoutstyle{6x9}
45:
46: \begin{document}
47:
48: \title{The jigsaw puzzle of scalar mesons}
49:
50: \classification{11.55.-m, 13.75.Lb, 14.40.Cs}
51: \keywords {Scalar mesons, hadronic amplitudes,
52: comprehensive data analysis}
53:
54: \author{M. Boglione}{
55: address={Dipartimento di Fisica Teorica, Universita' di Torino,
56: via P. Giuria 1, 10125 Italy }}
57:
58: \begin{abstract}
59: This is a brief overview of light scalar meson spectroscopy, addressing
60: longstanding problems, recent developments and future perspectives.
61: In particular, a new comprehensive data analysis is introduced which will
62: help to unravel the structure of the $f_0(980)$.
63: \end{abstract}
64:
65: \maketitle
66:
67: We all know that the quark model works well for most mesons: nice nonet
68: structures arise when all possible combinations of $q\overline q$ pairs are
69: ordered according to their isospin and strangeness.
70: Then, by exploiting the mass and decay properties of the
71: physical mesons delivered by experiments, we can find a slot for each
72: candidate in the nonet.
73: This game can be safely played for vector and tensor mesons and, to some
74: extent, for pseudoscalar mesons, if the appropriate mixing angles are taken
75: into account.
76: Consider, for instance, the $\omega(782)$ and the $\phi(1020)$: experiments
77: tell us that the $\omega(782)$ decays mostly into pions and
78: is lighter than the $\phi(1020)$ which, on the contrary, decays into
79: $K\overline K$ $85$\% of the time. It's mass being close to that of the
80: $\rho(770)$ provides clear indication that the $\omega(782)$ is the $I=0$
81: non-strange candidate, whereas $\phi(1020)$ is undoubtedly the $I=0$
82: $s\overline s$ member of the vector nonet.
83: Similarly for the tensors $f_2$ and $f_2^\prime$.
84:
85: For scalar mesons this does not work. The quark model fails inexorably: first
86: of all, experiments detect many more physical scalar resonances than can fit
87: in a nonet. Secondly, their decay properties are mostly unknown, so there is
88: little guide to their classification, thirdly their spectra cannot be
89: approximated by Breit-Wigner shapes, because they overlap and interfere with
90: each other, some of them being very broad.
91: Therefore, the classical methods of analysing data cannot be applied.
92:
93: How can we try and disentagle such a complicated picture?
94: {\it Unitarity} comes to our rescue. Indeed, this
95: property, which follows from conservation of probability, has
96: to be fulfilled whatever the quantum numbers of the $q\overline q$ pair, and
97: give very useful constraints for our analyses.
98: Unitarity requires the $T$ matrix for each partial wave to satisfy
99: \({\rm Im} T = \rho |T|^2\), where $\rho$ is the phase space matrix.
100: This relation constrains the imaginary part of $(1/T)$ to be
101: \({\rm Im} (1/T) = -\rho\), in the simplest case, leaving \({\rm Re} (1/T)\)
102: unconstrained. By parametrizing \({\rm Re} (1/T)\) by a real
103: matrix $1/K$, one obtains \(T=\frac{K}{1-i\rho K}\), which is the usual
104: $K$-matrix representation.
105: If there is only one channel, like in $\pi\pi\to\pi\pi$ scattering below
106: $K\overline K$ threshold, and only one narrow resonance, this resonance will
107: appear like a single pole in the $K$ amplitude, \(K=\frac{g^2}{M^2-s}\), and
108: the T amplitude can be approximated by \(T=\frac{g^2}{M^2-s-i\rho g}\).
109: The pole of $K$ gives the ``bare state'' and $T$ has a Breit-Wigner form.
110: This simple picture works only for narrow and well separated resonances,
111: where coupling to hadronic loops has little effect. For
112: the scalar sector, where resonances are broad (i.e. their poles are located
113: very far from the real $s$-axis, where experiments happen), interfeering and
114: overlapping (i.e. their spectra are not made of nicely separated peaks),
115: this simple interpretation breaks down.
116:
117: Fig.~\ref{unitarity} shows how similarly coupled-channel unitarity
118: constrains the partial wave amplitudes $F$ corresponding to two different
119: processes $\phi\to\gamma\pi\pi$ and $\gamma\gamma\to\pi\pi$;
120: scalar meson resonances are produced in the final state
121: interactions $\pi\pi\to\pi\pi$ and $K\overline K\to\pi\pi$ and are embodied
122: as poles in the $I=J=0$ hadronic amplitudes, $T$.
123: The general solution of the unitarity requirement for the $F$'s is given by a
124: linear combination of the $T$'s, where the coefficients
125: $\alpha _i(s)$ are real functions of $s$, simple polynomials
126: apart from some factors as explained in \cite{BP-phi}.
127: Notice that unitarity requires {\it consistency} between reactions, in that
128: the same strong interaction amplitudes $T$, combined and weighted using
129: appropriate $\alpha _i$ coefficients, form the amplitudes
130: corresponding to different reactions. The $\alpha$-vector formulation embodies
131: {\it universality}, demanding that poles of the $S$ matrix transmit to all
132: processes with the same quantum numbers in exactly the same position.
133: This indeed makes the determination of the $F$ amplitudes very sensitive to
134: the details of the $T$'s.
135: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
136: \begin{figure}[t]
137: \includegraphics[height=.32\textheight]{unit2.ps}
138: \caption{\label{unitarity} Coupled channel unitarity constrains the amplitudes
139: $F(\phi\to\gamma\pi\pi)$ and $F(\gamma\gamma\to\pi\pi)$ in terms of hadronic
140: amplitudes corresponding to final state interactions, $\pi\pi\to\pi\pi$ and
141: $K\overline K\to\pi\pi$ for a given $I$, $J$.
142: For $\phi$-decay, the photon is assumed to be a spectator.}
143: \end{figure}
144: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
145:
146: Recently, M.R. Pennington and I made an analysis \cite{BP-phi} of
147: $\phi\to\gamma\pi\pi$ experimental data \cite{kloe} based on the
148: coupled channel unitarity constrains of Fig.~\ref{unitarity} and showed that
149: huge differences arise in the determination of the relevant couplings and the
150: $\phi\to\gamma f_0(980)$ branching ratio due to different choices of
151: underlying amplitudes $T$. We chose an old set of
152: hadronic amplitudes called ReVAMP, determined as in \cite{MP} and a
153: recent one, obtained by Anisovich and Sarantsev in \cite{AS} fitting a much
154: larger amount of data. In the first set of amplitudes, the $f_0(980)$ appears
155: as a narrow resonance, lighter than the $\phi(1020)$.
156: In the second case the $f_0(980)$ is a much broader object, heavier than the
157: $\phi(1020)$. Since the decay rate
158: distribution depends crucially on the {\it cube} of the photon momentum, i.e.
159: $(m_\phi^2-s)^3$, and since the $f_0(980)$ is so close to the end of phase
160: space, it turns out that the determination of the couplings and
161: branching ratio is extremely sensitive to the exact position of the
162: $f_0(980)$ pole in the $T$'s.
163: The fit clearly favours the ReVAMP set of amplitudes, which give an excellent
164: quality of results with constant $\alpha _i(s)$ (3 parameter fit), confirming
165: that the $\pi\pi$ final state interactions in this particular process are
166: consistent with those of the processes exploited to determine the ReVAMP
167: amplitudes. Indeed, when the new, high statistics, KLOE data will be released,
168: we will have the chance to test this consistency further.
169:
170:
171: While for decays like $\phi\to\pi\pi X$ we have to assume $X$ is a spectator
172: to apply unitarity as in Fig.1, for $\gamma\gamma\to\pi\pi$ scattering
173: unitarity and universality apply with no assumptions.
174: A few years ago, M.R. Pennington and I analysed $\gamma\gamma\to\pi\pi$
175: world data \cite{BP-gamma} to determine the radiative widths of scalar mesons.
176: The underlying hadronic amplitudes we used were the same ReVAMP set described
177: above.
178: We found two classes of solutions, delivered by fits equally good in quality
179: and giving comparable scalar widths: one where the $f_0(980)$ showed up as a
180: peak, and the other where the $f_0(980)$ showed up as a dip.
181: Shortly, new very high statistics data from BELLE and BaBar will be available:
182: they will allow us a global reanalysis to discern between the two solutions
183: and to test the $T$ underlying hadronic amplitudes.
184:
185: For these re-analysis, we are considering a different parametrization
186: for the $T$'s.
187: In fact, the simplest solution to the unitarity requirement, as shown above,
188: violates left hand cut analyticity: each $\rho$ matrix element is singular at
189: $s\to \infty$, which constrains the $T$'s in an artificial and unnecessary way.
190: To avoid this, we perform new fits \cite{BP-FSI} that include recent
191: experimental data in addition to those used for the original ReVAMP analysis,
192: in which ${\rm Im} (1/T)$ is given by the Chew-Mandelstam function, which is
193: not affected by that flaw.
194:
195: Concluding, the main message of this talk is the following: unitarity and
196: analyticity give powerful constraints and must be at the very basis of any
197: data analysis.
198: Unitarity requires {\it consistency} among different reactions, so that
199: analysing data where final state interactions are important only makes sense
200: if it is done in a global and comprehensive way. It's like a big jigsaw
201: puzzle game: you have to take care of combining appropriately all the single
202: pieces before the total picture is revealed.
203:
204: \begin{theacknowledgments}
205: It is a pleasure to thank Umberto D'Alesio for inviting me to this conference,
206: and to all the organizers for their warmest hospitality.
207: I am infinitely grateful to M.R. Pennington for many invaluable
208: discussions on this subject and for years of fruitful and enjoyable
209: collaboration.
210: \end{theacknowledgments}
211: %
212:
213: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
214: %% The bibliography can be prepared using the BibTeX program or
215: %% manually.
216: %%
217: %% The code below assumes that BibTeX is used. If the bibliography is
218: %% produced without BibTeX comment out the following lines and see the
219: %% aipguide.pdf for further information.
220: %%
221: %% For your convenience a manually coded example is appended
222: %% after the \end{document}
223: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
224:
225: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
226: %% You may have to change the BibTeX style below, depending on your
227: %% setup or preferences.
228: %%
229: %%
230: %% For The AIP proceedings layouts use either
231: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
232:
233: \bibliographystyle{aipproc} % if natbib is available
234: %\bibliographystyle{aipprocl} % if natbib is missing
235:
236: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
237: %% You probably want to use your own bibtex database here
238: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
239: %\bibliography{sample}
240:
241: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
242: %% Just a reminder that you may have to run bibtex
243: %% All of it up to \end{document} can be removed
244: %% if you don't like the warning.
245: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
246: %\IfFileExists{\jobname.bbl}{}
247: % {\typeout{}
248: % \typeout{******************************************}
249: % \typeout{** Please run "bibtex \jobname" to obtain}
250: % \typeout{** the bibliography and then re-run LaTeX}
251: % \typeout{** twice to fix the references!}
252: % \typeout{******************************************}
253: % \typeout{}
254: % }
255:
256: %\end{document}
257:
258: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
259: %% The following lines show an example how to produce a bibliography
260: %% without the help of the BibTeX program. This could be used instead
261: %% of the above.
262: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
263:
264: \begin{thebibliography}{9}
265:
266: \bibitem{BP-phi}
267: M. Boglione, and M.R. Pennington,
268: \emph{Eur. Phys. J.} \textbf{C30}, 503 (2003).
269:
270: \bibitem{kloe}A. Aloisio \emph{et al.},
271: \emph{Phys. Lett.} \textbf{B537}, 21 (2002).
272:
273: \bibitem{MP}
274: D. Morgan, and M.R. Pennington,
275: \emph{Phys. Rev.} \textbf{D48}, 1185 (1993).
276:
277: \bibitem{AS}
278: V.V. Anisovich, and A.V. Sarantsev,
279: \emph{Eur. Phys. J.} \textbf{A16}, 229 (2003).
280:
281: \bibitem{BP-gamma}
282: M. Boglione, and M.R. Pennington,
283: \emph{Eur. Phys. J.} \textbf{C9}, 11 (1999).
284:
285: \bibitem{BP-FSI}
286: M. Boglione, and M.R. Pennington, in preparation.
287:
288: \end{thebibliography}
289:
290: \end{document}
291: \endinput
292: