1: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
2: \begin{filecontents}{leer.eps}
3: %!PS-Adobe-2.0 EPSF-2.0
4: %%CreationDate: Mon Jul 13 16:51:17 1992
5: %%DocumentFonts: (atend)
6: %%Pages: 0 1
7: %%BoundingBox: 72 31 601 342
8: %%EndComments
9:
10: gsave
11: 72 31 moveto
12: 72 342 lineto
13: 601 342 lineto
14: 601 31 lineto
15: 72 31 lineto
16: showpage
17: grestore
18: %%Trailer
19: %%DocumentFonts: Helvetica
20: \end{filecontents}
21: %
22: %\documentclass[epj,nocolumn,referee]{svjour}
23: \documentclass[epj]{svjour}
24: % Remove option referee for final version
25: \usepackage{epsfig}
26: \onecolumn
27:
28: \newcommand{\be}{\begin{equation}}
29: \newcommand{\ee}{\end{equation}}
30: \newcommand{\vek}{\mbox{\boldmath${\rm k}$}}
31: \newcommand{\veq}{\mbox{\boldmath${\rm q}$}}
32:
33: \begin{document}
34: %\hspace{9.8 cm}FZJ--IKP(TH)--2003--14
35:
36: \title{The radiative decays $\phi\to\gamma a_0/f_0$ in the molecular
37: model for the scalar mesons}
38: \author{Yu. S. Kalashnikova$^1$, A. E. Kudryavtsev$^1$, A. V. Nefediev$^1$,
39: C. Hanhart$^2$, J. Haidenbauer$^2$}
40: \institute{
41: Institute of Theoretical and Experimental Physics,\\
42: 117259, B. Cheremushkinskaya 25, Moscow, Russia
43: \and
44: Institut f\"ur Kernphysik (Theorie), Forschungszentrum J\"ulich,
45: D-52425 J\"ulich, Germany
46: }
47:
48: %
49: \date{Received: date / Revised version: date}
50:
51: \abstract{
52: We investigate the radiative decays of the $\phi$ meson to the scalar mesons
53: $a_0(980)$ and $f_0(980)$.
54: We demonstrate that, contrary to earlier claims, these decays should be of the
55: same order of magnitude for a molecular state and for a compact state and,
56: therefore, the available experimental information is consistent with both,
57: a molecular as well as a compact structure of the scalars.
58: Thus, the radiative decays of the $\phi$ meson into scalars
59: establish a sizable $K\bar K$ component of the scalar mesons, but do not
60: allow to discriminate between molecules and compact states.
61: %
62: \PACS{
63: {13.60.Le} { } \and
64: {13.75.-n} { } \and
65: {14.40.Cs} { }
66: }}
67: \maketitle
68:
69: \section{Introduction}
70:
71: It has been claimed for many years that studies of radiative decays $\phi
72: \to \gamma a_0(980) \to \gamma \pi^0 \eta$ and $\phi \to \gamma f_0(980)
73: \to \gamma \pi^0 \pi^0$ are a powerful tool to discriminate between
74: various models for the low-lying scalar mesons. The extraction of the
75: $\phi \gamma a_0$ and $\phi \gamma f_0$ coupling constants from the data is not a
76: straightforward task (see \cite{Pennington}),
77: but it is a common belief that, with data accurate enough, radiative
78: decays would reveal the nature of the lightest scalars.
79:
80: The simplest mechanism for
81: these radiative decays assumes that the $a_0$ and $f_0$ are $^3P_0$
82: quarkonia, and the decays proceed via a quark loop. Nevertheless,
83: with the $\phi$-meson being mostly an $s \bar s$ state, this mechanism cannot
84: be responsible for the decay $\phi \to \gamma a_0$, since, in the
85: quarkonium picture, the $a_0$ is an isovector state made of light quarks.
86: Similarly, only $f_0(s \bar s)$ can be produced via the quark loop
87: mechanism and, if so, the subsequent decay $f_0 \to \pi^0\pi^0$ is
88: suppressed by the OZI rule. On the other hand, as both $f_0$ and $a_0$ are
89: close to the $K \bar K$ threshold and are known to couple strongly to this
90: channel, one expects that the radiative decay mechanism via charged kaon
91: loop should play an essential role, as it was suggested in Refs.~\cite{AI,CIK,AGS}.
92: The existing data on $\phi$ radiative decays \cite{SND,CMD,KLOE} support
93: this expectation, as is shown in detail in Ref.~\cite{Achasov}.
94:
95: The latter observation does not mean {\it per se} that the quarkonium
96: assignment for $a_0$ and $f_0$ is excluded by the data. It only means
97: that the strong coupling to the $K \bar K$ channel, together with the threshold
98: enhancement phenomenon, makes the kaon loop mechanism dominant. However, the
99: strong coupling to $K \bar K$ implies that the $K \bar K$
100: component in the wave functions of these mesons should be large, and recent
101: studies \cite{W} based on the analysis of near-threshold data confirm
102: this. A large $K \bar K$ admixture should
103: be reflected somehow in the radiative decay amplitude.
104:
105: In Ref.~\cite{CIK} it is claimed that there should be a strong suppression of
106: the $\phi \to \gamma f_0/a_0$ branching ratio for the scalars in case they are
107: loosely bound molecules as compared to pointlike scalars that correspond to
108: compact quark states, ($10^{-5}$ {\it vs} $10^{-4}$). A study by Achasov et
109: al. \cite{AGS}, where the finite width of scalars was taken into account,
110: arrived at the same conclusion. Thus, the authors of \cite{CIK} and
111: \cite{AGS} stress that data for this branching ratio should allow to prove or
112: rule out the molecular model of the scalars. However, no such suppression was
113: found in recent kaon loop calculations, Refs.~\cite{Oset,Markushin,Oller},
114: where the scalars were considered as dynamically generated states, {\em i.e.},
115: as molecules. The aim of the present paper is to demonstrate explicitly the
116: implications of a molecular structure of scalars on the radiative $\phi$
117: decay. In the course of this we can demonstrate what went wrong in the
118: analysis of Ref.~\cite{CIK} and confirm the results of
119: Refs.~\cite{Oset,Markushin,Oller}.
120:
121: \section{Point--like scalars}
122:
123: To simplify the situation we work with stable scalars --- the generalization to
124: a more realistic case is straight forward and should not change the
125: conclusions; we comment on what is necessary for this generalization in what follows.
126: The current describing the radiative transition between the vector meson $\phi$ and a scalar meson $S$,
127: in the kaon loop model, is written as \cite{Nussinov,Lucio} (see \cite{CIK} for notations)
128: \be
129: M_{\nu}=e\frac{g_{\phi}g_S}{2\pi^2im^2_K}I(a,b)[\varepsilon_{\nu}(p\cdot q)-p_{\nu} (q\cdot \varepsilon)],
130: \label{loop}
131: \ee
132: where $p$ and $q$ are the momenta of the $\phi$-meson and the photon, respectively, $m_K$ is the kaon mass,
133: $g_\phi$ and $g_S$ are the $\phi K^+K^-$ and $SK^+K^-$ coupling constants,
134: $\varepsilon_\nu$ is the polarization four-vector of the $\phi$-meson,
135: $a=\frac{m^2_\phi}{m^2_K}$, and $b=\frac{m^2_S}{m^2_K}$ (in case of an
136: unstable particle produced $m^2_S$ is to be replaced by the invariant mass
137: squared of the decay products).
138: The amplitude (\ref{loop}) is transverse, $M_{\nu}q_{\nu}=0$, and is proportional to the photon momentum.
139:
140: For the pointlike model of the scalar mesons
141: the function $I(a,b)$ was calculated in Refs.~\cite{AI,CIK}.
142: It is given by
143: \be
144: I(a,b)=\frac{1}{2(a-b)}-\frac{2}{(a-b)^2}
145: \left[f\left(\frac{1}{b}\right)-f\left(\frac{1}{a}\right)\right]
146: +\frac{a}{(a-b)^2}\left[g\left(\frac{1}{b}\right)-g\left(\frac{1}{a}\right)\right],
147: \label{I}
148: \ee
149: $$
150: f(\alpha)=\left\{
151: \begin{array}{ccc}
152: -[\arcsin(\frac{1}{2\sqrt{\alpha}})]^2,&\quad&\alpha>\frac{1}{4}\\
153: \frac{1}{4}\left[\ln(\frac{\eta_+}{\eta_-})-i\pi \right],&&\alpha<\frac{1}{4}
154: \end{array}
155: \right.
156: $$
157: $$
158: g(\alpha)=
159: \left\{
160: \begin{array}{ccc}
161: \sqrt{4\alpha-1}\arcsin(\frac{1}{2\sqrt{\alpha}}),&\quad&\alpha>\frac{1}{4}\\
162: \frac{1}{2}\sqrt{1-4\alpha}\left[\ln(\frac{\eta_+}{\eta_-})-i\pi\right],&&\alpha<\frac{1}{4}
163: \end{array}
164: \right.
165: $$
166: $$
167: \eta_{\pm}=\frac{1}{2\alpha}\left(1\pm\sqrt{1-4\alpha}\right).
168: $$
169: Note that the integral $I(a,b)$ remains finite in the limit $a \to b$.
170:
171: To arrive at the formula (\ref{loop}) consider the sum of the graphs depicted in
172: Fig.~1(a)-(c), where the appearance of the graph 1(c) is a consequence of gauge
173: invariance, since the $\phi\to K\bar K$ vertex is momentum-dependent.
174: The current in Eq. (\ref{loop}) is given
175: by $M_{\nu}=eg_{\phi}g_S\varepsilon_{\mu}J_{\mu\nu}$,
176: with
177: \be
178: J_{\mu \nu}=J^{(a)}_{\mu \nu}+J^{(b)}_{\mu \nu}+J^{(c)}_{\mu \nu}=2J^{(a)}_{\mu \nu}+J^{(c)}_{\mu \nu},
179: \label{sum}
180: \ee
181: where
182: \be
183: J^{(a)}_{\mu \nu}=\int
184: \frac{d^4k}{(2\pi)^{4}}\frac{(2k-p)_{\mu}(2k-q)_{\nu}}
185: {[k^2-m^2+i0][(k-q)^2-m^2+i0][(k-p)^2-m^2+i0]},
186: \label{a}
187: \ee
188: \be
189: J^{(c)}_{\mu \nu}=-2g_{\mu \nu}\int
190: \frac{d^4k}{(2\pi)^4}\frac{1}{[k^2-m^2+i0][(q+k-p)^2-m^2+i0]},
191: \label{c}
192: \ee
193: and $m=m_K$.
194:
195: \begin{figure}[t]
196: \begin{center}
197: \begin{tabular}{cccc}
198: \epsfig{file=fig1a.eps,width=3.5cm}&
199: \raisebox{-6mm}{$\epsfig{file=fig1b.eps,width=3.5cm}$}&
200: \epsfig{file=fig1c.eps,width=3.5cm}&
201: \epsfig{file=fig1d.eps,width=3.5cm}\\
202: (a)&(b)&(c)&(d)
203: \end{tabular}
204: \end{center}
205: \caption{Diagrams contributing to the radiative decay amplitude (\ref{loop}).}
206: \end{figure}
207:
208: Since gauge invariance demands the structure of the integral (\ref{sum}) to be
209: \be
210: J_{\mu \nu}=J[p_{\nu}q_{\mu}-(p \cdot q)g_{\mu \nu}],
211: \label{structure}
212: \ee
213: the strategy applied in Ref. \cite{CIK} is to read off the coefficient of the
214: $p_{\nu}q_{\mu}$ term, coming entirely from the integral
215: (\ref{a}), and to restore then the coefficient of the $g_{\mu \nu}$ term with the
216: help of Eq.~(\ref{structure}). This allows the authors to deal with a finite integral
217: and thus to bypass the problem of
218: treating the divergent parts of the loop integrals (\ref{a}), (\ref{c}).
219: However, as we shall see below, the divergent pieces cancel and the sum of
220: diagrams given in Eq.~(\ref{sum}) is finite \cite{Bramon}.
221:
222: To see this we decompose the expression for $J_{\mu\nu}^{(a)}$ as
223: \be
224: 2J^{(a)}_{\mu\nu}=J[p_{\nu}q_{\mu}-(p \cdot q)g_{\mu \nu}]+2g_{\mu \nu}J'_a \ ,
225: \label{tloop}
226: \ee
227: where
228: \be
229: J=-\frac{i}{2\pi^2m^2}\left\{\frac{1}{(a-b)}\int^1_0 dz
230: \left[1-z-\frac{1-az(1-z)}{z(a-b)}\ln\frac{1-bz(1-z)}{1-az(1-z)}\right]\right.
231: \label{Ipq}
232: \ee
233: $$
234: \hspace*{3cm}\left.-\frac{i\pi}{(a-b)^2}\int^{1/\eta_+}_{1/\eta_-}
235: dz\left[\frac{1}{z}-(1-z)a\right]\right\}=-\frac{i}{\pi^2m^2}I(a,b).
236: $$
237: Here and in what follows we consider the case of $m_{\phi}>2m$, $m_S<2m$. In addition
238: \be
239: J'_a=\frac{i}{16\pi^2}\left[\frac{2}{\varepsilon}-\gamma_E-\ln\frac{m^2}{4\pi\mu_\varepsilon^2}\right]
240: -\frac{i}{8\pi^2}\int^1_0 dz (1-z)\ln [1-bz(1-z)], \ee where $\mu_\varepsilon$
241: is the auxiliary mass parameter, the number of dimensions $D$ is equal to
242: $4-\varepsilon$, and $\gamma_E$ is the Euler constant. Similarly, the contact
243: term (\ref{c}) can be presented as $-2g_{\mu \nu}J'_c$ with \be
244: J'_c=\frac{i}{16\pi^2}\left[\frac{2}{\varepsilon}-\gamma_E-\ln\frac{m^2}{4\pi\mu_\varepsilon^2}\right]-
245: \frac{i}{16\pi^2}\int^1_0 dz \ln [1-bz(1-z)],
246: \label{contact}
247: \ee
248: and, since
249: $$
250: \int^1_0 dz (1-2z)\ln[1-bz(1-z)]=0,
251: $$
252: the structure (\ref{structure}) is restored. We conclude therefore that, with
253: the proper regularization, the total matrix element is finite. It means that the range
254: of convergence of the integrals involved
255: is defined only by the kinematics of the problem. In particular, if both masses of
256: the vector and scalar mesons are close to the $K \bar K$ threshold, the integrals
257: converge at $k_0\sim m$ and for nonrelativistic values of the three-dimensional loop momentum $\vek$,
258: $|\vek| \ll m$. The nonrelativistic limit of the integral $I(a,b)$ takes the form
259: \be
260: I_{NR}(a,b)=\frac{\pi(x^3+3xy^2)}{24(x^2+y^2)^2}+i\frac{\pi y^3}{12(x^2+y^2)^2},
261: \label{nonrel}
262: \ee
263: where
264: $$
265: y=\sqrt{(a/4)-1} \, \quad x=\sqrt{1-(b/4)} \, ,\quad x,y\ll 1.
266: $$
267: Note that, although the
268: expression (\ref{nonrel}) contains the factor $\frac{1}{x^2+y^2}
269: \sim\frac{1}{a-b}$, it does not mean that $I_{NR}(a,b)$ blows up in the limit
270: of zero photon energy, $\omega\rightarrow 0$. Indeed, the formula (\ref{nonrel}) is valid for the scalar
271: meson lying below the $K \bar K$ threshold, so one cannot put $\omega=0$ here. If
272: the scalar appears above the kaon threshold, Eq.~(\ref{nonrel}) is replaced by
273: \be
274: \frac{\pi i}{24}\frac{(2y+\tilde{x})}{(y+\tilde{x})^2},\quad \tilde{x}=\sqrt{(b/4)-1}
275: \label{above}
276: \ee
277: so that $I(a,b)$ remains finite in the limit $\omega\to 0$.
278:
279: \section{Introducing the scalar wave function}
280:
281: When treating the scalar meson as an extended (non-pointlike) object it is not
282: sufficient to insert the corresponding form factor into the $K^+ K^- S$ vertex
283: (see \cite{CIK}), but gauge invariance calls for a correction term induced by
284: this additional flow of charge. Since only soft photons are involved the
285: needed correction term can be expressed as the derivative of the formfactor inserted.
286: Thus we get for the induced vertex
287: \be
288: \Gamma_{\nu}(K ^+ K^- S\gamma)=-2(p^+_{\nu}-p^-_{\nu})\left. \frac{\partial
289: \Gamma(p^2,m^2)}{\partial p^2}\right|_{p^2=m^2},
290: \label{scalar}
291: \ee
292: where $\Gamma(p_+^2,p_-^2)=\Gamma(p_-^2,p_+^2)$ parameterizes the momentum
293: dependence of the $K^+K^-S$
294: vertex, with $\Gamma (m^2,m^2)=1$. Here
295: $p^+_{\nu}$ and $p^-_{\nu}$ are the $K^+$ and $K^-$ four-momenta, respectively.
296: The corresponding extra diagram is depicted at Fig~1(d).
297:
298: Before proceeding further we note that inclusion of the extra contact vertex
299: (\ref{scalar}) is a way to insert an ultraviolet cutoff in a
300: gauge invariant way. As demonstrated above, the integrals of interest converge already for
301: nonrelativistic momenta even for a pointlike vertex, thus it is justified
302: to use nonrelativistic kinematics also when the vertex
303: function $\Gamma$ is included, as it was
304: done in \cite{Markushin} --- one only needs the mild assumption that
305: $\Gamma$ decreases faster than $1/k$ for increasing values of its
306: arguments.
307: Then only the positive-energy parts of the kaon propagators are retained, the kaon energies are replaced by $m$,
308: and $m_\phi$ and $m_S$ are replaced by $2m$, wherever possible.
309: As to the vertex function, in the nonrelativistic description the
310: virtuality of kaons is measured by the relative momentum of kaons in the
311: intermediate state, so that in the
312: center-of-mass frame of the vector meson ($\vec{p}=0$) the vertex
313: function $\Gamma$ is a function of the three-momentum of the
314: outgoing kaons only and thus the spatial loop integrals read
315: \be
316: J_{ik}=
317: 2J^{(a)}_{ik}+J^{(c)}_{ik}+J^{(d)}_{ik}=-\delta_{ik}\frac{i}{4\pi^2}(a-b)
318: I(a,b;\Gamma)+...~,
319: \label{tot}
320: \ee
321: when evaluated in the rest frame of the vector meson. Terms that do not
322: contribute to the process of interest are not shown explicitly.
323: Note, gauge invariance is enshured by the appearance of the term $(a-b)$ that
324: vanishes for vanishing outgoing photon energy.
325: The individual
326: integrals are
327: \begin{eqnarray}
328: \nonumber
329: 2J^{(a)}_{ik}&=&-\frac{i}{m^3}\int\frac{d^3 k}{(2\pi)^3}\frac{k_ik_k\Gamma(|\vek-\veq/2|)}{[E_V-\frac{k^2}{m}+i0]
330: [E_S-\frac{(\vek-\veq/2)^2}{m}+i0]}, \\
331: \nonumber
332: J^{(c)}_{ik}&=&-\frac{i}{2m^2}\delta_{ik}\int\frac{d^3 k}{(2\pi)^3}\frac{\Gamma(k)}{E_S-\frac{k^2}{m}+i0},
333: \\
334: J^{(d)}_{ik}&=&-\frac{i}{2m^2}\int
335: \frac{d^3k}{(2\pi)^3}\frac{k_ik_k}{E_V-\frac{k^2}{m}+i0}\frac{1}{k}
336: \frac{\partial \Gamma(k)}{\partial k},
337: \label{explint}
338: \end{eqnarray}
339: We assume $E_V=m_V-2m>0$, $E_S=m_S-2m<0$ for looking at only one kinematic
340: regime is sufficient to make our point clear. For more realistic calculations
341: that include the finite width of the scalar mesons we recommend Refs.
342: \cite{Oset,Markushin,Oller}. Performing integration by parts in the integral
343: $J^{(d)}_{ik}$, one has
344: \be J^{(d)}_{ik}= \frac{i}{2m^2}\delta_{ik} \int
345: \frac{d^3 k}{(2\pi)^3} \frac{\Gamma(k)}{E_V-\frac{k^2}{m}+i0}+
346: \frac{i}{3m^3}\delta_{ik} \int \frac{d^3 k}{(2\pi)^3}
347: \frac{k^2\Gamma(k)}{(E_V-\frac{k^2}{m}+i0)^2}.
348: \label{byparts}
349: \ee
350: This trick was used both in Refs.~\cite{CIK} and \cite{Markushin}.
351:
352: Let us now assume that $\Gamma$ decreases with the range $\beta$ that
353: satisfies the conditions
354: \be
355: \beta^2 \gg mE_V,\quad\beta^2 \gg m|E_S|.
356: \label{beta}
357: \ee
358: With the help of the representation (\ref{byparts})
359: one immediately sees
360: that, in the limit $\beta \rightarrow \infty$, the
361: divergent terms in $J_{ik}$, Eq.~(\ref{tot}), cancel each other and, in the leading
362: nonrelativistic approximation, $E_V \ll m$, $|E_S| \ll m$, the total matrix
363: element does not depend on $\beta$:
364: \be
365: I(a,b;\Gamma)=I_{NR}(a,b).
366: \label{nonreltot}
367: \ee
368:
369: We stress that the result (\ref{nonreltot}) follows from the
370: nonrelativistic formula (\ref{tot}), and the only condition needed is
371: (\ref{beta}).
372:
373: We have repeated the calculation of $I(a,b;\Gamma)$ presented in
374: Ref.~\cite{Markushin} with the model form factor $\Gamma(\vek)=\beta^2/(\vek^2+\beta^2)$.
375: The results are depicted at Fig.~2 together with the results of the full
376: pointlike theory. One can see that, in the soft-photon limit, there is no
377: considerable suppression of the matrix element due to finite values of
378: $\beta$, down to $\beta \sim 0.3$ GeV. The reason for this was discussed
379: above --- the integral of Eq. (\ref{sum}) converges for
380: nonrelativistic values of $|\vek|$, in the soft-photon limit.
381:
382: \begin{figure}[t]
383: \centerline{\epsfig{file=fig2a.eps,width=8cm}\hspace*{3mm}\epsfig{file=fig2b.eps,width=8cm}}
384: \caption{The real (the left plot) and the imaginary (the right plot) parts of
385: the function $I_1=(a-b)I(a,b;\Gamma)$
386: for $\beta=0.2$ GeV (dash-dotted line), $\beta=0.4$ GeV (dotted line), $\beta=0.6$ GeV (dashed line), and
387: $\beta=0.8$ GeV (thin solid line). The result of the full pointlike theory is given by the thick solid line.}
388: \end{figure}
389:
390: Now we specify the form factor in the molecular model for the scalar mesons. To this
391: end we use the well-known quantum--mechanical expressions which relate the
392: $K\bar{K}S$ vertex and the wave function of the molecule. In the vicinity
393: of a bound state the nonrelativistic $t$-matrix $t(\vek,\vek',E)$ takes the form
394: \be
395: t(\vek,\vek',E)=\frac{\gamma(\vek)\gamma(\vek')}{E+\varepsilon-i0},\quad
396: \gamma(\vek)=\hat{v}\phi(\vek),
397: \label{t}
398: \ee
399: where $\phi(\vek)$ is the bound--state wave function in the momentum
400: space,
401: normalized to unity, $\varepsilon=-E_S$ is the binding energy, and the
402: Schr{\" o}dinger equation for the bound state is written symbolically as
403: \be
404: \frac{\vek^2}{m}\phi(\vek)+\hat{v}\phi(\vek)=-\varepsilon\phi(\vek).
405: \label{eq}
406: \ee
407: The relativistic vertex differs from the nonrelativistic vertex $\gamma$
408: by a kinematical factor (see, {\em e.g.}, \cite{Landau}),
409: \be
410: g_S\Gamma(\vek)=(2\pi)^{3/2}\sqrt{8m^2m_S}\;\gamma(\vek),
411: \ee
412: where the effective coupling $g_S$ is introduced
413: to ensure the normalization condition $\Gamma(0)=1$.
414: Using the bound--state equation (\ref{eq}), one has, finally,
415: \be
416: g_S\Gamma(\vek)=(2\pi)^{3/2}\sqrt{8m^2m_S}\left(\frac{\vek^2}{m}+\varepsilon\right)\phi(\vek).
417: \label{vertex}
418: \ee
419: Thus we find that the momentum dependent factor that appears in
420: Eq. (\ref{vertex}) exactly compensates for the two kaon propagator in
421: Eq. (\ref{explint}). The wavefunction then supplies exactly that piece due to
422: its demanded asymptotics.
423:
424:
425: A real molecule is a loosely bound state with a large mean
426: distance between the constituents --- much larger than the range of the binding force $r_0$.
427: In this deuteronlike case one has
428: \be
429: \phi(\vek)=\frac{\sqrt{\kappa}}{\pi}\frac{1}{\vek^2+\kappa^2},\quad\kappa=\sqrt{m\varepsilon}.
430: \label{deuteron}
431: \ee
432: Correspondingly, the vertex (\ref{vertex}) does not depend on $\vek$, and one
433: can safely use the formulae (\ref{loop}), (\ref{I}) of the pointlike
434: theory with
435: \be
436: g_S=\frac{(2\pi)^{3/2}}{\pi}\sqrt{8m_S\kappa},\quad\frac{g_S^2}{4\pi}\approx 32m\sqrt{m\varepsilon}.
437: \label{constant}
438: \ee
439: The nonrelativistic expansion (\ref{nonrel}) of the integral $I(a,b)$ can
440: be used as well.
441:
442: So we conclude that the range $\beta$ of the form factor should be
443: identified with the inverse range of the force, $\beta \sim 1/r_0$, and, if
444: the inequality
445: \be
446: \kappa r_0 \sim \frac{\kappa}{\beta} \ll 1
447: \label{inequality}
448: \ee
449: holds true, the results of the pointlike theory for the radiative $\phi \to
450: \gamma S$ decay are valid for molecular model of the scalar. In particular,
451: there is no special suppression of the matrix element due to a finite
452: value of $\beta$.
453:
454: The latter statement is based on the validity of the inequality
455: (\ref{inequality}). What values of $\beta$ would one expect in realistic
456: models of the $K \bar K$ molecule? In the meson-exchange models like
457: \cite{Jue} it is argued that a strong $t$-channel force is responsible for the formation of scalars.
458: In such a case it is reasonable to identify $\beta$ with the mass of
459: the lightest meson exchanged. As there is no pion exchange in the scalar
460: sector, the lightest meson should be the $\rho$, which gives for
461: $\beta$ the value of about $0.8$ GeV. In the phenomenological picture of
462: Ref.~\cite{Markushin}, $\beta$ is taken to be $0.5\div 0.7$ GeV. In the quark language,
463: $\beta$ is defined by the scale of the internal size of the quark wave
464: function, which also leads to the estimate for $\beta$ to be of the order
465: of a few hundred MeV. With such estimates, the inequality
466: (\ref{inequality}) is safely valid for the masses of the scalar about
467: $970\div 980$ MeV.
468:
469: The formula (\ref{constant}) implies that the vertex $g_S$ depends on the
470: binding energy and its value decreases with decreasing binding energy.
471: This in turn causes a suppression of the branching ratio when the
472: binding energy tends to zero, cf. Fig.~3. However, for binding energies
473: of typical order of magnitude, for example, $\varepsilon =10$ MeV,
474: Eq.~(\ref{constant}) yields a coupling constant $g_S$ of
475: \be
476: \frac{g_S^2}{4\pi}=1.12 \ GeV^2 .
477: \label{numconst}
478: \ee
479: That corresponds to a branching ratio of
480: $Br(\phi\to \gamma S) \approx 2.6 \times 10^{-4}$ which means that
481: there is practically no suppression.
482:
483: Nevertheless, we should emphasize in this context that a reliable quantitative
484: calculation of the width certainly requires a more realistic approach
485: where it is taken into account that the scalar mesons have finite widths due to the
486: presence of the light pseudoscalar channels, and that the quantities that
487: are really measured are the transitions $\phi \to \gamma \pi\pi$
488: or $\phi \to \gamma \pi \eta$.
489: %
490: The impact of finite width effects have been thoroughly investigated
491: by J.A. Oller \cite{Oller} and also by Achasov and Gubin \cite{Gubin}
492: and we refer to their work for details. Here we only want to make the reader
493: aware of the fact that due to the proximity of the $\gamma S$ threshold to the
494: mass of the $\phi (1020)$ resonance even small variations in the nominal
495: resonance masses of the scalar mesons have a drastic effect on the available
496: phase space and in turn on the obtained results --
497: as it can be imagined from Fig.~3 --
498: unless the finite width of the ($f_0(980)$ or $a_0(980)$) scalar mesons is
499: considered \cite{Oller,Gubin}.
500:
501: To take into account finite width effects
502: one has to use the two-channel version of Eq.~(\ref{t}) from the very
503: beginning so
504: that the vertex which appears in the loop integral is accompanied by the
505: vertex that appears in the resonance decay, as it is required by the
506: two-channel unitarity condition. If the
507: characteristic scale $\beta$ in this full $t$-matrix is not too small,
508: then the feature that there is no specific suppression due to the
509: molecular structure of the scalar mesons will be preserved,
510: cf. appendix A.
511:
512: \begin{figure}[t]
513: \centerline{\epsfig{file=fig3_l.eps,width=8cm}}
514: \caption{The dependence of the branching $Br(\phi\to\gamma S)$ on the mass
515: of the scalar meson in the molecular model.}
516: \end{figure}
517:
518: \section{Comparison to older work and conclusions}
519:
520: Our findings are in contradiction with the results of Ref.~\cite{CIK}.
521: The specific model for the $K \bar K$
522: molecule used there was taken from Ref.~\cite{Barnes}, which, in turn, is a
523: modification of the approach developed in Ref.~\cite{Isgur} and based on the
524: quark--exchange picture. The $K \bar K$ interaction employed in Ref.~\cite{Barnes}
525: was approximated by a local potential of the form
526: \be
527: V(r)=-V_0\exp{\left[-\frac{1}{2}\left(\frac{r}{r_0}\right)^2\right]},
528: \label{barnes}
529: \ee
530: with $r_0=0.57$ fm. This interaction gives $\varepsilon=10$ MeV, so that
531: $\kappa r_0 \sim 0.2$, and the molecule is rather deuteronlike.
532:
533: The wave function was parameterized as
534: \be
535: \psi(r)=\left(\frac{\mu^3}{\pi}\right)^{1/2}e^{-\mu r},\quad
536: \phi(\vek)=\frac{(2\mu)^{3/2}}{\pi}\frac{\mu}{(\vek^2+\mu^2)^2},
537: \label{psi}
538: \ee
539: with $\mu=0.144$ GeV. This wave function yields a good approximation for
540: the exact wave function, in the momentum space (see \cite{CIK}).
541: On the other hand, the wave function (\ref{deuteron})
542: with $\varepsilon=10$ MeV looks very similar, see Fig.~4.
543:
544: \begin{figure}[t]
545: \centerline{\epsfig{file=fig4.eps,width=8cm}}
546: \caption{The wave function of the $K\bar K$ system, in momentum space. The approximate
547: solution Eq.~(\ref{psi}) --- the curve 1,
548: and the deuteronlike wave function, Eq.~(\ref{deuteron}) --- the curve 2.}
549: \end{figure}
550:
551: So what is wrong with Ref.~\cite{CIK}, and where does the suppression of the radiative
552: decay amplitude come from? The answer is rather simple. In Ref.~\cite{CIK}, the calculations
553: of the loop integrals were performed with using the wave function
554: \be
555: \phi(\vek)=\phi(0)\frac{\mu^4}{(\vek^2+\mu^2)^2},
556: \ee
557: as a form factor, instead of the correct formula (\ref{vertex}) for the
558: form factor. This led to the result of $4\times10^{-5}$ for the branching
559: ratio (or $\Gamma(\phi\to\gamma S) = 1.7\times10^{-4}$ MeV).
560: The same incorrect choice for the form factor was made in \cite{AGS}. As
561: $\mu$ is as small as 0.144 GeV, no surprise that the suppression found was
562: huge!
563:
564: The radiative decay width calculated with the parameterization of the wavefunction
565: (\ref{psi}) and the correct formula (\ref{vertex}) is
566: $\Gamma(\phi\to\gamma S) = 2.4\times10^{-3}$ MeV.
567: It is somewhat large as compared to the experimental result.
568: We want to point out, however, that this is
569: primarily due to the not very accurate parameterization.
570: Indeed, the approximation (\ref{psi}) is definitely wrong for
571: distances beyond the range of the forces, $r \gg r_0$, where the wave function should
572: behave as $\sqrt{\frac{\kappa}{2\pi}}\frac{e^{-\kappa r}}{r}$. On the other hand,
573: the deuteronlike wave function is wrong at short distances. It is clear,
574: however, that possible contributions to the integral
575: (\ref{tot}) coming from short distances correspond to large values of
576: $|\vek|$ where the integrand is suppressed. The value of $1.1\times
577: 10^{-3}$ MeV for the width, obtained in the pointlike theory with a
578: value of $g_S$ given by Eq.~(\ref{numconst}), is therefore a good
579: approximation to the corresponding width calculated within a molecular model \cite{Barnes}.
580:
581: In conclusion, there is no considerable suppression of the $\phi\to\gamma S$
582: width in the molecular model for the scalar mesons. As soon as the form factors of
583: an extended scalar meson are treated properly, the corresponding results become
584: very similar to those for a pointlike scalar meson (quarkonium), provided reasonable values
585: are chosen for the range of the interaction. We confirm the range of order of $10^{-3}\div 10^{-4}$
586: for the branching ratio obtained in Refs.~\cite{Oset,Markushin,Oller}.
587:
588: \begin{acknowledgement}
589: Instructive discussions with N.N. Achasov are acknowledged.
590: This research is part of the EU Integrated Infrastructure Initiative
591: Hadron Physics Project under contract number RII3-CT-2004-506078, and was
592: supported also by the DFG-RFBR grant no. 02-02-04001 (436 RUS 113/652).
593: Yu. S. K, A. E. K, and A. N. acknowledge the support of
594: the Federal Programme of the Russian Ministry of Industry, Science, and Technology No 40.052.1.1.1112.
595: and of the grants NS-1774.2003.2 and RFBR 02-02-16465.
596: \end{acknowledgement}
597:
598: \section{Appendix: Inclusion of a finite width}
599:
600: In this appendix we discuss the effect of a finite width of the scalar mesons,
601: due to their decay into two pseudoscalars ($P_1P_2$), on the total width
602: $\Gamma(\phi\to\gamma S)$.
603:
604: The $P_1P_2$ invariant mass distribution has the form
605: \be
606: \frac{d\Gamma}{dm_{P_1P_2}}=\frac{\alpha g_\phi^2\omega}{3(2\pi)^6m_\phi^2}
607: |(a-b)I(a,b)|^2|A_{K\bar{K}\to P_1P_2}(m_{P_1P_2})|^2,\quad
608: a=\left(\frac{m_\phi}{m}\right)^2,\quad b=\left(\frac{m_{P_1P_2}}{m}\right)^2,
609: \label{A1}
610: \ee
611: where $\omega=\frac{m_\phi^2-m_{P_1P_2}^2}{2m_\phi}$ is the photon energy and
612: $m_{P_1P_2}$
613: is the invariant mass of the outgoing
614: pseudoscalars. Here the range of the force is assumed to be
615: small enough so that one can take the integral $I(a,b)$ for the
616: point-like case, cf. Eq.~(\ref{inequality}).
617:
618: To account for the finite width of the scalar mesons one is to use the
619: two--channel $t$--matrix. For the deuteronlike case, the amplitude in
620: the $K\bar K$ channel can be written in the scattering length approximation
621: with a complex scattering length $a_{K \bar K}$,
622: \be
623: a_{K \bar K}=\frac{1}{\kappa_1+i\kappa_2},~~\kappa_2>0,
624: \ee
625: for energies around the $K\bar K$ threshold (and energies sufficiently far
626: away from the $P_1P_2$ threshold). Then the $K\bar{K}\to P_1P_2$ transition
627: amplitude $A$ squared can be found as
628: \be
629: |A_{K\bar{K}\to P_1P_2}(m_{P_1P_2})|^2=
630: \frac{64\pi^2m_\phi^2\kappa_2}{[\kappa_1-\sqrt{-mE}\Theta(-E)]^2+
631: [\kappa_2+\sqrt{mE}\Theta(E)]^2},
632: \label{A2}
633: \ee
634: with $E=m_{P_1P_2}-2m$.
635:
636: In the limit $\kappa_2 \to 0$ there is no coupling to the $P_1P_2$ channel
637: and, for $\kappa_1>0$, there is a bound state in the $K \bar K$ channel
638: with the binding energy $\varepsilon = \kappa_1^2/m$. One can readily obtain
639: the total radiative width in this case, which is given by the standard formula,
640: \be
641: \Gamma(\phi\to\gamma S)=\frac{\alpha g_S^2 g_\phi^2\omega}{48\pi^4m_\phi^2}
642: |(a-b)I(a,b)|^2, \quad a=\left(\frac{m_\phi}{m}\right)^2,\quad
643: b=\left(\frac{m_S}{m}\right)^2, \quad
644: \omega=\frac{m_\phi^2-m_S^2}{2m_\phi},
645: \label{A4}
646: \ee
647: with $m_S=2m-\varepsilon$ and $g_S$ defined by Eq.~(\ref{constant}).
648:
649: In order to estimate the effect of a finite inelasticity $\kappa_2$, we
650: have calculated the contribution to the total width,
651: \be
652: \Gamma_{tot} = \int dm_{P_1P_2} \frac{d\Gamma}{dm_{P_1P_2}}
653: \ee
654: from the
655: distribution (\ref{A1}) integrated over the near-threshold region,
656: $900$ MeV $<M<m_{\phi}$. The results for the branching ratios are listed
657: in Table~1. One can see that
658: the branching ratio remains in the order of $10^{-4}$ even for
659: $\kappa_1=0$, if the scale of $\kappa_2$ is around $50\div 100$ MeV. We
660: conclude, therefore, that the results presented in this paper are robust
661: against the inclusion of the finite width of the scalar.
662:
663: We would like to note here that the above--mentioned scale for $\kappa_2$ is
664: quite natural. For example, as it was shown in Ref.~\cite{Baru}, the
665: data on the $\pi\pi$ scattering near the $K \bar K$ threshold
666: are, indeed, nicely described in the scattering length approximation, with
667: $\kappa_2$ lying in this range (and the ratio $\kappa_1/\kappa_2$ being of
668: order unity).
669:
670:
671: \begin{table}[t]
672: \begin{center}
673: \begin{tabular}{|c|c|c|c|}
674: \hline
675: $\kappa_1$$\setminus$ $\kappa_2$& 0& 50 & 100\\
676: \hline
677: 70&2.56&3.07&2.80\\
678: \hline
679: 0&0&1.22&1.57\\
680: \hline
681: \end{tabular}
682: \end{center}
683: \caption{The branching ratio $Br(\phi\to\gamma S)\times 10^4$; $\kappa_{1,2}$ are given in MeV.}
684: \end{table}
685:
686:
687: \begin{thebibliography}{99}
688: \bibitem{Pennington}M. Boglione and M.R. Pennington, Eur. Phys. J. C {\bf 30}
689: (2003) 503.
690: \bibitem{AI}N. N. Achasov, V. N. Ivanchenko, Nucl. Phys. B {\bf 315} (1989) 465.
691: \bibitem{CIK}F. E. Close, N. Isgur, S. Kumano, Nucl. Phys. B {\bf 389} (1993)
692: 513.
693: \bibitem{AGS}N. N Achasov, V. V. Gubin, and V. I. Shevchenko, Phys. Rev. D
694: {\bf 56} (1997) 203.
695: \bibitem{SND}M. N. Achasov et al., Phys. Lett. B {\bf 440} (1998) 442;
696: M. N. Achasov et al., Phys. Lett. B {\bf 485} (2000) 349.
697: \bibitem{CMD}R. R. Akhmetshin et al., Phys. Lett. B {\bf 462} (1999) 480.
698: \bibitem{KLOE}A. Aloisio et al., Phys. Lett. B {\bf 536} (2002) 209;
699: A. Aloisio et al., Phys. Lett. B {\bf 537} (2002) 21.
700: \bibitem{Achasov} N. N. Achasov, Nucl. Phys. A {\bf 728} (2003) 425.
701:
702: \bibitem{W}V. Baru, J. Haidenbauer, C. Hanhart, Yu. Kalashnikova, A. Kudryavtsev,
703: Phys. Lett. B {\bf 586} (2004) 53.
704: \bibitem{Oset}E. Marko, S. Hirenzaki, E. Oset, H. Toki, Phys. Lett. B {\bf
705: 470} (1999) 20; J. E. Palomar, S. Hirenzaki, E. Oset, Nucl. Phys. A {\bf
706: 707} (2002) 161; J. E. Palomar, L. Roca, E. Oset, M. J. Vicente Vacas,
707: Nucl. Phys. A {\bf 729} (2003) 743.
708: \bibitem{Markushin}V. E. Markushin, Eur. Phys. J. A {\bf 8} (2000) 389.
709: \bibitem{Oller}J. A. Oller, Phys. Lett. B {\bf 426} (1998) 7; J. A. Oller, Nucl. Phys. A {\bf 714} (2003) 161.
710:
711: \bibitem{Nussinov} S. Nussinov and T.N. Truong, Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf 63} (1989) 1349; (E)
712: Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf 63} (1989) 2002.
713: \bibitem{Lucio} J.L. Lucio and J. Pestieau, Phys. Rev. D {\bf 42} (1990) 3253; (E)
714: Phys. Rev. D {\bf 43} (1991) 2447.
715: \bibitem{Bramon}A. Bramon, A. Grau, G. Pancheri, Phys. Lett. B {\bf 289} (1992) 97.
716:
717: \bibitem{Landau}L. D. Landau, JETP {\bf 39} (1960) 1856 [Soviet Phys.-JETP
718: {\bf 12} (1961) 1294].
719: \bibitem{Jue} D. Lohse, J. W. Durso, K. Holinde, and J. Speth, Phys. Lett. {\bf B234} (1990) 235;
720: G. Janssen, B. C. Pearce, K. Holinde, and J. Speth, Phys. Rev. D {\bf 52} (1995) 2690.
721: \bibitem{Gubin} N. N. Achasov and V.V. Gubin, Phys. Lett. B {\bf 363} (1995) 106.
722: \bibitem{Barnes} T. Barnes, Phys. Lett. B {\bf 165} (1985) 434.
723: \bibitem{Isgur}J. Weinstein and N. Isgur, Phys. Rev. D {\bf 27} (1979) 588.
724: \bibitem{Baru} V. Baru, J. Haidenbauer, C. Hanhart, A. Kudryavtsev, Ulf-G. Mei{\ss}ner,
725: Eur. Phys. J. A {\bf 23} (2005) 523.
726: \end{thebibliography}
727: \end{document}
728:
729: