text:
# CO and Dust in PSS 2322+1944 at a redshift of 4.12

## 1 Introduction

The study of dust and molecular gas in sources at high redshift has opened up new ways to probe the physical conditions during the early evolution of galaxies and to study the star formation history in the early universe. Spatially resolved observations of the molecular gas content in the host galaxies of high-$`z`$ quasars are a key for understanding the relationship between black hole formation and spheroidal galaxy formation. At redshifts $`0.04<z<0.27`$, the CO J=1$``$0 line has been detected in 14 QSOs (Evans et al. 2001; Casoli & Loinard 2002) indicating large masses of molecular gas (a few $`10^9\mathrm{M}_{}`$) fueling both the AGN and star formation in the QSO host galaxies. At higher redshifts, although the lines are broad and weak and precise redshifts are difficult to predict, in the last decade 12CO emission was detected in 15 galaxies at $`1.44<z<4.69`$ (see Guilloteau 2002 and reference therein; Andreani et al. 2000; Barvainis et al. 2002). Most of the detections were obtained for high rotational transitions of CO (J=3$``$2 to 9$``$8) lines which are redshifted to millimeter wavelengths. In a few cases, the J=2$``$1 and 1$``$0 lines were detected at centimeter wavelengths (Carilli et al. 1999, 2002; Papadopoulos et al. 2001). These CO observations imply that the high redshift galaxies contain large amounts, a few $`10^{10}\mathrm{M}_{}`$, of molecular gas which are predominantly excited by giant starbursts with star formation rates $`10^3\mathrm{M}_{}\mathrm{yr}^1`$ (see, e.g., Guilloteau et al. 1997, 1999).

In recent years we have concentrated our search for high-$`z`$ CO emission to QSOs with strong (sub)millimeter dust continuum emission. Based on the first surveys of (sub)millimeter emission of high-$`z`$ QSOs (McMahon et al. 1994; Omont et al. 1996a), we reported three detections of CO emission in $`z>4`$ sources: BR 1202$``$0725 (Omont et al. 1996b), BRI 1335$``$0415 (Guilloteau et al. 1997) and BRI 0952$``$0115 (Guilloteau et al. 1999). We recently extended these surveys for continuum emission using the Max-Planck millimeter bolometer (MAMBO) array at the 30-meter (Omont et al. 2001; Carilli et al. 2001a) and SCUBA at the JCMT (Isaak et al. 2002). Continuum emission was detected toward 35 new high-$`z`$ QSOs: Omont et al. (2001) and Isaak et al. (2002) observed a total of 75 bright quasars at $`z>3.8`$ from the Palomar Sky Survey (PSS) sample and detected 19 sources; Carilli et al. (2001a) made a deeper survey of a sample of 41 QSOs at $`z>3.7`$ selected from the Sloan Digital Sky Survey (SDSS) and detected 16 of them.

PSS 2322+1944, discovered by Djorgovski et al. (in prep.), is the brightest QSO in the survey of $`z>3.8`$ PSS quasars by Omont et al. (2001) and Isaak et al. (2002), with flux densities of $`9.6\pm 0.5`$ and $`22.5\pm 2.5`$ mJy at 250 and 350 GHz, respectively. The luminosity and implied dust mass are estimated111for a $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ cosmology ($`H_0=65\mathrm{km}\mathrm{s}^1\mathrm{Mpc}^1`$, $`\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{\Lambda }=0.7`$, $`\mathrm{\Omega }_m=0.3`$) adopted throughout this paper, the luminosity distance $`D_L`$ is $`3.99\times 10^4\mathrm{Mpc}`$. to be $`2.7\times 10^{13}\mathrm{L}_{}`$ and $`1.6\times 10^9\mathrm{M}_{}`$ (see Sect. 3). Under the assumption that the far-infrared luminosity arises exclusively from young stars, the implied star formation rate is a few $`10^3\mathrm{M}_{}\mathrm{yr}^1`$. PSS 2322+1944 was also detected with the VLA at 1.4 GHz with a total flux density of $`98\pm 20\mu \mathrm{Jy}`$ being spatially extended on a scale of 1.5′′ (Carilli et al. 2001b). The ratio of radio to millimeter flux agrees with the radio-to-far infrared correlation for star-forming galaxies. PSS 2322+1944 is also an exceptional optical source as described by Djorgovski et al. (in prep.). From a Keck optical spectrum a redshift was derived from multiple, associated narrow absorption lines, yielding $`z_{\mathrm{opt}}=4.11075\pm 0.0005`$.

## 2 Observations and Results

Observations were made with the IRAM Plateau de Bure interferometer during 5 nights in June 2001. We used the standard CD configuration (4 antennas) which results in a beam of $`4\stackrel{}{.}8\times 2\stackrel{}{.}1`$ at 1.3 mm and $`6\stackrel{}{.}2\times 4\stackrel{}{.}9`$ at 3.2 mm. Dual frequency receivers were used to search simultaneously for CO J=4$``$3 and dust emission at 3 and 1.35 mm, and in a second series of observations for CO J=5$``$4 and 10$``$9 emission. During the first observations, the receivers were tuned at 90.03 and 90.06 GHz to search for the J=4$``$3 emission line. A subsequent series of observations was done with the 3 mm receiver centered at 112.6 GHz (at the position of the redshifted CO J=5$``$4) and the 1.3 mm receiver tuned at 225.0 GHz to search for CO J=10$``$9. The 3 mm receivers were tuned in single sideband and the 1.3 mm receivers in double sideband. Typical SSB system temperatures were $`150\mathrm{K}`$ at 3 mm and $`400\mathrm{K}`$ at 1.3 mm. Amplitude and phase calibration were done using 3C 454.3 (6.1, 5.3 Jy) and 2230+114 (2.1, 1.2 Jy) where the number in round brackets are the flux densities at 3 and 1.3 mm, respectively, at the date of the observations. Phase noise was stable on all baselines both at 3 mm (rms 5o–17o) and at 1.3 mm (rms 13o–45o). During the observations, the water vapour varied between 3 and 6 mm and the seeing conditions varied between $`0\stackrel{}{.}8`$ and $`1\stackrel{}{.}3`$, i.e. much smaller than the synthesized beams at 3 mm and 1 mm. The total integration time was about 18 hours for the CO J=4$``$3 line, and 12 hours for the CO J=5$``$4, the CO=10$``$9 and the 1.35 mm continuum. The data were reduced, calibrated and analyzed using the standard IRAM programs CLIC and MAPPING. The final spectra are shown in Fig. 1 and, for the CO J=4$``$3 emission, Fig. 2a also shows the velocity channel maps.

PSS 2322+1944 was detected in the continuum at 1.35 mm with a flux density of 7.5$`\pm `$1.3 mJy, as derived from the image sideband measurements. This value is consistent with the flux density measured at 1.20 mm with MAMBO at the 30-meter ($`9.6\pm 0.5\mathrm{mJy}`$) when the spectral index of dust emission is taken into account. Within the astrometric uncertainties ($`\pm 0\stackrel{}{.}3`$), the continuum source corresponds is to the optical (and radio) position, RA 23:22:07.25, Dec 19:44:22.08 (J2000.0) from Carilli et al. (2001b). At the angular resolution of our observations, the source is not resolved (Fig. 2b). PSS 2322+1944 is not detected in the continuum at 3 mm with a flux density of $`0.40\pm 0.25\mathrm{mJy}`$ as derived from the line-free channels. Using a dust spectral index of 3.5, this is consistent with the 3 mm continuum value of $`0.3`$ mJy expected from the 1.35 mm flux density (Fig. 3).

PSS 2322+1944 was also observed with the wide-band 450 $`\mu \mathrm{m}`$ and 850 $`\mu \mathrm{m}`$ filters on SCUBA at the JCMT in December 2001 under good and stable weather conditions with $`\tau _{850\mu \mathrm{m}}0.06`$. The observations, calibration and data reduction were done as explained in Isaak et al. (2002). The source was detected in the continuum at 450 $`\mu \mathrm{m}`$ (corresponding to a rest wavelength of 88 $`\mu \mathrm{m}`$) with a flux density of 75$`\pm `$19 mJy. At 850 $`\mu \mathrm{m}`$, the flux density of PSS 2322+1944 is 24$`\pm `$2 mJy, which is entirely consistent with the 22.5$`\pm `$2.5 mJy value reported in Isaak et al. (2002). Fig. 3 presents the spectral energy distribution of PSS 2322+1944 with all the currently available photometric data.

Both the CO J=4$``$3 ($`\nu _{\mathrm{rest}}=461.0408\mathrm{GHz}`$) and J=5$``$4 ($`\nu _{\mathrm{rest}}=576.2679\mathrm{GHz}`$) are clearly detected toward the position of the continuum emission. The J=4$``$3 and 5$``$4 lines are found at frequencies of 90.05 and 112.55 GHz (Table 1) corresponding to a redshift of $`z_{\mathrm{CO}}=4.1199\pm 0.0008`$, close to the redshift derived from the optical spectrum ($`z_{\mathrm{opt}}=4.11075`$). The difference corresponds to a velocity difference of $`530\mathrm{km}\mathrm{s}^1`$ (Fig. 1). The CO J=10$``$9 emission line was not detected with a $`3\sigma `$ upper intensity limit of 30 mJy (Table 1). The integrated line fluxes of the CO J=4$``$3 and J=5$``$4 lines are $`4.24\pm 0.33\mathrm{Jy}\mathrm{km}\mathrm{s}^1`$ and $`3.74\pm 0.56`$, respectively. PSS 2322+1944 is the strongest CO emitter at high $`z`$, even stronger than the lensed quasar APM 08279+5255 (Downes et al. 1999) – see Table 2. From Gaussian fits, the line widths are found to be $`300\mathrm{km}\mathrm{s}^1`$ (Table 1) which is comparable to the width in the three $`z>4`$ CO sources detected so far (Table 2).

The channel maps in the CO J=4$``$3 emission line (Fig. 2a) (as well as the J=5$``$4 channel maps not shown) do not show evidence for extension and/or position shifts with velocity. The 3.2 mm CO data are limited by the angular resolution of the observations ($`6\stackrel{}{.}2\times 4\stackrel{}{.}9`$) and other array configurations will be needed to probe further whether the emission of PSS 2322+1944 is extended.

## 3 Discussion

The observed CO J=4$``$3 and 5$``$4 line fluxes imply intrinsic CO line luminosities, $`L_{\mathrm{CO}}^{}=2.0`$ and $`1.1\times 10^{11}\mathrm{K}\mathrm{km}\mathrm{s}^1\mathrm{pc}^2`$, respectively, or expressed in solar luminosities, $`L_{\mathrm{CO}}^{}=6.3`$ and $`7.0\times 10^8\mathrm{L}_{}`$ (Table 1). $`L_{\mathrm{CO}}^{}`$ is proportional to line brightness (Rayleigh-Jeans) temperature integrated over the area of the source: the ratio of luminosities in two CO transitions originating from the same area is a measure of the line brightness ratio and therefore an indicator of the physical conditions in the molecular gas (see Solomon et al.  for a discussion of $`L_{\mathrm{CO}}^{}`$ and $`L_{\mathrm{CO}}`$).

From the $`L_{\mathrm{CO}}^{}`$ we derive brightness (Rayleigh-Jeans) temperature ratios $`T_b`$\[CO(4$``$3)\]/$`T_b`$\[CO(5$``$4)\] $`=1.76\pm 0.25`$ and $`T_b`$\[CO(10$``$9)\]/$`T_b`$\[CO(5$``$4)\]$`<`$0.34. The former ratio is comparable to the values of 1.38 derived for the $`z=2.56`$ quasar H 1413 (the Cloverleaf) - see Barvainis et al. (1997) - and of 1.02 found for the $`z=4.69`$ quasar BR 1202$``$0725 (Omont et al. 1996a). These ratios indicate that the molecular gas in PSS 2322+1944 must be warm and dense. Using the results of a Large Velocity Gradient model for high $`z`$ galaxies (Sakamoto 1999), we used the brightness temperature ratios to constrain the molecular gas density in PSS 2322+1944. For a gas kinetic temperature of $`40100\mathrm{K}`$, in accordance with the temperature derived from the thermal dust emission spectrum (see below), and adopting a value of $`10^6\mathrm{pc}/(\mathrm{km}\mathrm{s}^1)`$ for the CO abundance per unit velocity gradient of the molecular gas ($`X(\mathrm{CO})/dv/dr`$), the $`T_b`$\[CO(4$``$3)\]/$`T_b`$\[CO(5$``$4)\] ratio constrains the density of the molecular gas to be of the order of $`10^{3.5}10^{4.1}\mathrm{cm}^3`$. These values for the gas temperature and density are also consistent with the line brightness ratio $`T_b`$\[CO(4$``$3)\]/$`T_b`$\[CO(1$``$0)\] $`1.4`$ derived from the CO(1$``$0) line flux measured with the VLA in PSS 2322+1044 (Carilli et al. \[in prep.\] - a more detailed analysis of the excitation conditions will be given in this paper). The gas density in PSS 2322+1944 is comparable to the high densities ($`n(\mathrm{H}_2)10^4\mathrm{cm}^3`$) found in the highly excited gas in the nuclear region of the starburst galaxy M 82 (Güsten et al. 1993; Mao et al. 2000) and in nearby ultraluminous infrared galaxies (e.g., Solomon et al. ).

Assuming a standard Galactic value of $`4.6\mathrm{M}_{}(\mathrm{K}\mathrm{km}\mathrm{s}^1\mathrm{pc}^2)^1`$ for the conversion factor of molecular mass to $`L_{\mathrm{CO}(10)}^{}`$, and using the above line brightness ratio $`T_b`$\[CO(4$``$3)\]/$`T_b`$\[CO(1$``$0)\], we infer a molecular gas mass of $`6\times 10^{11}\mathrm{M}_{}`$. Based on a study of ultraluminous infrared galaxies (ULIRGs), Solomon et al. (1997) showed that the molecular gas mass to CO luminosity conversion factor is likely to be lower (by a factor $`3`$) in the extreme environments of luminous infrared galaxies where the molecular clouds are expected to be hotter and denser than in the Galaxy (see also Combes et al. 1999). In the case of Arp 220, Scoville et al. (1997) derived a conversion factor $`0.45`$ times the Galactic value. The above gas mass is therefore likely to be overestimated by a factor 2 to 3. In the following we will adopt a conversion factor of $`1.8\mathrm{M}_{}(\mathrm{K}\mathrm{km}\mathrm{s}^1\mathrm{pc}^2)^1`$ (i.e., a factor of 2.5 times smaller than the Galactic conversion factor), which translates into a molecular gas mass of $`M_{\mathrm{H}_2}2.5\times 10^{11}\mathrm{M}_{}`$ for PSS 2322+1944.

Compared with the dust mass $`M_{\mathrm{dust}}1.6\times 10^9\mathrm{M}_{}`$ derived from the 1.35 mm continuum flux density (see Omont et al. 2001), the implied gas to dust mass ratio for PSS 2322+1944 is $`M(\mathrm{H}_2)/M_{\mathrm{dust}}150`$, comparable to the ratios derived in bright nearby galaxies (Dunne et al. 2000), ULIRGs (Solomon et al. 1997), or other high redshift CO sources (Guilloteau et al. 1999). This similarity is also reflected in the $`L_{\mathrm{FIR}}/L_{\mathrm{CO}(10)}^{}`$ ratios of these sources. In the case of PSS 2322+1944, $`L_{\mathrm{FIR}}/L_{\mathrm{CO}(10)}^{}185\mathrm{L}_{}(\mathrm{K}\mathrm{km}\mathrm{s}^1\mathrm{pc}^2)^1`$, close to the median value of 160 found for a sample of 37 ULIRGs by Solomon et al. (1997).

Figure 3 presents the radio to infrared flux densities of PSS 2322+1944 (including the new measurement at 450 $`\mu \mathrm{m}`$ and 1.35 mm) compared with the spectral energy distribution of M 82, which we red-shifted to $`z=4.12`$ and normalized to the flux density of PSS 2322+1944 at the observed wavelength of 850 $`\mu \mathrm{m}`$. Note that M 82 is about 100 times less luminous than PSS 2322+1944. The two spectral energy distributions are remarkably similar in the far-infrared/radio, although the peak intensity of PSS 2322+1944 is somewhat higher. For a dust emissivity index $`\beta =1.6`$, the dust emission is well fitted with a temperature of $`T_d47\mathrm{K}`$, which is similar to the dust temperature derived in M 82 under the same assumptions, i.e. $`T_d45\mathrm{K}`$. This further supports the idea that in PSS 2322+1944 the starburst dominates the dust heating and the radio emission (see also Omont et al.  and Carilli et al. \[2001b\]). Further confirmation may come from a comparison of their mid- and near-infrared spectra. Similarities with the far-infrared and radio SED of M 82 were also noted for the QSOs BRI 1335–0417 at $`z=4.4`$ (Carilli et al. 1999) and BR 1202–0725 at $`z=4.7`$ (Kawabe et al. 1999; Yun et al. 2000).

Djorgovski et al. (in prep.) found that the quasar PSS 2322+1944 has a close companion (separated by about $`1^{\prime \prime }`$) with the same spectrum within the measurement uncertainties. It is not yet known if this is a case of a gravitational lensing, or a binary quasar. In the former case, the luminosities and dust masses deduced here should be lowered by a factor of a few. In the latter case, we may be seeing an interaction or a merger of two quasar hosts.

## 4 Conclusions

With an apparent CO luminosity greater than that of the strongly lensed quasar APM 08279+5255, the $`z=4.12`$ quasar PSS 2322+1944 is the strongest CO emitter detected to date at redshifts larger than 3.5. Assuming no gravitational magnification, we estimate a molecular gas mass of $`2.5\times 10^{11}\mathrm{M}_{}`$, and a far-infrared luminosity of $`2.7\times 10^{13}\mathrm{L}_{}`$. The spectral energy distribution and large luminosity suggest that a massive starburst takes place in PSS 2322+1944, which may be related to the formation of the core of an elliptical galaxy.

The exceptional brightness of PSS 2322+1944 makes it a good target for further observations of other CO transitions, in particular those from lower levels which will constrain the physical conditions of the bulk of the molecular gas. Higher spatial resolution measurements are also needed to see whether the line or continuum emission is extended, as it was seen for the radio and optical emission (Carilli et al. 2001b; Djorgovski et al., in prep.).

The detection of CO in another strong (sub)millimeter continuum high-$`z`$ quasar confirms a frequent correlation between the 3 mm CO peak intensity and the 1.3 mm continuum flux, with a typical ratio of about unity. This relation shows that systematic searches for CO emission in strong thermal dust continuum quasars are promising with current instrumentation, provided that the redshift is known with high enough accuracy. Systematic (sub)millimeter continuum surveys of high redshift, radio-quiet quasars are therefore needed to find strong continuum sources towards which CO emission can be searched. Such studies promise to further our understanding of the physical and chemical properties of the most energetic sources in the early Universe. Interferometric observations, especially with ALMA and EVLA, will eventually be able to show the spatial distribution of the molecular gas and its relation to the stars and ionized gas.

###### Acknowledgements.

R. Neri and M. Grewing are gratefully acknowledged for their support of this program, and D. Downes for useful discussions. We also thank R. Lucas for help with the data reduction and the referee, A.S. Evans, for comments which improved the contents of this paper. The IRAM Plateau de Bure staff is kindly acknowledged for its efficient assistance. IRAM is supported by INSU/CNRS (France), MPG (Germany), and IGN (Spain). The JCMT is operated by JAC, Hilo, on behalf of the parent organisations of the Particle Physics and Astronomy Research Council in the UK, the National Research Council in Canada and the Scientific Research Organisation of the Netherlands. The National Radio Astronomy Observatory (NRAO) is a facility of the National Science Foundation, operated under cooperative agreement by Associated Universities, Inc. SGD and SMC acknowledge a partial support from the Bressler Foundation.


format: text

text:
# Fano theory for hadronic resonances: the rho meson and the pionic continuum

## I Introduction

The most obvious unstable hadronic states, or resonances, are single absorption peaks in the $`\pi N`$ scattering data in a particular channel, with a Breit-Wigner, or Lorentz, shape, where the width is related to the coupling to mainly pionic decay channels. However, resonances generally have distorted shapes due to the presence of other resonances or thresholds of competing channels. Their shape might look nothing like the Breit-Wigner shape that is often used to fit the data, and the position of the peak might shift through inter-resonance and resonance-continuum interactions. The extraction of single resonances from complex scattering data is still strongly model dependent VDL .

Today, baryons are no longer tied to $`\pi N`$ scattering, but are also observed in other experiments, such as $`\gamma N`$ scattering. They are particles in their own right, which can be probed with different experiments. However, hadrons are not elementary particles. QCD was discovered as the underlying microscopic field theory of composite hadrons. In principle hadrons are bound states of quarks, but deriving their properties directly from QCD has proven difficult. Therefore, the interest in hadronic resonances has been extended from basic resonance parameters, such as the mass and the width, to microscopic properties that can test the quality of a wide range of microscopic models of hadrons. Although most models reproduce the mass spectrum with a reasonable accuracy, microscopic properties, such as charge radii and magnetic moments, and branching ratios of decays are currently under investigation.

Furthermore, quark models allow for states, hybrids or exotics, that do not consist of three quarks, or simple quark-anti-quark pairs. However, to extract a clear signal for these states from experiment is a formidable task. Therefore, it is important to understand the conventional hadronic states and their coupling to possible exotic states better.

Since the first analysis of hadronic resonances there have been many theoretical developments. Quantum field theory has replaced quantum mechanics as the fundamental theory for small-scale physics, and renormalization is an unfortunate, but integral part of a modern approach based on local interactions. In hadron physics the issue of handling divergences and renormalization is often by-passed by introducing form factors or vertex functions. Vertex form factors which smear the interactions and make further regularization superfluous fail to have universal applicability; each experiment within a particular energy range is explained with a model which has its own form factors. Global models that fit the world data do a good job in the energy range of the world data, but these models would not necessarily lead to good predictions for new results at higher energies.

The local interactions in field theory seem essential to maintain relativistic covariance, and, although models with vertex form factors can reproduce the data well with a limited number of parameters, they are tied to a particular experiment, a particular energy range, and a particular set of channels, and they say very little general about a particular hadronic state. Moreover, a different set of vertex form factors might do just as well.

Furthermore, there are bounds and constraints, such as unitarity and analyticity, on the models that describe scattering. They were put on a firm footing by study of the analytical properties of the S-matrix, and are incorporated in quantum field theory. However, since hadrons are not elementary particles, there is no fundamental field theory, with a small number of parameters, that describes all of hadron dynamics. Model field theories of hadron physics serve to bring order in the complexity, to restrict the model space, and to implement constraints from symmetries.

Separate from the choice of the model hadronic field theory, the theory of resonances has unfortunately not kept pace with the developments in field theory in general. Consistency requires that the imaginary part of the mass is of an unstable particle follows from a microscopic model that links the particle with its decay channels. Some formal developments have been made MS59 ; Zwa63 ; however, in practice the models underlying the resonance shapes that describe actual data, which can be very complicated, are in essence the same as those of thirty years ago BW52 ; tola . These models aim to locate the resonance poles, but gives very little other information that can constrain models of hadron interactions. Microscopic properties of hadrons remain hidden in the data.

Some theoretical progress has been made. For example, resonances have been studied and renormalization is handled in chiral perturbation theory KKW . However, the typical energy of hadronic resonances is too high and lies beyond the region of applicability of chiral perturbation theory. At these energies the chiral symmetry is not important, and other features, such as form factors or a large number of low-energy parameters dominate the fit to the data. The hadronic Lagrangian is not restricted by chiral symmetry at these energies, and many constants need to be fitted to the data.

In most cases, attempts to describe medium-energy hadronic physics from an underlying field theory start with a chiral Lagrangian which is augmented with additional constraints. For example, one important, but approximate conservation law in medium-energy hadronic physics, which has been utilized, follows from vector meson dominance. This suggests there is a universal hadronic current by which the photon and the rho meson couple to all hadrons HLS . Furthermore, the large $`N_c`$ limit has some implications for amplitudes, which can restrict the $`SU(3)_f`$ chiral Lagrangian so that it has predictive power Lut00 . In more traditional chiral Lagrangian approaches unitarity has been used to improve the predictions beyond the original range of applicability oller . Finally, from a more traditional hadronic few-body dynamics point of view, a consistent implementation of covariance can extend the range of validity and restrict the model dependence Pic01 . For most of these approaches, scales and form factors still need to be introduced. Furthermore, the models are more designed to test the assumptions made, than to extract universal quantities from a wide range of scattering data. In all these approaches hadrons enter as the elementary fields. Independently, within the Dyson-Schwinger framework, there are investigations on the way to use their rho meson Bethe-Salpeter results in baryon and meson form factors tandy , where the composite nature of hadrons in terms of quarks is resolved.

Our aims are much simpler; we would like to determine universal quantities, like the matrix elements of a Hamiltonian, directly and consistently from the data. Consistent tools for the analysis of resonances that satisfy unitarity, analyticity are developed. They meet a microscopic model for hadrons halfway in terms of matrix elements and bare masses. The divergences that arise from the local interactions are renormalized, and the only parameters present are a few coupling constants and bare masses. Simple field-theoretical results, such as the bubble summation for a single channel are reproduced. The method is much more versatile, and this versatility is paramount. The coupled channel data should yield an Hamiltonian with the same asymptotic states first. If there is an important inelastic cross section, the only models that can be trusted are those which explicitly take into account these channels. Possible candidates for resonances can be added and their effects on the data studied. It is not a matter of explaining a particular set of data, but it is important to have independent verifications of resonances in independent experiments.

Any other input is considered part of a microscopic model, and should be kept in its simplest form. The approach does not hinge on a particular approximation, but solely on one condition. Any approximation should be made at the level of the Hamiltonian and it should maintain Hermiticity. The Hamiltonian is a good starting point and end point of such tools: formulate a model in terms of a Hamiltonian, and fix the matrix elements with the data. Unitarity, analyticity, and other constraints on the data are automatically fulfilled within this approach.

This method for analysis of hadronic resonances is designed for the case of a strong coupling between continua and multiple resonance states. This paper is the first step in developing a set of tools for a fully unitary approach to coupled-channel scattering problems, which is under investigation at the moment. Furthermore, it establishes contact with the local field theories that should describe these systems, and renormalization is handled.

In most studies resonances are fitted with Breit-Wigner resonance shapes, however, resonances have often more complicated shapes. In atomic theory there is a wide range of methods developed that describe resonances or auto-ionization profiles. In hadronic physics the interaction is stronger. The resonances have generally a larger width, and therefore more complicated shapes as they interact with other resonances and the asymtotic states. The method used here is an adaption of a method developed by Fano in the 1960’s.

Fano developed Fan61 ; Cow82 ; BR97  an analysis for atomic resonances by writing down a general Hamiltonian for such systems. This Hamiltonian can be diagonalised exactly, thereby yielding direct relations between scattering data and the parameters of the Hamiltonian. It is based on the separation of the problem into two parts: the continuum, characterized by the energy of the asymptotic states in a particular channel, and resonances, which in the absence of a continuum are discrete eigenstates, such as, the states that would follow from a constituent quark model, large $`N_c`$ approximation, or a quenched lattice calculation.

The continuum should be considered an eigenstate of the decoupled system as well. The wave function could be deformed at the origin with respect to the non-interacting wave function due to direct continuum-continuum interaction as would occur in field theory. In this case the continuum can be composite; with asymptotic states without fixed particle numbers, as we will see in section IV where we discuss the rho meson as an example. By splitting the problem in two and expressing it in the eigenstates of the sub-problems many matrix elements are zero due to orthogonality of the eigenstates of the sub-problems.

As a first example we analyze the rho meson resonance in the tau decay. The resonance shape dominates the hadronic decay of the tau lepton into two pions. We choose to describe this problem with a bare rho which couples to a two-pion state. The energy dependence of the coupling can be modeled by a chiral Lagrangian. To extend this simple model, there are two main avenues: introduce a more complicated energy dependence, motivated by some microscopic model, or introduce the next state that is important, which is the four-pion state (with a threshold at $`558`$ MeV). For the data it is clear that the four-pion decay of the tau lepton dominates the two-pion decay above 1 GeV. The effects of four-pion states are hard to handle in chiral perturbation theory, since this involves at least a three-loop diagram and many intermediate states, such as $`\omega \pi `$, $`\rho \rho `$, $`\pi \pi \rho `$, and $`a_0\pi `$ mesons BR69 . However, we will see that a simple four-pion state does precisely what is needed: it corrects the high-energy part of the two-pion decay, and gives a quantitative prediction of the four-pion decay. In the Hamiltonian approach the details of of the rho four-pion coupling cannot be resolved with present-day data. The two effective coupling constants; the two-pion and the four-pion decay of the rho meson are sufficient to describe the hadronic tau lepton below $`1.1`$ GeV. Above this energy there are many channels which can only be distinguished by looking at invariant masses of subsystems in multi-pion states to which most of these hadronic states decay. At the moment only the three-pion decay of the intermediate omega meson has a clear signal Eck , mainly because of the narrow width of the omega.

Many theoretical studies of the rho meson focus on combining vector meson dominance (VMD) Sak60  with chiral symmetry. In these models the photon couples to most hadrons through a universal conserved vector current (CVC). The microscopic foundation of this current, and its underlying symmetry, is poorly understood, and a hidden local symmetry (HLS) is postulated HLS . This symmetry mixes the photon with the rho meson. The additional knowledge resulting from this assumption has led to a reasonable understanding of the shape of the rho meson due to coupling with the two-pion continuum.

However, since chiral perturbation theory focusses on low-energy behavior, the predicted higher energy behavior does not agree with the data, because the higher order derivative couplings violate unitarity at intermediate energies. Therefore, the high-energy part of the rho resonance fails the data completely. Improved HLS models unitarize previous results, and somewhat improve agreement. We, on the other hand, find the correct high-energy behavior by simply including the four-pion continuum.

In the next section, we will develop the general theory of resonances given a Hamiltonian with a number of discrete states and a continuum. In Section III we show that the matrix elements that appear in the Hamiltonian can be related to Feynman diagrams. For a first application to hadronic resonances we apply the method to the rho meson in Section IV. In Section V we present the results, and the final section we discuss future applications and improvements of this method.

## II Theory

Let us first consider a general Hamiltonian which couples a continuum to a set of discrete states that are orthogonal with respect to each other. Many systems can be cast in this form (it does not allow for continuum-continuum interactions, which is a topic of current investigations). The Hamiltonian has the general form:

$`H`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{i=1}{\overset{k}{}}}|iϵ_ii|+{\displaystyle 𝑑\mathrm{\Delta }}|\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{\Delta }|`$ (1)
$`+{\displaystyle \underset{i=1}{\overset{k}{}}}{\displaystyle W_i(\mathrm{\Delta })𝑑\mathrm{\Delta }\left(|\mathrm{\Delta }e^{i\varphi _i(\mathrm{\Delta })}i|+|ie^{i\varphi _i(\mathrm{\Delta })}\mathrm{\Delta }|\right)},`$
where $`ϵ_i=\sqrt{𝐩^2+M_i^2}`$ with $`𝐩`$ the momentum of the system, and $`M_i`$ is the mass of the discrete, bare state $`i`$. The continuum state $`|\mathrm{\Delta }`$ is labeled with its energy $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$. The coupling is parametrized with the unknown coupling functions $`W_i`$ and phases $`\varphi _i`$. In practice, such Hamiltonian are restricted to a particular channel, with a given partial wave, charge, and other conserved quantum numbers, which we therefore omit from the start.

All the integrals are principal value integrals, additional terms that arise from the singularities will be taken in account explicitly, rather than implicitly in a particular pole or $`iϵ`$ prescription, which places the pole at a particular side of the contour integration. The latter is used in scattering theory, where the pole part is associated with open channels, or asymptotic, states. Within an eigenfunction interpretation, we do not necessarily interpret singular parts of the eigenstate with out-states, they could be in-states as well, or, if the interaction is strong, mix with the resonance state. This information is carried in the occupation numbers $`\alpha _i`$ and $`\beta `$, which are normalized to unity, even for a singular functional dependence of the spectroscopic strength $`\beta `$ on the energy.

The eigenstates $`|\omega `$ with the continuous energy $`\omega `$ of the Hamiltonian can be expressed as:

$$|\omega =𝑑\mathrm{\Delta }\beta (\omega ,\mathrm{\Delta })|\mathrm{\Delta }+\underset{i=1}{\overset{k}{}}\alpha _i(\omega )|i.$$
(2)
where $`\alpha _i`$’s are the occupation numbers of the discrete state, and $`\beta `$ is the spectroscopic amplitude, or occupation density, of the continuum states. Substituting this into the Hamiltonian, Eq. ((1)), we can express $`\beta (\omega ,\mathrm{\Delta })`$ in terms of the $`\alpha `$’s:

$$\beta (\omega ,\mathrm{\Delta })=\left(\frac{1}{\omega \mathrm{\Delta }}+z(\omega )\delta (\omega \mathrm{\Delta })\right)\underset{i=1}{\overset{k}{}}\alpha _i(\omega )W_i(\mathrm{\Delta })e^{i\varphi _i(\mathrm{\Delta })}.$$
(3)
where $`z(\omega )`$ can be any regular function to be determined later. $`z(\omega )(\omega \mathrm{\Delta })\delta (\omega \mathrm{\Delta })`$ vanishes. Substituting $`\beta `$ back into the second equation of the Hamiltonian, Eq. (1), yields:

$`(\omega ϵ)\alpha (\omega )`$ $`=`$ $`\pi (\omega )\alpha (\omega )+z(\omega )𝐅(\omega )\alpha (\omega ),`$ (4)
where $`(\omega ϵ)`$ is a diagonal matrix with entries $`\omega ϵ_i`$. The hermitian matrix $`𝐅`$, and its Hilbert transform $``$ necessary for the consistency condition on $`z(\omega )`$ are defined:

$`F_{ji}(\xi )`$ $`=`$ $`W_i(\xi )W_j(\xi )e^{i(\varphi _j(\xi )\varphi _i(\xi ))},`$ (5)
$`_{ji}(\eta )`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\pi }}{\displaystyle 𝑑\xi \frac{F_{ij}(\xi )}{\eta \xi }}.`$ (6)
Eq. (4) is multiplied from the left by:

$$𝐖^{}(\omega )\left((\omega ϵ)\pi (\omega )\right)^1,$$
(7)
where the vector $`𝐖^{}(\omega )=(W_1(\omega )e^{i\varphi _1(\omega )},W_2(\omega )e^{i\varphi _2(\omega )},\mathrm{},W_k(\omega )e^{i\varphi _k(\omega )})`$. The whole expression contains a common factor $`𝐖^{}(\omega )\alpha (\omega )`$, which can be divided out, which yields a closed form expression for $`z(\omega )`$:

$$z(\omega )=\left(𝐖^{}(\omega )\left((\omega ϵ)\pi (\omega )\right)^1𝐖(\omega )\right)^1.$$
(8)
At this point it is important to realize the significance of $`z(\omega )`$ above: it is the projected resolvent $`((\omega ϵ)\pi (\omega ))^1`$ of the discrete spectrum, perturbed through the coupling with the continuum. Given that $``$ is hermitian, the matrix $`(ϵ\pi )`$ will have a discrete spectrum $`\omega _1,\omega _2,\mathrm{},\omega _k`$,

$$\mathrm{\Omega }=\left(\begin{array}{cccc}\omega _1& & & \\ & \omega _2& & \\ & & \mathrm{}& \\ & & & \omega _k\end{array}\right)=U^{}(\omega )\left(ϵ\pi (\omega )\right)U(\omega ).$$
(9)
In order to simplify the results, it is convenient to work in the basis of the true spectrum of the discrete system. In this case the inverse, that appears in Eq. (8), is trivial. We perform the substitutions:

$`\alpha (\omega )`$ $`=`$ $`U𝐚(\omega ),`$ (10)
$`𝐖(\omega )`$ $`=`$ $`U𝐕(\omega ),`$ (11)
and likewise for the hermitian conjugates.

The normalization of the state $`|\omega `$ yields:

$`\omega ^{}|\omega `$ $`=`$ $`\alpha ^{}(\omega ^{})\alpha (\omega )`$
$`+\alpha ^{}(\omega ^{}){\displaystyle \frac{z(\omega ^{})𝐖(\omega ^{})𝐖^{}(\omega ^{})\pi (\omega ^{})}{\omega ^{}\omega }}\alpha (\omega )`$
$`\alpha ^{}(\omega ^{}){\displaystyle \frac{z(\omega )𝐖(\omega )𝐖^{}(\omega )\pi (\omega )}{\omega ^{}\omega }}\alpha (\omega )`$
$`+(\pi ^2+z^2(\omega ))\delta (\omega \omega ^{})\alpha ^{}(\omega ^{})𝐖(\omega ^{})𝐖^{}(\omega )\alpha (\omega ),`$
where the $`\pi ^2`$ contribution results from the pole term of the product of the two principal value singularities in the spectroscopic densities $`\beta `$. If we substitute the new variables, a and V, it is easy to see that the first three terms cancel each other. The state $`|\omega `$ is an eigenstate by construction and:

$$\omega ^{}|\omega =(\pi ^2+z^2(\omega ))\delta (\omega \omega ^{})\alpha ^{}(\omega ^{})𝐖(\omega ^{})𝐖^{}(\omega )\alpha (\omega ).$$
(13)
The probability of finding the system in the discrete state $`|i`$, given it was in the discrete state $`|j=|\psi (t=0)`$ is:

$$i|\psi (t)=𝑑\omega \alpha _i(\omega )\alpha _j^{}(\omega )e^{i\omega t},$$
(14)
where the occupation numbers are given by:

$$\alpha _i(\omega )=\frac{W_i(\omega )e^{i\varphi _i(\omega )}}{𝐖^{}𝐖\left[z(\omega )+i\pi \right]},$$
(15)
and we have chosen a convenient phase. At the position of a resonance $`\omega =\omega _j`$, $`z(\omega _j)`$ vanishes, however, this is not necessarily the resonance maximum, as the coupling function depends on the energy. If the coupling function is a constant, a single resonance shape reduces to a Breit-Wigner form:

$$\alpha _j(\omega )=\frac{W_j}{(\omega \omega _j)+i\pi W_j^2}.$$
(16)
Likewise, the phase shift follows from the inspection of Eq. (3) for the spectral density of the continuum state. The principal value singularity yields the scattering wave function proportional to $`\pi \mathrm{sin}(k(\omega )+\delta _l)`$, while the delta function yields the scattering wave function proportional to $`\mathrm{sin}(k(\omega )+\delta _l+\frac{\pi }{2})`$. Therefore, their relative strength $`\pi /z(\omega )`$ determines the effect of the coupling to the discrete states to the phase shift $`\delta _r`$, which yields

$$\delta _r=\mathrm{arctan}\frac{\pi }{z(\omega )}.$$
(17)
Clearly, once the eigenstate is known, in terms of the occupation numbers $`\alpha _i`$ of the discrete states and the occupation number $`\beta `$ of the continuum, at every energy we can determine any quantity we like. The decay of a state is given by the probability of finding the system in that state, Eq. (14). In a scattering process, the incoming state must be projected on the continuum part of the eigenstate, and the scattering continuum state can be reached subsequently via one of the discrete states. Transition amplitudes are therefore proportional to $`W_j\alpha _j`$. For a single channel the $`T`$-matrix is:

$$T=\frac{1}{z(\omega )+i\pi },$$
(18)
which preserves unitarity.

## III Coupling functions

The masses $`M_i`$ and the coupling functions $`W_i`$ are to be determined by other means. We assume that the masses follow from some QCD or constituent-quark based model. Although, the coupling functions; the pion-hadron interaction, could in principle be determined by the same means, in practice that turned out to be a formidable task. Therefore, we turn to Lagrangians with explicit pions and chiral symmetry for the coupling functions BR69 . The easiest connection is made midway. Although the meaning of the Green’s function, or resolvent, is different in the study of eigenstates, which is stationary, and the study of scattering, which is dynamical, the actual mathematical form is the same. At many levels one can find relations between expressions in scattering theory and stationary eigenvalue problems. We choose the equivalence that is most convenient to us, which is the equivalence of the one-particle self-energy. With chiral Lagrangians we can determine the one-particle irreducible self-energy correction $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ of hadrons due to coupling to the pion field, which is given in terms of Feynman diagrams. We can equate this with the real part of energy shift due to the coupling of the $`i`$-th discrete state with the continuum $`\pi _{ii}`$ in the Fano theory, which also yields the real part of the self-energy due to the coupling with the continuum:

$$_{PV}𝑑\mathrm{\Delta }\frac{W_i^2(\mathrm{\Delta })}{\omega \mathrm{\Delta }}\mathrm{\Sigma }_i(\omega )=\frac{1}{2\omega }\mathrm{Re}d^{4n}kI(k),$$
(19)
where $`I`$ is the integrand of the truncated Feynman self-energy diagram $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ for the bare hadron $`i`$. Hence $`W_i^2`$ is the phase-space of the continuum times the appropriate factors:

$$W_i^2(\omega )=\frac{\pi }{2\omega }\mathrm{Im}d^{4n}kI(k),$$
(20)
where $`\omega `$ is the sum of the free energies of the particles in the continuum state, which, in a Feynman diagram with energy conservation at the vertices, equals the total incoming energy. Similarly, in the right-hand side of Eq. (19) we can recognize the corresponding Goldstone diagram BR86 .

This connection between the coupling function $`W`$ and the imaginary part of the Feynman diagram guarantees that the tree-level and bubble-sum results in this approach and with Feynman diagrams are the same. However, the Hamiltonian description does not automatically include the backward, or anti-particle, contributions, since these are related to separate states. These states must be added explicitly. The major advantage is that the resulting linear eigenvalue equation in the energy can be solved exactly, even in the case of multiple resonances and multiple decay channels. In the language of Feynman diagrams this statement corresponds to the simultaneous bubble sum of the different intermediate states.

For the rho meson, analyzed below, we included the anti-particle states, that is, we combined $`\rho \pi \pi \rho `$ with the $`\rho \rho \rho \overline{\pi }\overline{\pi }\rho `$ process and $`\rho \pi \pi \pi \pi \rho `$ with $`\rho \rho \rho \overline{\pi }\overline{\pi }\overline{\pi }\overline{\pi }\rho `$. (See Fig. 2.) Although this restores covariance it has little effect on the actual resonance shape, since the threshold of the $`\rho \rho \pi \pi `$ state is already above $`1800`$ MeV. The calculation of the self-energy simplifies for the rho meson; the functions depend on $`s=\omega ^2,\mathrm{\Delta }^2`$ only, since the forward and the backward contributions combine. Schematically:

$$𝑑\mathrm{\Delta }\frac{f(\mathrm{\Delta }^2)}{\omega \mathrm{\Delta }}+𝑑\mathrm{\Delta }\frac{f(\mathrm{\Delta }^2)}{\omega (2\omega +\mathrm{\Delta })}=𝑑\mathrm{\Delta }^2\frac{f(\mathrm{\Delta }^2)}{\omega ^2\mathrm{\Delta }^2}.$$
(21)
The self-energy Eq. (19) is highly divergent for many pionic problems. We will use on-shell subtraction as our renormalization procedure, which requires implicit counterterms such that the masses $`M_i`$ and the wave function normalization $`i|j=\delta _{ij}`$ remain unaltered. In practice the wave-function renormalization means a unit residue of the resonance pole. Below we discuss the rho meson, and show explicitly how these problems are handled.

## IV The rho meson

The rho meson plays an important role in photon-hadron interactions at intermediate energies. It seems that the photon couples to hadrons mainly via the isovector-vector rho meson, which in its turn, couples to a universal hadronic current via a coupling constant $`g`$. We see the rho meson mainly through its decay to two pions. So in order to describe the physical rho meson, we assume a discrete state $`|\rho `$ at rest, which couples to the two-pion continuum $`|\pi \pi (\mathrm{\Delta })`$ with energy $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$. We have the following matrix elements:

$`\rho |H|\rho `$ $`=`$ $`M,`$ (22)
$`|\rho |H|\pi \pi (\mathrm{\Delta })|^2`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{g^2(\mathrm{\Delta }^24m_\pi ^2)^{\frac{3}{2}}\theta (\mathrm{\Delta }2m_\pi )}{48\pi \mathrm{\Delta }}}=W^2(\mathrm{\Delta }),`$ (23)
$`\pi \pi (\mathrm{\Delta }^{})|H|\pi \pi (\mathrm{\Delta })`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{\Delta }\delta (\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{\Delta }^{}),`$ (24)
where the coupling function follows from the interaction term $`g\stackrel{}{\rho }^\mu [\stackrel{}{\pi }\times _\mu \stackrel{}{\pi }]`$ in the chiral Lagrangian, and the vectors are in the isospin space. In practice this particular coupling is only important for the right threshold behavior, for large energies the results are dominated by the phase space. For the moment we will assume that there is no self-interaction in the two-pion continuum, therefore the coupling function $`W`$ follows the phase space. The explicit unitarity of the approach and the on-shell renormalization lead to the correct large energy behavior.

In the future we will investigate the effect of the continuum-continuum interaction on the results. We also include the next contribution to the physical rho, which, considering the possible states in this channel and their energies, must be the four-pion state, with a threshold at $`558`$ MeV. From an energy of about $`1`$ GeV there are many other intermediate decay channels important, e.g.: $`\pi ^6`$, $`\omega \pi `$, $`\rho \pi ^2`$ and $`a_0\pi `$ between $`900`$ MeV and $`1.5`$ GeV BR69 . They are to be taken in account if one wants to analyze rho decay at energies above $`1`$ GeV. For example, the $`\pi \omega `$ system has a threshold ($`921`$ MeV) close enough to the $`\rho `$ mass ($`770`$ MeV) to yield contributions that do not simply follow the four-pion phase space. However, we leave this to future investigations. Although channels open at a slightly lower energy than $`1.1`$ GeV, their effect is not strong at threshold due to the low-energy behavior manifest in the derivative couplings of the chiral Lagrangian.

From the chiral Lagrangian there are many intermediate states that lead to the four-pion state from the discrete rho, however, all these states are highly virtual, so we can approximate the coupling between the discrete rho and the four-pion state with a single derivative coupling. (See Fig. 1.) This yields a complicated integral, equivalent to a three-loop calculation in Feynman perturbation theory. Ignoring these correlations in the four-pion state, the additional matrix elements are well-approximated by:

$`|\rho |H|\pi \pi \pi \pi (\mathrm{\Delta })|^2`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{g_2^2(\mathrm{\Delta }^216m_\pi ^2)^{\frac{9}{2}}\theta (\mathrm{\Delta }4m_\pi )}{M^5\mathrm{\Delta }^3}}W_2^2(\mathrm{\Delta }),`$ (25)
$`\pi \pi \pi \pi (\mathrm{\Delta }^{})|H|\pi \pi \pi \pi (\mathrm{\Delta })`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{\Delta }\delta (\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{\Delta }^{}).`$ (26)
From semi-analytical three-loop calculations Lig00  one can see that the approximation for $`W_2`$ is reasonable, and the eigenstates of the complete system turn out to be stable under small variations in the coupling function $`W_2`$. The continuum is composite. It contains a two-pion and a four-pion fraction to the ratio $`W/W_2`$. We did not allow a direct coupling between them, so they mix with ratios proportional to the coupling strengths to the discrete state $`|\rho `$.

The real parts, from Eq. (6), are divergent integrals, as expected for local interactions. Therefore we need to regularize the results and state how we determine the finite parts. In hadronic physics renormalization has to be pragmatic, since most theories for hadronic physics are not renormalizable; there is no fixed set of parameters, masses and coupling constants that can re-absorb all the divergences by a proper redefinition. Therefore, at any order or scale a number of observables are needed to fix the unknown finite renormalizations of the system. In principle a lot of fine-tuning, to fit theory to experiment, can be done here. However, we take the view that this fine-tuning means fitting the short and medium range physics, which should be done with a proper microscopic theory of hadrons. The bare rho is the result of miscroscopic interaction that should incorporate the short range effects of pions. Therefore all the finite renormalizations are chosen such that the contributions vanishes at the rho mass $`M`$. This is a choice, but it separates analysis of scattering data from any model assumptions. If some additional knowledge about the structure of the rho meson exists, it should end up in the coupling function. This is important to make the analysis based on the Hamiltonian scale independent, since scale dependence implies model dependence.

For this purpose we use on-shell renormalization; subtracting the low-order divergent terms in Taylor expansion in $`(\omega ^2M^2)`$ of the self-energy $``$. Note that since we have included the anti-particle diagrams, Eq. (21), our self-energy $``$ is a function of $`s=\omega ^2`$ rather than $`\omega `$, hence the expansion is in $`(\omega ^2M^2)`$ rather than $`(\omega M)`$. Odd terms are absent and do not require renormalization.

The two-pion coupling function leads to the ordinary mass and wave-function renormalization $`c_0`$ and $`c_1(\omega ^2M^2)`$. The four-pion coupling function requires subtractions $`c_0^{(2)}`$, $`c_1^{(2)}(\omega ^2M^2)`$, $`c_2^{(2)}(\omega ^2M^2)^2`$, and $`c_3^{(2)}(\omega ^2M^2)^3`$, which are set identical to the same divergent terms in $`_{\pi ^4}`$:

$$c_n^{(2)}=\frac{1}{n!}\frac{^n_{\pi ^4}(\omega ^2)}{(\omega ^2)^n}|_{\omega =M}.$$
(27)
The effects of the self-energy are small over the whole range of the rho resonance shape, from the two-pion threshold to $`1.2`$ GeV, which yields effects of the order of a couple of percent.

Since the finite renormalization is model independent there are only two parameters to fit the data. These are the two coupling constants $`g`$ and $`g_2`$, which yield the strength of the coupling between the bare rho and the two-pion continuum and the four-pion continuum respectively. Since the two decay channels are both open at these energies, There are also have two independent measurements of these two coupling constants; namely, the two-pion decay and the four-pion decay.

## V Results

The hadronic tau decay at the CLEO experiment is dominated by the rho meson in the intermediate state. The initial tau lepton decays into a neutrino and a W-boson. Subsequently the W-boson produces a hadronic state via the standard model Lagrangian $`Wq\overline{q}`$ vertex. After all the electroweak structure has been resolved, the hadronic part of the decay is dominated by the rho meson resonance at energies between the hadronic decay threshold, which is the two-pion threshold and about $`1`$ GeV when the $`\omega \pi `$ channel is open and the first of many other decay channels start to compete.

The experimental data from CLEO CLEO  is represented in Fig. 3, where the number of events, freed from electroweak dependences, is plotted as a function of the invariant mass of the two-pion system. The same figure summarizes our analysis. If the bare rho state couples only to a two-pion continuum, the high-energy tail of the resonance peak is grossly overestimated. If the four-pion continuum is included, the two-pion decay channel is suppressed at higher energies, in favor of four-pion decay (they cross just above $`1`$ GeV). The total pionic decay comes again to the same value as the original two-pion-only result, however, the shape of the inclusive resonance peak at these higher energies is different.

For completeness, a fit with a barrier term is also included BW52 , as was used in the data analysis CLEO . The barrier term has its origin in nuclear quantum mechanics and relates the amplitude of the asymptotic wave function with the inner part in the nuclear potential. These two parts are matched at the Coulomb barrier through which an escaping radiative-decay particle tunnels. The momentum dependence of this matching is reflected in the barrier term. There is no field-theoretical analogue of the barrier term. It reproduces the right low-energy behavior; however, within our analysis, which has only two parameters, we pay for the rather artificial low-energy improvement with a failure at higher energies. The position and the slope of the four-pion decay events compare well with both the OPAL OPAL  and the CLEO CLEO  plots for four-pion events.

Comparing the resonance shape with the results from our Hamiltonian and fitting the two coupling constants $`g`$ and $`g_2`$ to hadronic decay of the $`\tau ^{}`$ we find a number of results. First, from the fit of the $`\pi \pi `$ decay of the $`\rho `$-meson, we find a coupling constant $`g_20.2`$ to the four-pion state, which agrees well, without any fitting, with the actual four-pion data OPAL  between threshold ($`0.558`$ GeV) and $`1.1`$ GeV. Beyond $`1.1`$ GeV we expect other contributions, which decay to four pions, like $`\omega \pi `$, to be important.

Second, if we consider the pion as an elementary particle, the initial state, as generated by the electroweak process, will be the discrete rho state. From the actual two-pion data which falls of as $`\omega ^2`$ for high energies we infer that there is no direct coupling to the two-pion continuum, as this would lead to large amplitudes for large energies. Corrections to this assumption of the pion as an asymptotic but pointlike particle, which follows from combining Fano theory with the chiral Lagrangian, could improve the low-energy fit but would fail to descibe the data at higher energies KKW .

Third, the presence of the four-pion continuum changes the two-pion coupling constant. It is interesting to notice that the coupling constants have to be adjusted if additional, non-interacting channels are included. The competition between decay modes generates a simple, but effective final-state interaction.

Fourth, the real part, after the on-shell renormalization, yields a negligible effect. Since, with on-shell renormalization, the real part vanishes when the energy equals the rho mass, the value of the real part is small in the neighborhood of this value.

Finally, we are unable to get a very good fit to the data near threshold, within the model. There have been several suggestions to improve the results KKW ; HLS , based on chiral symmetry. These all use a direct electroweak-pion-pion coupling, which violates unitarity for large energies. Physically there are two explanations for the deviations, within our scheme. Firstly, the coupling between the electroweak state and the bare rho could have a momentum dependence, due to, for example, a pionic, or $`q\overline{q}`$ quark, rho wave function. This should be visible in an additional quenching of the electroweak decay modes at the energies just above the two-pion threshold. Secondly, the electroweakly produced initial state could contain a two-pion state, but only at low energies. It is hard to motivate this from a underlying local theory. This is equivalent to unitarized hidden local symmetry (HLS) models HLS .

## VI Discussion

For the problem of the rho meson studied here we did not require the full machinery of the Fano theory. For example, there is only one discrete state in the system. In the case of a neutral rho meson the mixing with the $`\omega `$ meson could be taken into account explicitly and unitarily.

For the moment it has been more important to show that the two-pion and the four-pion continua describe the rho resonance well, where the four-pion continuum results in two independent observations: its effect on the two-pion decay, and a direct measurement of the four-pion decay of the rho meson. All this can be discussed at the level of restricted Hamiltonians. These Hamiltonians contain given states and continua which are expected to dominate the results (in this case a composite continuum consisting of two- and four-pion states in the rho channel, and the bare rho state). The fact that no further approximation is required allows one to draw definite conclusions, whether these states and continua actually dominate the physics in a certain channel and at a certain energy, or other degrees of freedom are necessary. In this case the data between $`0.6`$ GeV and $`1.1`$ GeV is well-described by these degrees of freedom.

The Fano theory allows one to go further in particle numbers and complexity than other methods. Complex states can be build up hierarchically by admixing states in their expected order, similar to angular momentum coupling schemes in atomic physics. The only aspect not handled in Fano theory is the particle number conserving interaction between continua as occurs in field theory. Instead of these self-interacting states we assume the states to be eigenstates already, with the only noticeable effect a deformation of the phase space in $`W`$, with respect to the free-particles phase space, due to the changed dispersion relation $`\omega (𝐤)_i\sqrt{𝐤^2+m_i^2}`$, to be calculated separately or approximated by the free result.

In the future we plan to apply this method to baryonic resonances, for which a lot of new data is becoming available from recent JLAB experiments. In these experiments the problems with data analysis are more stringent due to the rich spectra and the higher energies VDL . We will also investigate the way in which to extend Fano theory to allow for continuum-continuum interactions.

## Acknowledgments

I would like to thank Wim Ubachs for pointing me in the right direction on atomic physics, Wolfram Weise for suggesting this problem and the encouragement, and Rob Timmermans for useful and stimulating discussions. I would also like to thank Evgeni Kolomeitsev for pointing out useful references and reading material. Finally, I gratefully acknowledge the careful reading and extensive comments by Eric Swanson and Steve Dytman that helped to shape this paper.


text:
# Summary of Discussion Question 4: Energy Expandability of a Linear Collider

## I Introduction

The original statement of E3 SG1 DQ4 was:

‘What is the energy for the initial phase of the LC (350 GeV, 500 GeV)? Assuming the energy reach is expanded using the same technology as in the initial phase, what is the high energy goal for a secondary phase of the LC? What R&D issues remain before such an expansion is possible? What constraints on the initial phase would ultimate conversion to two-beam drive impose?’

The scope of these questions, as posed, seemed too far-reaching for a third-order sub-group to address. The questions of desirability of a particular initial energy, or the energy goal for a secondary phase, will clearly be determined by the physics that is (hopefully) discovered between now and the Linear Collider turn-on, or upgrade, respectively. We feel that a reasonable summary of the current situation, in order of decreasing confidence, is:

* A minimum energy of 350 GeV will be needed to produce and study the top quark.
* Precision electroweak data imply that an energy of 500 GeV will be more than sufficient to produce the Standard Model (SM) Higgs boson, if it exists, in association with the $`Z^0`$. If the 95% c.l. limit is taken seriously an energy of 300 GeV is sufficient.
* In all currently known SUSY models, the lightest SUSY Higgs boson lies below 200 GeV in mass, and could therefore be produced by a collider with energy of 300 GeV or more.
* Many, but not all, SUSY models predict new particles that can be pair-produced by a collider with energy 1000 GeV; many, but fewer, SUSY models predict observable states at an energy of 500 GeV.
* Other beyond-SM models predict observable effects at $`e^+e^{}`$ colliders of energy beyond that explored at LEP2.

Discussion of particular models can be found elsewhere in these proceedings.

It therefore seems clear to us that it would be desirable to build a collider with the flexibility to operate initially within a range of energies between 200 and 500 GeV. Physics discoveries between now and its turn-on will serve to define the initial energy, as well as the details of the optimal luminosity/energy running strategy during the first years of operation grannis . It also seems clear to us that, almost independent of the details of such discoveries before or at the collider, it is desirable that the capability for an upgrade to the highest energy allowed by the technology be designed from the start. Here we consider possible target energies for such an upgrade of 1000 GeV and 1500 GeV.

We therefore modified the terms of E3 SG1 DQ4 to address the following narrower set of questions:

1. What is the maximum energy that could be achieved using ONLY the hardware installed for the 500 GeV baseline design? How would you achieve this; what is the corresponding luminosity?
2. What would you need to do to achieve a c.m. energy of 1000 GeV: a) at your ‘preferred’ site, i.e. the one in your back yard, and (b) at an ‘ideal’ site, i.e. one unconstrained by local geographical boundary conditions? What luminosity could you achieve? Are any changes to the beam delivery system required? What are the incremental construction and operating costs? What R&D is needed?
3. Same as the previous question, but relating to a c.m. energy of 1500 GeV.
4. What do you need to do in your baseline design to allow eventual upgrade to a multi-TeV collider?

We posed these questions to Reinhard Brinkmann, Nobu Toge and Tor Raubenheimer, accelerator physicists associated with the TESLA tesla  JLC jlc  and NLC nlc  projects respectively. We also received valuable input on the last of these questions from Jean-Pierre Delahaye of the CLIC project clic , and from Ron Ruth ruth . Here we attempt to synthesize the results of the presentations on these issues and the lively discussion that followed.

## II The Maximum Energy Reach of the Nominal 500 GeV Collider

We asked the machine designers to try to extrapolate the energy reach of the nominal 500 GeV baseline machine under the assumption that they received no funds for hardware upgrades. We also asked them to evaluate the corresponding luminosity.

### II.1 JLC/NLC

For the X-band JLC/NLC the effective accelerating gradient in the linac is less than the nominal value due to the effect of ‘beam loading.’ The designers aim to achieve a nominal unloaded mean gradient of 70 MV/m, corresponding to roughly 50 MV/m of actual mean gradient at nominal beam current of 190 bunches $`\times `$ $`10^{10}`$ particles/bunch. A tradeoff between beam current, i.e. luminosity, and gradient, i.e. energy, is therefore possible. The maximum gradient of 70 MV/m, and hence c.m. energy of 650 GeV, is in principle achievable in the limit of zero current. Figure 1 shows the expected luminosity vs. c.m. energy. If the energy were increased from 500 GeV to 600 GeV the luminosity would decrease from 2 to 0.8 $`\times `$ $`10^{34}`$ cm-2s-1

### II.2 TESLA

For TESLA, the accelerating gradient needed for 500 GeV c.m. energy is 23.4 MV/m. The cavities can be run at higher gradient, in principle up to and beyond 40 MV/m, at the cost of higher power dissipation. Hence, the headroom in the cryogenic plant can be traded off to achieve higher gradients. Using all of the 50% built-in cooling overhead of the 500 GeV machine, it would in principle be possible to achieve a c.m. energy of 750 GeV, however at reduced repetition rate below the nominal 5 Hz. In order to contain the RF power at higher gradients, one must lower the beam current (via increased bunch spacing) and shorten the RF pulse length. Improved emittance compensates for this loss of current so that with no other effects, the luminosity would be unchanged. In fact, the luminosity declines because at the higher gradient, the cavity filling time (that is, the time required to achieve gradient) increases, so less of each pulse is useable for bunch acceleration. Figure 2 shows the expected luminosity vs. c.m. energy. If the energy were increased from 500 GeV to 700 GeV the luminosity would decrease from 3.4 to 1.1 $`\times `$ $`10^{34}`$ cm-2s-1.

## III Energy upgradeability to 1000 GeV

We asked the machine designers to explain the scenaria by which the initial nominal energy of 500 GeV could be doubled.

### III.1 JLC/NLC

If the mean accelerating gradient for the X-band technology is assumed to be fixed at a (loaded) value of 50 MV/m, the energy could be doubled by doubling the RF system, i.e. doubling the number of: accelerating structures, klystrons, modulators and power supplies. This is anticipated in the JLC/NLC designs, the baseline 500 GeV site being designed to accommodate the extra components without any need to lengthen the tunnels. Some increase in the cooling plant would also be required. The A.C. power is estimated to rise by roughly 100 MW, bringing the two-linac power to about 230 MW. For c.m. energies above 700 GeV the currently-envisioned permanent magnets in the final doublet system of the final focus would need to be replaced. The total additional construction cost is estimated to be +25%, or $1.5B.

Key areas of R&D for NLC are in the RF system and accelerating structures. Since 1000 GeV is achieved by doubling the number of components, the R&D for the 500 GeV baseline design also addresses 1000 GeV operation. R&D is ongoing at SLAC to demonstrate the reliable operation of Cu accelerating structures at high gradient. As of the time of writing, travelling-wave cavities have been successfully operated with unloaded gradients as high as 80 MV/m; it is desirable to reach 90 MV/m in order to allow more ‘headroom’. This will need to be achieved for structures with the NLC iris radius and with long-range wakefield suppression. The needed gradients have been achieved in standing-wave cavities, which provide a possible alternative, albeit one requiring substantial modification of the linac design.

For the RF system, a full-scale 500 kV modulator is being tested, an X-band klystron has been operated at low repetition rates, and low power operation of a delay line distribution system has been demonstrated at the ATF in Japan. A full-power test of a complete prototype RF unit is planned in the NLCTA in 2003.

The luminosity achievable at 1000 GeV is estimated to be 3.4 $`\times `$ $`10^{34}`$ cm-2s-1.

### III.2 TESLA

The official goal of TESLA, as outlined in the TDR, is to reach a maximum energy of 800 GeV. It is planned to achieve this by increasing the mean gradient from 23 to 35 MV/m. The cost to upgrade from 500 GeV to 800 GeV is estimated to be 600-650 MEuro (an additional 20% over the cost of the 500 GeV machine), which arises from the necessary expansion of the RF-power and cooling plants. The two-linac power consumption would increase to about 160 MW.

An ongoing R&D program into the electropolishing of small Nb cavities has yielded cavities that exceed 35 MV/m gradient. These cavities have yet to be tested under full power at the TTF. It also remains to test new cryogenic “superstructures”, which improve the packing-density of the cavities by 6% by housing them in pairs, and therefore reduce the linac cost. Tests of the superstructures will begin in 2002, leading to a full scale test at TTF, possibly with the high-gradient cavities, in about 2004.

Theoretically, the maximum gradient achievable with the Nb cavities is about 50 MV/m; naively this would allow an energy of more than 1 TeV to be reached, but this is not thought to be realistic. Assuming a highest mean gradient of 35 MV/m, it would be necessary to lengthen one or both linacs in order to go beyond 800 GeV. At the DESY site two possibilities are:

a) extending the northern (positron) linac by 8 km; this would yield asymmetric collisions of 625 GeV positrons on 400 GeV electrons. The cost is estimated to be an additional 900MEuro, on top of the cost of the 800 GeV machine.

b) adding 4 km to each linac to achieve symmetric 500 $``$ 500 GeV collisions. The incremental cost, on top of the 800 GeV machine, would be similar to a), However, because of the constraint imposed at the southern end by the River Elbe, the central site containing the beam delivery system, the interaction region(s) and the detector(s) would effectively have to be translated to the north to accommodate the extra 4 km of southern linac. This would have a serious impact on the present site planning, the consequences of which would have to be carefully investigated. The linac power load would increase by about 40MW to a total of 200 MW. The beam delivery system would also have to be modified from its current design to accommodate the higher beam energy(ies); this might be achieved within the length of the present design by applying a Raimondi-Seryi scheme, as planned for the JLC/NLC.

The luminosity achievable at 1000 GeV is estimated to be 6 $`\times `$ $`10^{34}`$ cm-2s-1.

### III.3 C-band JLC

An alternative scheme for a 500 GeV collider has been developed in Japan; it is based on C-band RF technology with a mean loaded gradient of 36 MV/m needed in order to reach an energy of 500 GeV. 1000 GeV could be achieved either:

a) by doubling the active length of the RF system.

b) by building a site-filler tunnel from the start, increasing the gradient from 36 MV/m to 50 MV/m, and adding RF as needed. The peak klystron power would need to be doubled from 50 MW to 100 MW; this, in addition to corresponding improvements in the other RF components, would require an R&D programme. Note that the gradient would then be comparable with the X-band case.

## IV Energy upgradeability to 1500 GeV

Although energy upgrades to 1000 GeV (JLC/NLC) and 800 GeV (TESLA) are being designed into the projects, the foundations that would allow eventual upgrade to energies substantially above 1000 GeV seem less secure. Presumably an upgrade path, if possible, will become clearer after many years of experience with either the X-band or superconducting technology.

At the higher energies, AC power usage limits the beam current. TESLA and NLC therefore assume constant luminosity as their energies increase from 1000 to 1500 GeV. The high energy also increases beamsstrahlung, and therefore energy spread, for both machines.

### IV.1 JLC/NLC

Assuming the use of the planned X-band technology, two possibilities could be envisaged to achieve a c.m. energy of 1500 GeV:

a) If the accelerating gradient were fixed, at 50 MV/m loaded, an energy increase would require a lengthening of the linacs. In the JLC/NLC design the injection and pre-acceleration systems form a ‘trombone’ structure at the head of each linac; the trombones could be extended to accommodate longer linacs, with the addition of transport lines. This path would require additional klystrons.

b) If the site length were fixed, an energy increase would require an increase in gradient, from 50 to 75 MV loaded. This would double the power consumed by the RF system. The power could be preserved at about the same level as that needed for 1 TeV operation by running at a repetition rate of 90 Hz rather than the nominal 120 Hz; this would imply a luminosity reduction of roughly 25%.

### IV.2 TESLA

Assuming the use of the planned superconducting technology, with a maximum mean gradient of 35 MV/m, the linacs would need to be lengthened by a total of 14 km in order to achieve a c.m. energy of 1500 GeV. The total cost of such a machine would be in the ballpark of 5.5 to 6 BEuro. Given geographical limitations at DESY, either the central site would have to be relocated, as discussed in the previous section, or the tunnel would need to be dug deeper from the project start, so as to allow tunnel passage beneath the River Elbe. The latter is not currently envisaged.

## V Energy upgradeability to multi-TeV scales

Achieving very high energies requires both very high accelerating gradients and very efficient delivery of RF power. Even in an ideal case, it is likely that the luminosity achieved will be limited by the need to contain power use.

The most mature ideas for a Multi-TeV $`e^+e^{}`$ collider are based on so-called ‘two-beam’ technology. This is the basis of the design for CLIC clic ; delahaye , which is under development at CERN. In the CLIC design, power is ‘stored’ in a high-current (190A), low energy (1.3 GeV) drive beam and transferred to the low-current, high-energy main beam. The design requires an accelerating gradient of 150 MV/m in Cu structures operating at 30 GHz; gradients above 100 MV/m have been achieved, but so far only in single-cell structures operating at low power. In order to achieve a useful luminosity, CLIC will need very small emittance and beam spots; in the vertical plane the beam size must be less than 1 nanometre, a factor of 3 and 5 smaller than the already-ambitious beam sizes planned for JLC/NLC and TESLA, respectively. In order to achieve this, the emittance must be preserved in the face of vibrations, strong wakefields and other disruptions. Like the NLC, CLIC requires a crossing angle (20 mrad) in order to avoid parasitic collisions by closely-spaced bunches. CERN is now planning a facility, CTF3, that will test the two-beam accelerator proof-of-principle. The facility will also test whether gradients of 150 MV/m can be sustained under operating conditions. The goal of the designers is to have demonstrated the needed technology by 2008.

Should the CLIC design prove feasible, it will draw on experience gained at a first generation linear collider, particularly in the area of attaining and preserving low emittance. Many of these extreme challenges are shared by the NLC/JLC, though CLIC would push them substantially further.

A scheme was presented ruth  for an ‘adiabatic’ upgrade of the JLC/NLC to multi-TeV operation via phased installation of a drive beam, doubling of the RF frequency, and replacement of the accelerating structures. This plan for multi-TeV operation is similar to CLIC’s, and shares critical R&D areas.

## VI Summary and Conclusions

Using the hardware envisioned for 500 GeV operation at TESLA and NLC/JLC, it should be possible to push the c.m. energy of a linear collider up to about 650 GeV at the cost of reduced luminosity. Expansion to energies in the 800-1000 GeV range, at full luminosity, is incorporated into the designs of both TESLA and NLC/JLC. Reaching c.m. energies above 1000 GeV goes beyond the current plans, and if such energies are attainable, achieving them will build on experience gained at 1000 GeV and below. The multi-TeV regime requires a new strategy such as the two-beam technique envisioned for CLIC. The parameters for such a machine might be established late this decade.

###### Acknowledgements.

We are grateful to: Gary Bower, Reinhard Brinkman, Jean-Pierre Delahaye, Gilbert Guignard, Tor Raubenheimer, Ron Ruth, Nobu Toge, Nick Walker, to many more for lively contributions to the discussion, and to countless others for their patience, forbearance and good humour during our proceedings.


text:
# On the mass relation of a meson nonet

## I. Introduction

In the framework of the quark model, a $`q\overline{q}`$ meson nonet contains two isoscalar states $`\eta _8`$ and $`\eta _1`$. In general, these two isoscalar states can mix, which results in two physical states $`\eta `$ and $`\eta ^{}`$.

$$\left(\begin{array}{c}\eta \\ \eta ^{}\end{array}\right)=U\left(\begin{array}{c}\eta _8\\ \eta _1\end{array}\right)=\left(\begin{array}{cc}\mathrm{cos}\theta & \mathrm{sin}\theta \\ \mathrm{sin}\theta & \mathrm{cos}\theta \end{array}\right)\left(\begin{array}{c}\eta _8\\ \eta _1\end{array}\right).$$
(1)
In the $`\eta _8=(u\overline{u}+d\overline{d}2s\overline{s})/\sqrt{6}`$ and $`\eta _1=(u\overline{u}+d\overline{d}+s\overline{s})/\sqrt{3}`$ basis, the mass-squared matrix $`M^2`$ describing the mixing of $`\eta _8\eta _1`$ can be written as

$$M^2=\left(\begin{array}{cc}M_8^2& M_{18}^2\\ M_{18}^2& M_1^2\end{array}\right),$$
(2)
which satisfies

$$UM^2U^1=\left(\begin{array}{cc}m_\eta ^2& 0\\ 0& m_\eta ^{}^2\end{array}\right),$$
(3)
From Eqs. (2) and (3), one can obtain

$`M_8^2+M_1^2=m_\eta ^2+m_\eta ^{}^2.`$ (4)
Some authors believe that $`M_8^2=m_8^2`$ and $`M_1^2=m_1^2`$, where $`m_8`$ and $`m_1`$ are the masses of the bare (before mixed) states $`\eta _8`$ and $`\eta _1`$, respectively. Then based on the original Gell-Mann-Okubo mass formula

$`m_8^2={\displaystyle \frac{1}{3}}(4m_K^2m_{\pi ^0}^2),m_1^2={\displaystyle \frac{1}{3}}(2m_K^2+m_{\pi ^0}^2),`$ (5)
it is argued that the mass spectrum of a meson nonet is linear:

$`M_8^2+M_1^2=m_\eta ^2+m_\eta ^{}^2=2m_K^2.`$ (6)
However, for the pseudoscalar nonet, $`m_\eta ^2+m_\eta ^{}^2=1.217`$ (GeV)2, but $`2m_K^2=0.492`$ (GeV)2, therefore, it is believed that the original Gell-Mann-Okubo mass formula is invalid for the pseudoscalar nonet. Based on Regge phenomenology, the new version of Gell-Mann-Okubo mass formula is given as

$`2M_S^2M_N^2=4m_K^23m_{\pi ^0}^2,`$ (7)
where $`M_N^2=\mathrm{cos}^2\alpha m_\eta ^2+\mathrm{sin}^2\alpha m_\eta ^{}^2`$, $`M_S^2=\mathrm{sin}^2\alpha m_\eta ^2+\mathrm{cos}^2\alpha m_\eta ^{}^2`$ and $`\mathrm{sin}\alpha =\frac{\sqrt{2}\mathrm{cos}\theta +\mathrm{sin}\theta }{\sqrt{3}}`$.

Here, we want to emphasize that $`M_8^2`$ and $`M_1^2`$, the diagonal elements of the mass matrix $`M^2`$ describing the mixing of $`\eta _8\eta _1`$, are rather different from $`m_8^2`$ and $`m_1^2`$, the masses-squared of the bare octet $`\eta _8`$ and singlet $`\eta _1`$, respectively, which are employed in the original Gell-Mann-Okubo mass formula. The left-hand side and the right-hand side of Eq. (6) are not balance does not result from that the original Gell-Mann-Okubo mass formula is invalid for the pseudoscalar nonet, but from that the effects of the transition amplitudes $`Am_{88}`$ and $`Am_{11}`$ are not considered, where $`Am_{88}`$ and $`Am_{11}`$ denote the transition amplitudes of $`\eta _8\eta _8`$ and $`\eta _1\eta _1`$, respectively. Also, the so-called new version Gell-Mann-Okubo mass formula, Eq. (7), is in fact derived in the presence of the flavor-independent transition between quarkonia. The assumption that the transition between quarkonia is flavor-independent would give the inconsistent results for the pseudoscalar meson nonet. The main purpose of this work is to emphasize that the mass relation of the non-ideal mixing nonets should incorporate the effects of the flavor-dependent transition between quarkonia.

## II. Effects of the transition amplitudes of $`q\overline{q}q^{}\overline{q^{}}`$

In the $`N=(u\overline{u}+d\overline{d})/\sqrt{2}`$ and $`S=s\overline{s}`$ basis, the general form of the mass-squared matrix describing the mixing of the physical states $`\eta `$ and $`\eta ^{}`$ can be written as

$$M_{}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}=\left(\begin{array}{cc}M_N^2& A_{NS}\\ A_{NS}& M_S^2\end{array}\right),$$
(8)
with

$`M_N^2=m_N^2+A_{NN},M_S^2=m_S^2+A_{SS},`$ (9)
where $`m_N`$ and $`m_S`$ are the masses of the bare states $`N`$ and $`S`$, respectively; $`A_{NN}`$, $`A_{SS}`$ and $`A_{SN}`$ are the transition amplitudes of $`NN`$, $`SS`$ and $`NS`$, respectively. If the transition between quarkonia is flavor-dependent, $`A_{NN}`$, $`A_{SS}`$ and $`A_{SN}`$ usually are parameterized as

$`A_{SS}=A,A_{NN}=r^2A,A_{SN}=rA.`$ (10)
$`r^2=2`$, i.e., $`A_{SS}=A`$, $`A_{NN}=2A`$ and $`A_{SN}=\sqrt{2}A`$ means that the transition between quarkonia is flavor-independent. Owing to

$$(N,S)=(\eta _8,\eta _1)R=(\eta _8,\eta _1)\left(\begin{array}{cc}\sqrt{\frac{1}{3}}& \sqrt{\frac{2}{3}}\\ \sqrt{\frac{2}{3}}& \sqrt{\frac{1}{3}}\end{array}\right),$$
(11)
the mass-squared matrices $`M^2`$ and $`M_{}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}`$ can be connected by

$$M^2=RM_{}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}R^1.$$
(12)
$`N`$ is the orthogonal partner of $`\pi ^0`$, the isovector state of a meson nonet, and one can expect that $`N`$ degenerates with $`\pi ^0`$ in effective quark masses, therefore we can assume $`m_N^2=m_{\pi ^0}^2`$, which is a widely adopted assumption. According to the other form of the original Gell-Mann-Okubo mass formula $`m_N^2+m_S^2=2m_K^2`$, one can get

$`M_8^2={\displaystyle \frac{1}{3}}(4m_K^2m_{\pi ^0}^2)+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{3}}Ar^2{\displaystyle \frac{2\sqrt{2}}{3}}Ar+{\displaystyle \frac{2}{3}}A,`$ (13)
$`M_{18}^2={\displaystyle \frac{2\sqrt{2}}{3}}(m_K^2m_{\pi ^0}^2)+{\displaystyle \frac{\sqrt{2}}{3}}Ar^2{\displaystyle \frac{1}{3}}Ar{\displaystyle \frac{\sqrt{2}}{3}}A,`$ (14)
$`M_1^2={\displaystyle \frac{1}{3}}(2m_K^2+m_{\pi ^0}^2)+{\displaystyle \frac{2}{3}}Ar^2+{\displaystyle \frac{2\sqrt{2}}{3}}Ar+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{3}}A,`$ (15)
where

$$A=\frac{(m_\eta ^{}^22m_K^2+m_{\pi ^0}^2)(m_\eta ^22m_K^2+m_{\pi ^0}^2)}{2(m_{\pi ^0}^2m_K^2)},$$
(16)
$$r^2=\frac{(m_\eta ^2m_{\pi ^0}^2)(m_{\pi ^0}^2m_\eta ^{}^2)}{(m_\eta ^{}^22m_K^2+m_{\pi ^0}^2)(m_\eta ^22m_K^2+m_{\pi ^0}^2)}.$$
(17)
Comparing Eq. (5) with Eqs. (13)$``$ (15), one can have

$`M_8^2=m_8^2+Am_{88},`$ (18)
$`M_1^2=m_1^2+Am_{11},`$ (19)
$`Am_{88}={\displaystyle \frac{1}{3}}Ar^2{\displaystyle \frac{2\sqrt{2}}{3}}Ar+{\displaystyle \frac{2}{3}}A,`$ (20)
$`Am_{11}={\displaystyle \frac{2}{3}}Ar^2+{\displaystyle \frac{2\sqrt{2}}{3}}Ar+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{3}}A,`$ (21)
which shows that $`M_8^2`$ and $`M_1^2`$ are rather different from $`m_8^2`$ and $`m_1^2`$.

Based on the above relations, the mass relation of a meson nonet can be read as

$`M_8^2+M_1^2=m_\eta ^2+m_\eta ^{}^2=2m_K^2+A(r^2+1).`$ (22)
If $`A`$ is set to be zero, Eq. (22) can be reduced to Eq. (6), Therefore, it is in the absence of the effects of the transition amplitudes $`Am_{88}`$ and $`Am_{11}`$ that the argument $`m_\eta ^2+m_\eta ^{}^2=2m_K^2`$ is given.

Both Eq. (6) and Eq. (22) are deduced from the original Gell-Mann-Okubo mass formula, the only difference between Eqs. (6) and (22) is that Eq. (22) incorporates the effects of the transition amplitudes $`Am_{88}`$ and $`Am_{11}`$. However, for the pseudoscalar nonet Eq. (6) is obviously invalid while Eq. (22) formula does hold with a high accuracy (both sides of Eq. (22) are equal to $`1.217`$ (GeV)2), which indicates that Eq. (6) is invalid for the pseudoscalar nonet does not result from that the original Gell-Mann-Okubo mass formula is invalid for the pseudoscalar nonet, but from the omission of the effects of the transition amplitudes $`Am_{88}`$ and $`Am_{11}`$.

## III. Inconsistency from the flavor-independent transition amplitudes of $`q\overline{q}q^{}\overline{q^{}}`$

Now we turn to discuss why the so-called new version of Gell-Mann-Okubo mass formula Eq. (7) is in fact derived from the assumption that the transition between quarkonia is flavor-independent.

From Eqs. (3), (8) and (12), we have

$`M_N^2+M_S^2=m_\eta ^2+m_\eta ^{}^2,`$ (23)
then from Eqs. (7) and (23), the following equations can be given

$`M_N^2={\displaystyle \frac{2m_\eta ^2+2m_\eta ^{}^2+3m_{\pi ^0}^24m_K^2}{3}},M_S^2={\displaystyle \frac{4m_K^23m_{\pi ^0}^2+m_\eta ^2+m_\eta ^{}^2}{3}}.`$ (24)
With $`m_N^2+m_S^2=2m_K^2`$ and $`m_N^2=m_{\pi ^0}^2`$, from Eqs. (9) and (24), $`A_{NN}`$ and $`A_{SS}`$ can be read as

$`A_{NN}=M_N^2m_N^2={\displaystyle \frac{2m_\eta ^2+2m_\eta ^{}^24m_K^2}{3}},`$ (25)
$`A_{SS}=M_S^2m_S^2={\displaystyle \frac{m_\eta ^2+m_\eta ^{}^22m_K^2}{3}}.`$ (26)
So $`A_{NN}`$ and $`A_{SS}`$ satisfy

$`A_{NN}=2A_{SS},`$ (27)
which implies that the transition between quarkonia is flavor-independent, and one can deduce that

$`A_{SN}=\sqrt{2}A_{SS}.`$ (28)
We note that with the assumption $`m_N^2=m_{\pi ^0}^2`$, the original Gell-Mann-Okubo mass formula $`m_S^2+m_N^2=2m_K^2`$ can be re-expressed by

$`2m_S^2m_N^2=4m_K^23m_{\pi ^0}^2.`$ (29)
From Eqs. (9), (27) and (29), we can have

$`2M_S^2M_N^22m_S^2m_N^2=4m_K^23m_{\pi ^0}^2,`$ (30)
which shows that the implicit assumption $`A_{NN}=2A_{SS}`$ exists in Eq. (7).

In fact, based on $`M_N^2=\mathrm{cos}^2\alpha m_\eta ^2+\mathrm{sin}^2\alpha m_\eta ^{}^2`$, $`M_S^2=\mathrm{sin}^2\alpha m_\eta ^2+\mathrm{cos}^2\alpha m_\eta ^{}^2`$ and $`\mathrm{sin}\alpha =\frac{\sqrt{2}\mathrm{cos}\theta +\mathrm{sin}\theta }{\sqrt{3}}`$, the following relation can be given

$`2M_S^2M_N^2\mathrm{cos}^2\theta m_\eta ^2+\mathrm{sin}^2\theta m_\eta ^{}^2+\sqrt{2}\mathrm{sin}2\theta (m_\eta ^2m_\eta ^{}^2).`$ (31)
From Eqs. (1), (2) and (3), one can have

$`\mathrm{cos}^2\theta ={\displaystyle \frac{m_\eta ^{}^2M_8^2}{m_\eta ^{}^2m_\eta ^2}},\mathrm{sin}2\theta ={\displaystyle \frac{2M_{18}^2}{m_\eta ^{}^2m_\eta ^2}}.`$ (32)
According to Eqs. (13), (14), (31) and (32), one can have

$`2M_S^2M_N^2\mathrm{cos}^2\theta m_\eta ^2+\mathrm{sin}^2\theta m_\eta ^{}^2+\sqrt{2}\mathrm{sin}2\theta (m_\eta ^2m_\eta ^{}^2)=4m_K^23m_{\pi ^0}^2A(r^22).`$ (33)
Obviously, if $`r^2`$ is set to be 2, Eq. (33) can be reduced to Eq. (7). Therefore, it is in the presence of the assumption that the transition between quarkonia is flavor-independent, that Eq. (7) is derived.

Under the assumption that the transition between quarkonia is flavor-independent, i.e., from Eqs. (27) and (28), the mass matrix Eq. (8) can be reduced to

$$M_{}^{\prime \prime }{}_{}{}^{2}=\left(\begin{array}{cc}m_N^2+2A& \sqrt{2}A\\ \sqrt{2}A& m_S^2+A\end{array}\right),$$
(34)
where $`AA_{SS}`$. Diagonalizing the above mass matrix, one can have

$`m_N^2+m_S^2+3A=m_\eta ^2+m_\eta ^{}^2,`$ (35)
$`(m_N^2+2A)(m_S^2+A)2A^2=m_\eta ^2m_\eta ^{}^2,`$ (36)
By eliminating $`A`$ from the above two relations, one can get Schwinger’s original nonet mass formula

$$(4m_K^23m_\eta ^2m_{\pi ^0}^2)(3m_\eta ^{}^2+m_{\pi ^0}^24m_K^2)=8(m_K^2m_{\pi ^0}^2)^2,$$
(37)
here we still use $`m_N^2+m_S^2=2m_K^2`$ and the assumption $`m_N^2=m_{\pi ^0}^2`$.

For the pseudoscalar nonet, the left-hand side of Eq. (37) is 0.1178 (GeV)4, while the right-hand side of Eq. (37) is 0.4140 (GeV)4, which clearly shows that for the pesudoscalar meson nonet, the assumption that the transition between quarkonia is flavor-independent can result in the inconsistent results.

However, if we assume that the transition between quarkonia is flavor-dependent, i.e., we use the mass matrix $`\left(\begin{array}{cc}m_N^2+r^2A& rA\\ rA& m_S^2+A\end{array}\right)`$ to describing the mixing of $`\eta `$ and $`\eta ^{}`$, in the presence of $`m_N^2+m_S^2=2m_K^2`$ and $`m_N^2=m_{\pi ^0}^2`$, the new version of Schwinger’s nonet mass formula can be read as

$$[2r^2m_K^2(1+r^2)m_\eta ^2(r^21)m_{\pi ^0}^2][(1+r^2)m_\eta ^{}^2+(r^21)m_{\pi ^0}^22r^2m_K^2]=4r^2(m_K^2m_{\pi ^0}^2)^2.$$
(38)
For the pseudoscalar nonet, both sides of Eq. (38) are equal to 0.6788 (GeV)4.

The original Gell-Mann-Okubo mass formula and the assumption $`m_N^2=m_{\pi ^0}^2`$ are incorporated in both Eq. (37) and Eq. (38), however, for the pseudoscalar nonet, Eq. (37) is obviously invalid, while Eq. (38) holds with a high accuracy, which indicates that for the pseudoscalar meson nonet, the assumption that the transition between quarkonia is flavor-independent can result in the inconsistent results. The correct mass relation of the pseudoscalar meson nonet should include the effects of the flavor-dependent transition between quarkonia.

## IV. Concluding remarks

Generally speaking, the mixing of the isoscalar states of a meson nonet results from some extra interactions which not only cause the breaking of SU(3) flavor symmetry but also lead to the transition between quarkonia. As pointed out by Ref., in the absence of the transition between quarkonia, the breaking of SU(3) flavor symmetry only results in the ideal mixing of the isoscalar states of a meson nonet. That is to say, for the ideal mixing meson nonet, the effects of the transition between quarkonia can be ignored, however, for the non-ideal mixing meson nonet, the effects of the transition between quarkonia should be rather important. Therefore, for the almost ideal mixing meson nonets, the effects of the flavor-independent transition between quarkonia and those of the flavor-dependent transition between quarkonia can be ignored. In fact, the results of Refs. all indicate that for the almost ideal mixing meson nonets such as the vector, tensor and axial vector meson nonets, both Eq. (6) based on the omission of the transition amplitudes and Eq. (37) based on the assumption that the transition is flavor-independent can hold with a higher accuracy. However, for the pseudoscalar nonet which is the non-ideal mixing meson nonet, both Eq. (6) and Eq. (37) are obviously invalid while both Eq. (22) and Eq. (38) which all incorporate the effects of the flavor-dependent transition between quarkonia hold with rather high accuracy, which shows that the correct mass relation of the non-ideal mixing meson nonets should include the effects of the flavor-dependent transition. Therefore, the mass relations such as Eqs. (22), (33) and (38) which include the effects of the flavor-dependent transition between quarkonia hold not only for the non-ideal mixing meson nonets but also for the almost ideal mixing meson nonets.

In conclusion, we point out that the invalidity of Eq. (6) for the pseudoscalar meson nonet arises from the omission of the effects of the transition between quarkonia, and that the so-called new version of Gell-Mann-Okubo mass formula in fact is based on the assumption that the transition between quarkonia is flavor-independent which can result in the inconsistent results for the pseudoscalar meson nonet. We emphasize that the correct mass relation of the non-ideal mixing meson nonets should include the effects of the flavor-dependent transition between quarkonia. The new mass relations such as Eqs. (22), (33) and (38) which include the effects of the flavor-dependent transition between quarkonia hold for all the meson nonets.

## Acknowledgments

This project is supported by the National Natural Science Foundation of China under Grant Nos. 19991487, 19835060 and 10047003.