arxiv:hep-ph/ v2 1 Feb 2000

Transcription

1 Final-state interaction phase difference in J/ψ ρη and ωη decays arxiv:hep-ph/991393v 1 Feb 000 N.N. Achasov and V.V. Gubin Laboratory of Theoretical Physics, Sobolev Institute for Mathematics, Academician Koptiug prospekt, 4, , Novosibirsk 90, Russia (February 8, 008) Abstract It is shown that the study of the ω ρ 0 interference pattern in the J/ψ (ρ 0 + ω)η π + π η decay provides the evidence for the large (nearly 90 ) relative phase between the one-photon and the three-gluon decay amplitudes Gv, Hv, Hq, Gx Typeset using REVTEX Electronic address: achasov@math.nsc.ru Electronic address: gubin@math.nsc.ru

2 Recently M. Suzuki has noted that the single-photon and three-gluon amplitudes in the two-body J/ψ 1 0 [1] and J/ψ 0 0 [] decays appear to have relative phases nearly 90. This unexpected result is very important to the observability of CP violating decays as well as to the nature of the J/ψ 1 0 and J/ψ 0 0 decays [1 6]. Since the analysis [1,] involved theoretical assumptions relying on the SU f (3)-symmetry, the strong SU f (3)-symmetry breaking and so on, the measurements of these phases are urgent. Fortunately, it is possible to check Suzuki s conclusion at least in one case. We mean the phases between the amplitudes of the one-photon J/ψ ρ 0 η and three-gluon J/ψ ωη decays. Indeed, the ω ρ interference pattern in the J/ψ (ρ 0 + ω)η ρ 0 η π + π η conditioned by the ρ 0 ω mixing and the ratios of the amplitudes of the ρ 0 and ω production. As for the ρ 0 ω mixing amplitude, it is reasonably well studied [7 13]. Its modulus and phase are known. The modules of the ratios of the amplitudes of the ρ and ω production can be obtained from the data on the branching ratios of the J/ψ-decays. So, the interference pattern provides a way of measuring the relative phases of the ρ 0 and ω production amplitudes. The π + π -spectrum in the ω, ρ energy region is of the form dn dm = N ρ(m) mγ(ρ ππ, m) π 1 D ρ (m) + Π ωρ0(m) D ρ (m)d ω (m) Nω (m) exp {i (δω δ ρ )}+ + 1 D ω (m) gωππ g ρππ exp {i (δω δ ρ )}, (1) where m is the invariant mass of the π + π -state, and N ω (m) are the squares of the modules of the ρ and ω production amplitudes, δ ρ and δ ω are their phases, Π ωρ 0(m) is the amplitude of the ρ ω transition, D V (m) = m V m imγ V (m), V = ρ, ω. In the discussion that follows, Eq. (1) is conveniently rewritten as dn dm = N ρ(m) mγ(ρ ππ, m) π 1 1 ε(m) D ρ (m) [ ] 1 exp {i (δω δ ρ )} D ω (m) (ε(m) + g ωππ/g ρππ ) exp {i (δω δ ρ )}, () where Π ωρ 0(m) ε(m) = m ω m ρ + im (Γ ρ (m) Γ ω (m)). (3) As known [7 11], the imaginary part of the ρ ω transition amplitude is due to the ππ, 3π, γπ and γη intermediate states

3 ( gωππ Im (Π ρ 0 ω(m)) = m Γ(ρ ππ, m) + g ρρπ Γ(ω ρπ 3π, m)+ g ρππ g ωρπ + g ργπ Γ(ω γπ, ) + g ) ργη Γ(ω γη, m). (4) g ωγπ g ωγη The quite conservative estimate of the contribution of the ππ and 3π intermediate states gives g ωππ g ρππ Γ(ρ ππ, ) = ± 10 Γ(ρ ππ, ) = ± GeV, g ρρπ g ωρπ Γ(ω ρπ 3π, ) = ± 10 Γ(ω 3π, ) = ± GeV. (5) The constituent quark and vector meson dominance models both give the same result g ργπ g ωγπ Γ(ω γπ, ) = 1 3 Γ(ω γπ, ) = GeV, g ργη g ωγη Γ(ω γη, ) = 3 Γ(ω γη, ) = GeV. (6) Notice that the predictions of the constituent quark and vector meson dominance models on the ω γπ(η) and ω γπ(η) decays agree adequately with the experiment. As is seen from Eqs. (3) and (4), the contribution of the ππ intermediate state in Im (Π ωρ 0(m)) and the g ωππ direct coupling constant cancel considerably in the gωππ eff effective coupling constant: g eff ωππ (m) = ε(m) g ρππ + g ωππ = Π ωρ 0 (m) g ρππ + iγ(ρ ππ, m) g ωππ m ω m ρ + im (Γ ρ (m) Γ ω (m)) = Π ωρ 0 (m) + ( m ρ m ω + imγ ω (m) ) (g ωππ /g ρππ ) m ω m ρ + im (Γ ρ(m) Γ ω (m)) g ρππ = + g ωππ = = Π ωρ 0 (m) ± GeV ± i GeV m ω m ρ + im (Γ ρ(m) Γ ω (m)) g ρππ, (7) where Π ωρ 0 (m) is the amplitude of the ρ 0 ω transition without the contribution of the ππ intermediate state in in the imaginary part, the numerical values are calculated at m =. The branching ratio of the ω ππ decays B (ω ππ) = Γ (ρ ππ, ) Γ ω ( ) ε( ) + g ωππ /g ρππ (8) It follows from Eqs. (6) and (7) that imaginary part of the numerator in Eq. (7) is dominated by the γπ intermediate state to within 35%. This imaginary part gives B (ω ππ) instead of the experimental value [13] B(ω π + π ) = 0.01 ± (9)

4 So, one can get the modulus of the real part of the numerator in Eq. (7) which is clearly dominated by Re (Π ωρ 0(m)). Besides, the interference pattern of the ρ 0 and ω mesons in the e + e π + π reaction and in the π + π photoproduction on nuclei shows [7 11] that the real part of the numerator in Eq. (7) is positive. So, from Eqs. (3), (7), (8) and (9) one gets and Re (Π ρ 0 ω( )) = (3.80 ± 0.7) 10 3 GeV (10) ε( ) + g ωππ /g ρππ = (3.41 ± 0.4) 10 exp {i (10 ± 1) }. (11) The data [14,15] were fitted with the function where F BW ρ N(m) = L(m) + (Nρ ) 1 F BW ρ (m) + (N ω ) 1 F BW ω (m) exp{iφ}, (1) (m) and Fω BW (m) are the appropriate Breit-Wigner terms [14] and L(m) is a polynomial background term. The results are φ = (46 ± 15), N ω ( )/N ρ = 8.86 ± 1.83 [14], φ = 0.08 ± 0.17 = ( 4.58 ± 9.74), N ω ( )/N ρ = 7.37 ± 1.7 [15]. (13) From Eqs. (), (8), and (1) follows N ρ = N ρ (m ρ ) 1 ε(m ρ ) [N ω (m ρ )/N ρ (m ρ )] 1 exp{i (δω δ ρ )}, (14) N ω = B(ω ππ)n ω ( ), (15) φ = δ ω δ ρ + arg [ε( ) + g ωππ /g ρππ ] arg { 1 ε(m ρ ) [N ω (m ρ )/N ρ (m ρ )] 1 exp{i (δω δ ρ )} } δ ω δ ρ + arg [ε( ) + g ωππ /g ρππ ] arg { 1 ε( ) [N ω ( )/N ρ ] 1 exp{iφ} }. (16) From Eqs. (11), (13) and (16) we get that δ ρ δ ω = δ γ = (60 ± 15) [14], (17) δ ρ δ ω = δ γ = (106 ± 10) [15]. (18) A large ( nearly 90 ) δ γ was obtained in Ref. [1]. So, both the MARK III Collaboration and the DM Collaboration, see Eqs. (17) and (18), provide support for this view. The DM Collaboration used statistics only half as high as the MARK III Collaboration, but, in contrast to the MARK III Collaboration, which fitted N ω as a free parameter, the DM Collaboration calculated it from the branching ratio of J/ψ ωη using Eq. (15). In summary we would like to emphasizes that it would be urgent to study this fundamental problem once again with BES in Beijing. We thank G.F. Xu very much for discussions. The present work was supported in part by the grant INTAS-RFBR IR-97-3.

5 REFERENCES [1] M. Suzuki, Phys. Rev. D 57, 5717 (1998). [] M. Suzuki, Phys. Rev. D 60, (1999). [3] J.L. Rosner, Phys. Rev. D 60, (1999). [4] Y.F. Gu and S.F. Tuan, HADRON 99, Beijing, 4 8 August, 1999, hep-ph/ [5] In particular, it points to a non-adequacy of their description built upon the perturbative QCD, the hypothesis of the factorization of short and long distances, and specified wave functions of final hadrons. Some peculiarities of electromagnetic form factors in the J/ψ mass region were discussed by N.N. Achasov and A.A. Kozhevnikov, Phys. Rev. D 58, (1998). [6] J.-M. Gerard and J. Weyers, Phys. Lett. B 46, 34 (1999). [7] A.S. Goldhaber, G.S. Fox and C. Quigg, Phys. Lett. 30 B, 49 (1969). [8] M. Gourdin, L. Stodolsky and F.M. Renard, Phys. Lett. 30 B, 347 (1969). [9] F.M. Renard, Nucl. Phys. B 15, 118 (1970). [10] N.N. Achasov and G.N. Shestakov, Nucl. Phys. B 45, 93 (197); Fiz. Elem. Chastits. At. Yadra 9, 48 (1978) [Sov. J. Part. Nucl. 9, 19 (1978)]. [11] N.N. Achasov and A.A. Kozhevnikov, Yad. Fiz. 55, 809 (199); Int. J. Mod. Phys. A 7, 485 (199). [1] N.N. Achasov, A.A. Kozhevnikov and G.N. Shestakov, Phys. Lett. 50 B (1974) 448. N.N. Achasov, N.M. Budnev, A.A. Kozhevnikov and G.N. Shestakov, Yad. Fiz. 3(1976) 610. [13] Particle Data Group, Eur. Rev. J. C 3, 1 (1998). [14] D. Coffman et al., Phys. Rev. D 38, 695 (1988). [15] J. Jousset et al., Phys. Rev. D 41, 1389 (1990).