text:
# Dipole coefficients in 𝐵→𝑋_𝑠𝛾 in supersymmetry with large tan𝛽 and explicit CP violation

ABSTRACT

We perform a detailed study of the electric and chromoelectric dipole coefficients in $`BX_s\gamma `$ decay in a supersymmetric scheme with explicit CP violation. In our analysis, we adopt the minimal flavor violation scheme by taking into account the $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$-enhanced large contributions beyond the leading order. We show that the coefficients can deviate from the SM prediction significantly in both real and imaginary directions. Experimental bounds still allow for large deviations from the SM predictions for both dipole coefficients such that the CP asymmetry is as large as $`\pm 8\%`$. There are further implications of these coefficients for the charmless hadronic and semileptonic $`B`$ decays. As a direct application of our analysis, we have discussed $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_b\mathrm{\Lambda }\gamma `$ decay.

The Operator Product Expansion (OPE) combined with the heavy quark effective theory (HQET) forms the basic tool in analyzing the decays as well as productions of hadrons (See the review ). Basically, the effective Hamiltonian describing the scattering processes can be expanded in a series of local operators (whose hadronic matrix elements constitute the long–distance effects) with Wilsonian coefficients (which are generated by the short–distance effects). Among all the hadronic scattering processes the rare ones are particularly important, as the contributions of the standard electroweak theory (SM) and those of the ‘new physics (NP)’ arise at the same loop level thus suffering no relative loop suppressions. Furthermore, decays of the $`b`$–flavored hadrons ($`B`$, $`B^{}`$, $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_b`$, $`\mathrm{}`$), compared to strange and charmed ones, are especially important as for such systems the HQET is fully applicable, and via the OPE, one can both test the SM and search for possible NP effects, by confronting the associated Wilson coefficients with the experiment.

In this work we will analyze the electric and chromoelectric dipole coefficients (denoted hereafter by $`𝒞_7`$ and $`𝒞_8`$, respectively) describing the short–distance physics effects in rare $`B`$ decays ($`e.g.`$ $`BX_s\gamma `$, $`BK^{}(892)\gamma `$ and $`BX_s\mathrm{}^+\mathrm{}^{}`$, $`\mathrm{}`$) , by taking into account existing experimental results. The electric dipole coefficient $`𝒞_7`$, rescaled to $`\mu =m_b`$ level, is directly constrained by the experimental result on $`BX_s\gamma `$ . However, the situation for the coefficient $`𝒞_8`$ is obscured by the fact that the gluonic decay $`bsg`$ is not directly accesible in experiments. However, this very coefficient plays an important role in the charmless hadronic $`B`$ decays. For example, the theoretical predictions for the inclusive semileptonic decay rate $`\mathrm{\Gamma }(bce\nu )`$ and the charm multiplicity in $`B`$ meson decays are significantly higher than the experimental results (See  and references therein). The most plausable solution to this discrepancy stems from possible enhancement of the chromoelectric coefficient $`𝒞_8`$ by NP effects. Moreover, it is the relative phase between $`𝒞_8`$ and $`𝒞_7`$ which determines the CP asymmetry in $`BX_s\gamma `$, which will be measured in near–future $`B`$ factories . Consequently, it is essential to determine the size and phase of the gluonic coefficient in regions of the parameter space of NP where the theoretical predictions for $`BX_s\gamma `$ agrees with the experiment.

In what follows, we will take low–energy minimal supersymmetry (SUSY) with explicit CP violation as the NP candidate. We will adopt the minimal flavor violation scenario (MFV), take into account the $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$–enhanced large contributions beyond the leading order (LO). The inclusive mode $`BX_s\gamma `$ has already been analyzed within such a scheme by  (in CP–conserving SUSY), and has been furthered by  to the CP–violating SUSY concluding a sizable CP asymmetry, which can compete with the experiment in near future. However, in both  and  the size and phase of $`𝒞_8`$, its correlation with $`𝒞_7`$, and its interdependence with the branching ratio, as well as its effects on the CP asymmetry have not been reported in detail. In particular, given the post-LEP bound on $`\mathrm{tan}\beta \stackrel{>}{_{}}3.5`$, it is necessary to have a detailed knowledge of $`𝒞_8`$ in this portion of the SUSY parameter space. The main goal of this work is to determine the size and phase of the chromoelectric coefficient $`𝒞_8`$ within the CP–violating SUSY at beyond–the–leading–order (BLO) precision in regions of the parameter space allowed by the existing $`BX_s\gamma `$ constraint.

The inclusive decay $`BX_s\gamma `$ is well approximated (within at most $`10\%`$) by the partonic decay $`bs\gamma `$ which is described by the effective Hamiltonian

$`H_{eff}={\displaystyle \frac{4G_F}{\sqrt{2}}}V_{ts}^{}V_{tb}{\displaystyle \underset{i=1}{\overset{8}{}}}𝒞_i(\mu )𝒪_i(\mu ),`$ (1)
where $`V`$ is the Cabibbo-Kobayashi-Maskawa (CKM) matrix, and the operator basis $`𝒪_{i=1,\mathrm{},8}`$ is defined in . This OPE for the Hamiltonian separates the long–distance (the matrix elements of the local operators $`𝒪_i`$) and short–distance (associated Wilson coefficients $`𝒞_i`$) at any scale $`\mu (m_b,M_W)`$. Moreover, HQET approximates the inclusive rate by the partonic one (all terms being of the order $`𝒪(\mathrm{\Lambda }_{QCD}/m_b)`$ and higher ones are negligible) .

Evolution of the Wilson coefficients from $`\mu =M_W`$ down to $`\mu =m_b`$ level is governed by the standard QCD RGEs:

$`𝒞_2(m_b)`$ $`=`$ $`1/2(\eta ^{12/23}+\eta ^{6/23})`$
$`𝒞_7(m_b)`$ $`=`$ $`𝒞_7(M_W)\eta ^{16/23}+𝒞_8(M_W){\displaystyle \frac{8}{3}}(\eta ^{14/23}\eta ^{16/23})+𝒞_2(M_W){\displaystyle \underset{i=1}{\overset{8}{}}}h_i\eta ^{r_i}`$
$`𝒞_8(m_b)`$ $`=`$ $`𝒞_8(M_W)\eta ^{14/23}+𝒞_2(M_W){\displaystyle \underset{i=1}{\overset{8}{}}}g_i\eta ^{r_i}`$ (2)
where $`\eta =\alpha _s(M_W)/\alpha _s(m_b)`$, and the numerical coefficients $`h_i`$ , $`r_i`$ and $`g_i`$ are given in .

The initial values for the QCD RGEs, $`𝒞_{2,7,8}(M_W)`$, depend on details of the short–distance theory at $`\mu M_W`$. In standard electroweak theory for instance, one finds $`𝒞_2(m_b)=1.023`$, $`𝒞_7(m_b)=0.312`$ and $`𝒞_8(m_b)=0.148`$ at BLO precision . Consequently, the NP effects can appear in various ways: ($`i`$) There can be observable deviations from these numbers with or without sign change, or ($`ii`$) the coefficients can take complex values. Each type of departure from the SM prediction implies certain aspects of the weak–scale NP effects. For instance, for ($`ii`$), it is obvious that the NP brings new sources of CP violation, and necessarily, the CP asymmetry of the decay deviates from the SM prediction ($`\stackrel{<}{_{}}1\%`$) .

In what follows, we will take SUSY with explicit CP violation as the NP candidate, and concentrate on the results of  where the Wilson coefficients were computed at NLO precision for those threshold effects enhanced at large $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$. Within this framework $`𝒞_2(M_W)=1`$ as in the SM, but the two dipole coefficients $`𝒞_{7,8}(M_W)`$ are significantly modified compared to the LO results . With the MFV scheme, only chargino–top squark, charged Higgs–top quark and $`W`$-boson–top quark loops give significant contributions

$`𝒞_{7,8}(M_W)=𝒞_{7,8}^W(M_W)+𝒞_{7,8}^H(M_W)+𝒞_{7,8}^\chi (M_W)`$ (3)
In CP–violating SUSY, at LO precison $`𝒞_{7,8}^{W,H}(M_W)`$ are always real; they do not contribute to CP–violating observables, such as the CP–asymmetry, in the decay. However, the chargino contribution is complex due to the $`\mu `$ parameter (having finite phase $`\varphi _\mu `$) and the stop trilinear coupling $`A_t`$ (having finite phase $`\varphi _A`$) with approximate structure $`e^{i(\varphi _\mu +\varphi _A)}`$ .

With BLO precision, however, there are finite threshold corrections to each piece in (3) such that all three contributions $`𝒞_{7,8}^W(M_W)`$, $`𝒞_{7,8}^H(M_W)`$ and $`𝒞_{7,8}^\chi (M_W)`$ are now complex. Moreover, larger the $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$ larger their imaginary parts, so that even naively one expects CP–violating effects to be enhanced at large $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$. Indeed, as reported in , the BLO CP asymmetry is significantly larger than the LO one at sufficiently large $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$. Although the asymmetry remains $`\stackrel{<}{_{}}8\%`$ in both cases , there occurs an enhanced sensitivity to $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$ for the BLO case.

In the following we will perform a numerical study of the electric and chromoelectric dipole coefficients, and discuss their phenomenological implications. In the numerical analysis, we take: ($`i`$) the light stop $`\stackrel{~}{t}_2`$ and the charged Higgs $`H^\pm `$ are degenerate and weigh close to the weak scale, $`M_{\stackrel{~}{t}_2}=M_H=250\mathrm{GeV}`$; ($`ii`$) the sfermions of first two generations are heavy enough, so that one can neglect their contribution to $`BX_s\gamma `$ (this is a viable way of suppressing the one–loop EDMs ); ($`iii`$) the SU(2) gaugino, the right–handed sbottom and the heavy stop are heavy, $`M_2=M_{\stackrel{~}{t}_1}=\stackrel{~}{m}_{b_R}=1\mathrm{TeV}`$, and form the SUSY breaking scale; ($`iv`$) the stop and sbottom trilinear couplings have the same phase, $`\theta _{A_b}=\theta _{A_t}`$, and the latter is degenerate with the $`\mu `$ parameter $`\left|\mu \right|=\left|A_b\right|=150\mathrm{GeV}`$ (sbottom parameters are needed for 2-loop EDM calculations ); and finally ($`v`$) the light stop is dominantly right–handed to agree with the electroweak precision data, hence the stop mixing is to be sufficiently small ($`\theta _{\stackrel{~}{t}}=\pi /20`$). Moreover, we vary $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$ from 10 to 50 and the phase $`\varphi _{A,\mu }`$ from 0 to $`\pi `$ in forming the scatter plots. The parameter space mentioned here has been determined after trying several combinations, and it is one those points yielding large CP–violation in the system. One particularly notices that the lightest chargino is a Higgsino so that CP–violation via chargino–stop contribution is enhanced. In minimal supergravity, for instance, the lightest chargino is SU(2) gaugino and thus CP–violation is very much suppressed.

Depicted in Fig. 1 is the $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$ dependence of $`\text{Re}[𝒞_7(m_b)]`$ and $`\text{Im}[𝒞_7(m_b)]`$ for $`10\mathrm{tan}\beta 50`$ and $`0\varphi _\mu ,\varphi _A\pi `$. When $`\mathrm{tan}\beta \stackrel{>}{_{}}10`$, $`\text{Re}[𝒞_7(m_b)]`$ is close to the SM value and $`\text{Im}[𝒞_7(m_b)]`$ is evenly distributed around the origin, being consistent with zero. However, as $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$ rises towards larger values, so does $`\text{Re}[𝒞_7(m_b)]`$, crossing zero around $`\mathrm{tan}\beta 27`$. When $`\mathrm{tan}\beta \stackrel{>}{_{}}27`$, $`\text{Re}[𝒞_7(m_b)]`$ takes both negative and positive values, and it can be as large as 0.4. The imaginary part of $`𝒞_7`$, however, rises with increasing $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$ in absolute magnitude for both negative and positive directions in an approximately symmetric manner. For $`\mathrm{tan}\beta \stackrel{>}{_{}}35`$, its distribution is levelled with a value swinging between -0.35 and +0.35 smoothly. Clearly, for large enough $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$ there are regions of the parameter space where $`\text{Im}[𝒞_7(m_b)]`$ is not consistent with zero, signalling therefore a clear sign of the NP effects. An approximate expression valid for large $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$ can be given as $`𝒞_70.4e^{\pm i\pi /4}`$, which is far away from the SM prediction in both size and phase. However, there are regions of the parameter space where $`𝒞_7`$ is pure imaginary, is pure real or vanishes exactly.

Similar to observations made for Fig. 1, one can discuss the Wilson coefficient $`𝒞_8`$ using Fig. 2 where its real (upper window) and imaginary (lower window) parts are separately plotted against $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$ when $`\varphi _{\mu ,A}`$ vary from 0 to $`\pi `$. One notices that, unlike $`𝒞_7`$, for low $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$, $`\text{Re}[𝒞_8(m_b)]`$ deviates from its SM value. This stems from the fact that $`𝒞_8(m_b)`$ is directly proportional to $`𝒞_8(M_W)`$ (up to small corrections proportional to $`𝒞_2(M_W)`$), and therefore the NP effects at short distances are directly reflected to the hadronic scale. As $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$ rises to larger values, both $`\text{Re}[𝒞_8(m_b)]`$ and $`\text{Im}[𝒞_8(m_b)]`$ gradually increase where the former crosses zero around $`\mathrm{tan}\beta 35`$. In large $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$ regime, $`\text{Re}[𝒞_8(m_b)]`$ can take positive values only in a small portion of the parameter space whereas $`\text{Im}[𝒞_8(m_b)]`$ swings between -0.1 and 0.1 almost evenly. One notices that, as in $`𝒞_7`$, in certain regions of the parameter space $`𝒞_8(M_W)`$ can be pure real, pure imaginary or just vanish. Those points where both $`𝒞_7`$ and $`𝒞_8`$ vanish are particularly interesting, as in this case one has to saturate the experimental bounds on $`BX_s\gamma `$ via the chirality–flipped Wilson coefficients, implying large contributions due to the gluino exchange . As we are working in the MFV scheme, such effects are obviously beyond the scope of our discussion.

Depicted in Fig. 3 is the dependence of $`\text{Im}[𝒞_8(m_b)]`$ on $`\text{Re}[𝒞_7(m_b)]`$. Here the size and shape of the ellipsoidal region is determined by the accuracy of the experimental results on $`\text{BR}(BX_s\gamma )`$. The main NP effect occurs in pushing $`\text{Re}[𝒞_7(m_b)]`$ to larger values compared to the SM prediction instead of smaller ones. The small region around $`\text{Re}[𝒞_7(m_b)]0.3`$ corresponds to the SM validity domain where imaginary parts of both coefficients remain around zero.

Fig. 4 illustrates the dependence of $`\text{A}_{\text{CP}}(BX_s\gamma )`$ on $`\text{Re}[𝒞_8(m_b)]`$ (upper window), and on $`\text{Im}[𝒞_8(m_b)]`$ (lower window). As we can see from the upper window, the asymmetry takes the largest value $`\pm 8\%`$ when $`\text{Re}[𝒞_8(m_b)]`$ is in the range of the SM prediction for $`𝒞_8(m_b)`$. One notes that in a more general model CP asymmetry can be as large as $`20\%`$. Moreover, in certain small corners of the SUSY parameter space the CP asymmetry can be enhanced by a factor of 2 . When $`\text{Re}[𝒞_8(m_b)]`$ takes larger or smaller values than the SM prediction, the asymmetry gradually drops to the corresponding SM prediction $`1\%`$. The dependence of the CP asymmetry on $`\text{Im}[𝒞_8(m_b)]`$, however, shows that the maximal values are attained when $`\text{Im}[𝒞_8(m_b)]\pm 0.1`$, which is far away from the SM predicton. In conclusion, the asymmetry is roughly an order of magnitude larger than what is expected in the SM, and this happens when $`\text{Re}[𝒞_8(m_b)]`$ remains close to the SM prediction, and $`\text{Im}[𝒞_8(m_b)]`$ is large and has a similar size as the real part.

A closer comparative look at the figures suggests that the CP asymmetry, which will be measured in near–future $`B`$ factories with increasing precision, is maximal when $`|𝒞_8(m_b)||𝒞_7(m_b)|`$. This results confirms earlier predictions  where it was already shown that $`\text{A}_{\text{CP}}(BX_s\gamma )10\%|𝒞_8(m_b)/𝒞_7(m_b)|`$.

Even after including the NLL corrections to the semileptonic inclusive $`B`$ decay $`BXe\nu `$, the theoretical predictons for the branching ratio and the charm multiplicity turn out to be larger than the experimental result . Therefore, it is conceivable that possible enhancements in $`𝒞_8`$ can account for the existing discrepancy between the theory and the experiment. As the numerical analyses above show, it is possible to significantly shift this coefficient in both real and imaginary directions compared to the SM prediction. Therefore, the experimental result on $`BX_s\gamma `$ allows for large deviations in chromoelectric as well as electric coefficients at large values of $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$ where the SUSY threshold corrections are important. Concerning the semileptonic $`B`$ decays, the exclusive channel $`BX_s\mathrm{}^+\mathrm{}^{}`$ is another example having both theoretical and experimental importance. This follows from the fact that the forward–backward asymmetry $`\text{A}_{\text{FB}}`$ of this decay vanishes at a specific value of the dilepton invariant mass  in a hadronically clean way. This zero of $`\text{A}_{\text{FB}}`$ occurs at the point $`m_{\mathrm{}\mathrm{}}^2m_b^2\text{Re}\left[𝒞_7(m_b)/𝒞_9(m_b)\right]`$ where $`𝒞_9(m_b)`$ is the four–fermion operator coefficient (not computed here). The important point is that the position of the zero shifts in accord with the NP contributions to the Wilson coefficients. Suppose that $`𝒞_7(m_b)`$ alone is shifted in complex direction, then it is clear that the critical value of the dilepton mass $`m_{\mathrm{}\mathrm{}}^2`$ is shifted back and forth, depending on the parameter values .

There are other processes where the radiatively corrected Wilson coefficients play an important role. As an application, for instance, we analyze the bottom baryon radiative decay, $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_b\mathrm{\Lambda }\gamma `$, which is again dominated by the mechanism $`bs\gamma `$. We will particularly concentrate on the dependence of the braching ratio on the Wilson coefficients at the weak scale.

The decay rate of $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_b\mathrm{\Lambda }\gamma `$ has been computed in , and its expression is given by:

$`\mathrm{\Gamma }(\mathrm{\Lambda }_b\mathrm{\Lambda }\gamma )`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{8\pi }}\left({\displaystyle \frac{m_{\mathrm{\Lambda }_b}^2m_\mathrm{\Lambda }^2}{m_{\mathrm{\Lambda }_b}}}\right)^3\left(|a|^2+|b|^2\right),`$ (4)
with

$`a`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{G_F}{\sqrt{2}}}{\displaystyle \frac{e}{8\pi ^2}}2C_7(m_b)m_bV_{tb}V_{ts}^{}\left(f_1^{\mathrm{\Lambda }\mathrm{\Lambda }_b}(0)f_2^{\mathrm{\Lambda }\mathrm{\Lambda }_b}(0)\right),`$
$`b`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{G_F}{\sqrt{2}}}{\displaystyle \frac{e}{8\pi ^2}}2C_7(m_b)m_bV_{tb}V_{ts}^{}\left(g_1^{\mathrm{\Lambda }\mathrm{\Lambda }_b}(0)+\left({\displaystyle \frac{m_{\mathrm{\Lambda }_b}m_\mathrm{\Lambda }}{m_{\mathrm{\Lambda }_b}+m_\mathrm{\Lambda }}}\right)g_2^{\mathrm{\Lambda }\mathrm{\Lambda }_b}(0)\right).`$ (5)
The form factors in $`a`$ and $`b`$ coefficients, depend on the momentum transfer as follows :

$`f_i(q^2)=f_i(q_m^2)\left({\displaystyle \frac{1q_m^2/m_V^2}{1q^2/m_V^2}}\right)^n,g_i(q^2)=g_i(q_m^2)\left({\displaystyle \frac{1q_m^2/m_A^2}{1q^2/m_A^2}}\right)^n,`$ (6)
where $`q_m^2=(m_{\mathrm{\Lambda }_b}m_\mathrm{\Lambda })^2`$ and, $`q^2=p_{\mathrm{\Lambda }_b}p_\mathrm{\Lambda }`$, with n=1 and n=2 representing the monopole and dipole contributions. Here, $`m_V`$ and $`m_A`$ are the pole masses of the vector and axial vector mesons, respectively.

In the numerical analysis, following , we let $`f_1^{\mathrm{\Lambda }\mathrm{\Lambda }_b}(q_m^2)=g_1^{\mathrm{\Lambda }\mathrm{\Lambda }_b}(q_m^2)=0.64`$, $`g_2^{\mathrm{\Lambda }\mathrm{\Lambda }_b}(q_m^2)=0.10`$, and $`f_2^{\mathrm{\Lambda }\mathrm{\Lambda }_b}(q_m^2)=0.31`$ for the values of the heavy light form factors. Additionaly, we take $`m_b(m_b)=4.25\text{GeV}`$, $`m_{\mathrm{\Lambda }_b}=5.624\text{GeV}`$, $`m_V=5.42\text{GeV}`$, $`m_A=5.86\text{GeV}`$, and $`\tau (\mathrm{\Lambda }_b)=1.23\times 10^{12}\text{sec}`$. In forming the scatter plots, we vary $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$ from 10 to 50 and the phase $`\varphi _{A,\mu }`$ from 0 to $`\pi `$.

Depicted in Fig. 5 is the dependence of the branching ratio of $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_b\mathrm{\Lambda }\gamma `$ ($`(\mathrm{\Lambda }_b\mathrm{\Lambda }\gamma )`$) on $`\text{Re}[𝒞_8(M_W)]`$ (upper window) and $`\text{Im}[𝒞_7(M_W)]`$ (lower window), for $`10\mathrm{tan}\beta 50`$ and $`0\varphi _\mu ,\varphi _A\pi `$, where only the monopole $`q^2`$ dependence for baryon form factors is considered (n=1). As is seen from both windows, $`\text{Re}[𝒞_8(M_W)]`$ takes negative values up to $`(\mathrm{\Lambda }_b\mathrm{\Lambda }\gamma )1.7\times 10^5`$, whereas $`\text{Im}[𝒞_8(M_W)]`$ is evenly distributed around the origin in this interval. $`\text{Re}[𝒞_8(M_W)]`$ starts to take both positive and negative values, when $`(\mathrm{\Lambda }_b\mathrm{\Lambda }\gamma )\stackrel{>}{_{}}1.7\times 10^5`$. It can take only positive values for $`(\mathrm{\Lambda }_b\mathrm{\Lambda }\gamma )\stackrel{>}{_{}}2.7\times 10^5`$, and can be as large as $`0.2`$. On the other hand, for $`(\mathrm{\Lambda }_b\mathrm{\Lambda }\gamma )\stackrel{>}{_{}}1.7\times 10^5`$, $`\text{Im}[𝒞_8(M_W)]`$ increases in both positive and negative directions in a symmetric manner. Clearly, there are certain regions of the parameter space where $`𝒞_8(M_W)`$ can be pure real, pure imaginary as well as it just vanishes.

In the recent work , it has been shown that $`(\mathrm{\Lambda }_b\mathrm{\Lambda }\gamma )`$ has a magnitude of $`1.9\times 10^5`$, when only the monopole $`q^2`$ dependence of the baryon form factors is considered (n=1). This decay has also been considered in  with the predicted branching ratios in the range of $`(1.21.9)\times 10^5`$. As one can see from both windows of Fig. 5, $`(\mathrm{\Lambda }_b\mathrm{\Lambda }\gamma )`$ varies in the range of $`(13.2)\times 10^5`$, and the maximal values of $`(\mathrm{\Lambda }_b\mathrm{\Lambda }\gamma )`$ are attained when $`\text{Re}[𝒞_8(M_W)]0.2`$, and $`\text{Im}[𝒞_8(M_W)]\pm 0.2`$, which are away from the S.M prediction for $`𝒞_8(M_W)`$. A closer comparative look at the figure suggests that when $`𝒞_8(M_W)`$ is in the range of the S.M prediction, for instance $`𝒞_8(M_W)=0.086`$ , $`(\mathrm{\Lambda }_b\mathrm{\Lambda }\gamma )`$ drops nearly to $`1.9\times 10^5`$, which is consistent with the results of S.M. However, one notes that at this particular value of the branching ratio, there are other solutions in the parameter space where $`𝒞_8(M_W)`$ can deviate from its S.M value not only in sign, but also in magnitude, as it can be complex.

We would like to note that the analysis of  has been carried out in the context of the S.M, and $`C_7(m_b)`$ has a fixed value $`(C_7(m_b)=0.312)`$. However, in our work, $`C_7`$ and $`C_8`$ are complex, and as we have shown in Figs. 1 and 2, they vary in a wider range. For instance, approximate expressions of $`C_{7(8)}`$ valid for large $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$ can be given as $`𝒞_70.4e^{\pm i\pi /4}`$, and $`𝒞_80.1e^{\pm i\pi /4}`$, which are far away from the S.M predictions in both size and phase. Therefore, having a wide range of parameter space, the model under concern gives new allowed regions. It is natural that there are regions in the parameter space where our prediction for $`(\mathrm{\Lambda }_b\mathrm{\Lambda }\gamma )`$ agrees with that of S.M.

Similar to the observations made for Fig. 5, one can discuss the Wilson coefficient $`𝒞_7`$ using Fig. 6, where its real (upper window) and imaginary (lower window) parts are separately plotted against $`(\mathrm{\Lambda }_b\mathrm{\Lambda }\gamma )`$, when $`\varphi _{\mu ,A}`$ vary from 0 to $`\pi `$, and only monopole contribution is considered (n=1). As $`(\mathrm{\Lambda }_b\mathrm{\Lambda }\gamma )`$ rises to larger values, both $`\text{Re}[𝒞_7(M_W)]`$ and $`\text{Im}[𝒞_7(M_W)]`$ gradually increase, where the former crosses zero around $`(\mathrm{\Lambda }_b\mathrm{\Lambda }\gamma )1.3\times 10^5`$. $`\text{Re}[𝒞_7(M_W)]`$ starts to take positive values only when $`(\mathrm{\Lambda }_b\mathrm{\Lambda }\gamma )\stackrel{>}{_{}}2.4\times 10^5`$, whereas $`\text{Im}[𝒞_7(M_W)]`$ swings between $`\pm 0.6`$. Like $`𝒞_8`$, there are observable deviations from the S.M prediction with or without sign change, and it can take complex values as well. However, a comparative glance at the figure shows that, when $`𝒞_7(M_W)`$ is in the range of the SM prediction, for instance $`𝒞_7(M_W)=0.161`$, $`(\mathrm{\Lambda }_b\mathrm{\Lambda }\gamma )1.3\times 10^5`$, which is close to the S.M value .

Depicted in Fig. 7 is the dependence of $`(\mathrm{\Lambda }_b\mathrm{\Lambda }\gamma )`$ on $`\text{A}_{\text{CP}}(BX_s\gamma )`$, when only the monopole (upper window) and the dipole (lower window) $`q^2`$ dependences are considered. As is noticed from the upper and lower windows $`(\mathrm{\Lambda }_b\mathrm{\Lambda }\gamma )`$ is of the orders of $`10^5`$ and $`10^6`$, for the monopole (n=1) and dipole (n=2) contributions, respectively. In both cases $`(\mathrm{\Lambda }_b\mathrm{\Lambda }\gamma )`$ behave similarly. However, it decreases by an order of magnitude in the dipole case, and the maximal values of $`\text{A}_{\text{CP}}(BX_s\gamma )`$ are obtained when $`(\mathrm{\Lambda }_b\mathrm{\Lambda }\gamma )1.5\times 10^5(1.9\times 10^6)`$ for n=1 (2). In the recent work of , it has been shown that $`(\mathrm{\Lambda }_b\mathrm{\Lambda }\gamma )=2.3\times 10^6`$ for n=2. As we can see from the upper and lower windows, the asymmetry nearly takes the largest value, when $`(\mathrm{\Lambda }_b\mathrm{\Lambda }\gamma )`$ is in the range of the SM prediction. When $`(\mathrm{\Lambda }_b\mathrm{\Lambda }\gamma )`$ takes larger values than the SM prediction, the asymmetry gradually drops to the corresponding SM prediction $`1\%`$.

In conclusion, we have computed the dipole coefficients $`𝒞_{7,8}`$ in SUSY with explicit CP violation with special emphasis on large values of $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$. We have shown that the present experimental bounds on $`BX_s\gamma `$ allows for large deviations in the Wilson coefficients (with respect to the SM prediction) in both real and imaginary directions. The CP asymmetry in the decay is enhanced by an order of magnitude, thanks to especially the SUSY threshold corrections. The allowed deviations from the SM values can account for (being a plausable hypothesis) the discrepancy between the experiment and theory for the semileptonic $`B`$ decays. As an illustration, we have discussed $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_b\mathrm{\Lambda }\gamma `$ decay.

M. B would like to thank the Scientific and Technical Research Council of Turkey (TÜBİTAK) for partial support under the project, No:TBAG2002(100T108).


format: text

text:
# Mechanical and chemical spinodal instabilities in finite quantum systems

## Abstract

Self consistent quantum approaches are used to study the instabilities of finite nuclear systems. The frequencies of multipole density fluctuations are determined as a function of dilution and temperature, for several isotopes. The spinodal region of the phase diagrams is determined and it appears that instabilities are reduced by finite size effects. The role of surface and volume instabilities is discussed. It is indicated that the important chemical effects associated with mechanical disruption may lead to isospin fractionation.

PACS numbers: 21.65.+f, 25.70.Pq, 21.60.Ev

The dynamics of first order phase transitions is often induced by instabilities against fluctuations of the order parameter. For instance, mechanical instabilities lead to liquid-gas phase transitions and chemical instabilities induce spinodal decomposition of binary alloys. In violent heavy ion collisions, nuclear matter may be quenched in the coexistence region of the nuclear liquid-gas phase diagram. Then, the observed abundant fragment formation may take place through a rapid amplification of spinodal instabilities. New experimental results pleading in favor of such a spinodal decomposition have recently been reported . From the theoretical point of view, the spinodal instabilities in finite systems have been mainly studied within semi-classical or hydrodynamical framework . However, since the relevant temperatures are comparable to the shell spacing and the wave numbers of the unstable modes are of the order of Fermi momentum, quantum effects are expected to be important, as stressed in .

In this work, we present a fully quantal investigation of the spinodal instabilities and related phase diagrams of finite nuclear systems. We determine frequencies and form factors of the unstable collective modes of an excited expanded system by linearizing the time dependent Hartree Fock (TDHF) equation. We carry out applications for Ca and Sn isotopes. The quantum nature of the system is responsible for many dominant features such as the fact that the first mode to become unstable is the low lying octupole vibration. Slightly diluted systems are unstable against low multipole deformations of the surface, which may be associated with asymmetric binary or ternary fission processes. We extend our analysis to charge asymmetric systems and show the importance of chemical effects in the spinodal fragmentation process.

In TDHF theory, the evolution of the one-body density matrix $`\stackrel{~}{\rho }(t)`$ is determined by, $`i\mathrm{}_t\stackrel{~}{\rho }(t)=[h[\stackrel{~}{\rho }],\stackrel{~}{\rho }(t)]`$, where $`h[\stackrel{~}{\rho }]=𝐩^2/2m+U[\stackrel{~}{\rho }]`$ is the mean-field Hamiltonian with $`U[\stackrel{~}{\rho }]`$ as the self-consistent potential. To investigate instabilities encountered during the evolution of an expanding system, one should study the dynamics of the small deviations $`\delta \stackrel{~}{\rho }(t)`$ around the TDHF trajectory $`\stackrel{~}{\rho }(t)`$ . It is more convenient to carry out such an investigation in the ”co-moving frame” of the system, which is described by the density matrix, $`\rho (t)=\mathrm{U}^{}\left(t\right)\stackrel{~}{\rho }(t)\mathrm{U}\left(t\right)`$ where $`\mathrm{U}\left(t\right)=\mathrm{exp}[\frac{}{}\frac{i}{\mathrm{}}\lambda tQ]`$ with $`Q`$ as a one-body operator. For example, in our case $`Q`$ could be a suitable constraining operator for preparing the system at low densities and $`\lambda `$ is the associated Lagrange multiplier. Then, the TDHF equation in the moving frame transforms into,

$$i\mathrm{}\frac{}{t}\rho (t)=[h(t)\frac{}{}\lambda Q,\rho (t)],$$
(1)
where the mean-field Hamiltonian in the moving frame is given by, $`h(t)=\mathrm{U}^{}\left(t\right)h[\stackrel{~}{\rho }]\mathrm{U}\left(t\right).`$ The small density fluctuations $`\delta \rho (t)`$ in the moving frame are determined by the time-dependent RPA equations,

$$i\mathrm{}\frac{}{t}\delta \rho =[h(t)\lambda Q,\delta \rho ]+[\delta U,\rho ].$$
(2)
Here, we consider the early evolution of instabilities in the vicinity of an initial state $`\rho _0`$ determined by a constrained Hartree-Fock solution $`[h(0)\lambda Q,\rho _0]=0`$, where $`h(0)=h[\rho _0]h_0`$ is the mean-field Hamiltonian at the initial state. Then, small density fluctuations are characterized by the RPA modes $`\rho _\nu `$ and the associated frequencies $`\omega _\nu `$. Incorporating the representation $`|i>`$, which diagonalizes $`h_0\lambda Q`$ and $`\rho _0`$ with eigenvalues $`ϵ_i`$ and occupation numbers $`n_i`$, the equations for the RPA functions $`<i|\rho _\nu |j>=\rho _\nu ^{ij}`$ become,

$$\mathrm{}\omega _\upsilon \rho _\nu ^{ij}=(ϵ_i\frac{}{}ϵ_j)\rho _\nu ^{ij}+\underset{kl}{}(n_j\frac{}{}n_i)V_{il,kj}\rho _\nu ^{kl},$$
(3)
where $`V_{il,kj}=<i|U/\rho _{lk}|j>`$ denotes the residual interaction . When the frequency of a mode drops to zero and then becomes imaginary, the system enters an instability region.

To performe an extensive study of instabilities we may parametrize the possible densities $`\rho _0`$ either by a static Hartree-Fock (HF) calculations constrained by a set of collective operators , or using a direct parameterization of the density matrix. We follow the second approach by introducing a self-similar scaling of the HF density as suggested by dynamical simulations.

We solve the HF equation for the ground state $`[h_{HF},\rho _{HF}]=0`$, leading to the single-particle wave functions $`|\phi _i>`$ and the associated energies $`\epsilon _i`$. We introduce the density matrix at a finite temperature $`T`$ as $`\rho _{HF}\left[T\right]=1/\left(1+\mathrm{exp}\left(\left(h_{HF}\frac{}{}\epsilon _F\left[T\right]\right)/T\right)\right)`$, where $`\epsilon _F\left[T\right]`$ is the corresponding Fermi level that is tuned in order to get the correct particle number. We perform a scaling transformation, $`R\left[\alpha \right],`$ which inflates the wave functions in radial direction by a factor $`\alpha `$ according to $`<r|R\left[\alpha \right]|\phi >=\alpha ^{1/3}<r/\alpha |\phi >.`$ We define the density matrix for a hot and diluted system by $`\rho _0[\alpha ,T]=R\left[\alpha \right]\rho _{HF}\left[\alpha ^2T\right]R^{}\left[\alpha \right]`$. The associated constrained Hamiltonian is thus $`\overline{h}_0\left[\alpha \right]=\alpha ^2R\left[\alpha \right]h_{HF}R^{}\left[\alpha \right]`$ so that the constraint can be identified as $`\lambda Q_\alpha =\overline{h}_0\left[\alpha \right]h[\rho _0[\alpha ,T]].`$ By construction $`[\overline{h}_0\left[\alpha \right],\rho _0[\alpha ,T]]=0`$, so that they can be diagonalized simultaneously. The eigenstates of the constrained Hamiltonian are given by $`|i>=R\left[\alpha \right]|\phi _i>`$, and the corresponding energies and occupation numbers are $`ϵ_i=\epsilon _i/\alpha ^2`$ and $`n_i=1/\left(1+\mathrm{exp}\left(\left(\epsilon _i\frac{}{}\epsilon _F\left[\alpha ^2T\right]\right)/\alpha ^2T\right)\right)`$, respectively.

We perform the HF calculations in the coordinate representation using the Skyrme force SLy4 . We note that the isospin symmetry is already broken at the HF level. The particle and hole states are obtained by diagonalizing the HF Hamiltonian in a large harmonic oscillator representation , which includes 12 major shells for Ca isotopes and 15 for Sn. We apply the scaling and heating procedures described above to the density matrix, and calculate the residual interaction in a self consistent manner. We solve the RPA eq.(3) by a direct diagonalization using a discrete two quasi-particle excitation representation .

The top part of figure 1 shows calculations performed for $`{}_{}{}^{40}Ca`$. Top panels shows contour plots of the isoscalar strength function associated with the isoscalar operator $`A_{LM}^s=_{i=1}^Ar_i^LY_{LM}`$, with multipolarity $`L=25`$, as a function of the dilution parameter $`\alpha `$. In the stable domain, the energy associated with the dominant isoscalar strength decreases as dilution becomes larger, and at a critical dilution it drops to zero. At larger dilution, the system becomes unstable, and for each multipolarity, one or two unstable modes appear. This is illustrated in the bottom panel, where the ”energy” of the mode $`E_\nu =i\mathrm{}\omega _\nu `$ is plotted as a function of the dilution.

It is seen that at low dilutions, around $`\alpha =1.2`$, only the octupole mode becomes unstable. In general, density fluctuations with odd multipolarity become unstable at relatively smaller values of dilution than those for even multipole fluctuations. This is a genuine quantum effect, due to the fact that the majority of the particles have to jump only one major shell to produce an odd natural-parity particle-hole excitation while twice this energy is required for an even one. In nuclei at normal density this makes the first $`3^{}`$ a strongly collective low lying state; in diluted system this state is the first to turn unstable. The second feature is that large multipole deformations are hardly becoming unstable. This is due to surface and quantum effects that prevent the break-up of such a small system into several fragments. As a consequence, the fastest growth time, $`\tau _\nu =\mathrm{}/|E_\nu |`$ $`28`$ $`fm/c`$, occurs for $`L=2`$ at the dilution $`\alpha `$=1.8. However, deep inside the instability region, the octupole mode is almost as unstable as the quadrupole mode.

Results of similar calculations performed for 120Sn are shown in the bottom part of figure 1. Also in this case, the octupole mode becomes unstable first, at $`\alpha 1.1.`$ Large multipoles are more unstable in 120Sn than in 40Ca, since the system is larger and can afford larger multipole deformations. This is the reason why the smallest growth time in 120Sn occurs for $`L=3`$.

It is useful to study the behavior of the RPA solution in the coordinate space, $`\rho _{p,n}^+(𝐫)\rho _{p,n}^+(𝐫,𝐫)`$, for protons and for neutrons separately. Since the unstable modes have large isoscalar strength, protons and neutrons mostly move in phase. However, because of the isospin symmetry breaking induced by the Coulomb force and by the initial asymmetry of the system considered, neutrons and protons oscillations have different amplitude and shape. Figure 2(a) shows the radial dependence of the form factor associated with the unstable octupole mode, at the dilution $`\alpha =1.5`$, for protons (dotted line), neutrons (full line) and the sum (dashed line), in Sn isotopes. Contour plots of neutron (proton) perturbed densities, $`\rho _{0}^{}{}_{p,n}{}^{}(𝐫)+\rho _{p,n}^+(𝐫)`$, are also shown in parts b (c) of figure 2.

We observe that proton oscillations are mostly located at the surface of the system, which is a way to minimize the Coulomb repulsion energy. At the same time neutrons try to follow protons, however this motion is strongly affected by the isospin initial asymmetry and the difference between the neutron and proton orbitals at the Fermi energy. In fact, in neutron rich systems, much larger proton oscillations are observed, that is a way to form more symmetric fragments and hence to reduce the symmetry energy. The last effect is particularly evident in the neutron rich 132Sn for which the neutrons are more difficult to put in motion. We observe a quite complex structure of the unstable modes: Volume and surface instabilities are generally coupled and cannot be easily disantangled, as well as isoscalar and isovector excitations, since protons and neutrons do not move in the same way. Figure 3 shows the correlations between the amplitude of proton fluctuations $`\rho _p^+(r)`$ and neutron fluctuations $`\rho _n^+(r)`$, obtained at a radial distance $`r`$ ranging from $`0`$ to the system radius $`R`$, for the octupole mode. The different panels correspond to the three Sn isotopes considered and to three dilutions, $`\alpha `$, indicated in the figure. The correlations describe closed paths, since $`\rho _{p,n}^+(r)`$ starts from zero at $`r=0`$ and goes to zero again at large distances.

When protons and neutrons fluctuate whithout changing the local chemical ratio one should have $`\rho _p^+(r)=\rho _n^+(r)Z/N`$ (full line). An indentical motion of the two fluids should follow the diagonal $`\rho _p^+(r)=\rho _n^+(r)`$ (dashed line). In $`N=Z`$ nuclei (part a) the motion of protons and neutrons should be the same (isoscalar excitations), however the Coulomb force introduces small differences. As seen in figure 2, in diluted systems ($`\alpha >1`$), we observe that, in the vicinity of the nuclear surface, density fluctuations are larger for protons than for neutrons, expecially in the case of neutron-rich unstable isotopes, 120Sn and 132Sn (see panels (b) and (c) in figure 3), leading to a reduction of the asymmetry of the fragments produced at the surface. In the interior we observe, for these isotopes, an interesting evolution from $`\rho _p^+(r)<\rho _n^+(r)Z/N`$ for $`\alpha =1`$ (stable modes) to $`\rho _p^+(r)>\rho _n^+(r)Z/N`$ for the dilute systems. Hence we observe a change of the local chemical ratio, leading to a reduction of the symmetry energy, also in the interior of the system. This effect may be related to the isospin fractionation that occurs in unstable asymmetric nuclear matter . The proton migration towards the large density domains is more frequent than the neutron migration, which may lead to formation of more symmetric fragments.

We, also, carry out calculations at finite temperature and determine the dilutions at which different unstable modes begin to appear. This allows us to specify the border of the instability region in the density-temperature plane for different unstable modes. Figure 4 shows phase diagrams for octupole instabilities in Sn and Ca isotopes.

Here, for simplicity, we define the density as $`\rho =\rho _0/\alpha ^3`$. The full line indicates the border of the instability region. The dashed line connects points that are associated with the instability growth time $`\tau `$ = 100 fm/c, and the dots corresponds to situations (if any) with a shorter growth time $`\tau `$ = 50 fm/c. The instability region appears quite reduced as compared to that of nuclear matter. The limiting temperature for instability to occur is around 6 MeV for Sn and 4.5 MeV for Ca while it is about $`16MeV`$ in symmetric nuclear matter. Heavier systems have larger instability region than the lighter ones. Moreover, more asymmetric systems are less unstable. In fact, in spite of the larger mass, 132Sn is less unstable than 120Sn. Larger instability growth times are obtained for 132Sn. As seen from phase diagrams for 36Ca and 40Ca, the region of instability is reduced also in proton-rich systems. This behavior is in agreement with nuclear matter calculations, which indicates that the instability region shrinks in asymmetric nuclear matter .

In conclusion, we have presented a study of the early development of spinodal instabilities in finite nuclear systems by employing a quantal RPA approach. Results are relevant for multifragmentation studies, in fact dominant unstable modes determine the onset of the subsequent fragmentation of the system, that has to be followed using a full dynamical calculation. We have investigated isospin effects on instabilities by carrying out calculations for Ca and Sn isotopes. We find that instabilities are mostly of isoscalar nature, but contain also an important isovector component in asymmetric matter. Hence the liquid-gas separation of asymmetric systems is always linked to a chemical separation inducing a fractional distillation of the system. The degree of instability in neutron-rich and also proton-rich nuclei appears reduced as compared to that of symmetric nuclei of comparable size. The instabilities are also reduced in small nuclei. Finally we have stressed important quantum effects, such as the octupolar nature of the most important instability.

Authors acknowledge the Yukawa Institute for Theoretical Physics, S.A. and M.C. acknowledge GANIL, and Ph.C. acknowledges LNS, where parts of this work have been carried out, for support and warm hospitality. Stimulating discussions with M.Di Toro and D.Lacroix are also acknowledged. This work is supported in part by the US DOE grant DE-FG05-89ER40530.


text:
# References

BRX TH-497

New Properties of Matter in (A)dS
and their Consequences

S. Deser111Invited talk at Journeés Relativistes, Dublin, 2001. Dedicated to the memory of Lochlain O’Raifeartaigh.
deser@brandeis.edu

Department of Physics, Brandeis University

Waltham, MA 02454, USA

Abstract: I review briefly, primarily for relativists, a series of recent results, obtained with A. Waldron, on the novel behavior of massive higher ($`s>1`$) spin systems in constant curvature backgrounds. We find that the cosmological constant $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$, together with the mass parameter, define a “phase plane” in which partially massless gauge invariant lines separate allowed regions from forbidden, non-unitary, ones. These lines represent short multiplet systems, with missing lower helicities, removed by novel local gauge invariances, and (despite having $`m0`$) propagating on the light cone. In the limit of an infinite tower of these higher spin bosons and fermions, unitarity requires $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ to vanish.

The kinematical effects of gravity on matter (as against the well-known dynamical ones) have not received much attention in the past, nor would one intuitively expect any major surprises there. I will report here (primarily) on a series of very recent investigations by A. Waldron and myself  in which “massive” higher spin ($`s>1`$) free bosons and fermions exhibit unexpected, qualitative, differences from flat space in the simplest curved backgrounds – constant curvature (deSitter) spaces – denoted collectively by (A)dS to cover both (negative)/positive cosmological constants $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$. Concepts synonymous in Minkowski geometry, such as masslessness, light cone propagation, maximal helicity modes only, and gauge invariance become nondegenerate, giving rise to such exotic effects as null propagation, partial (local) gauge invariances and shortened helicity multiplets, all with $`m0`$. Furthermore, entire ranges of mass become forbidden by unitarity. Perhaps most dramatically, accomodation of towers of excitations of all possible spins is only possible in the limit of vanishing $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$, thus providing a dramatic, if not quite yet physical, solution of the cosmological problem. All this happens because the dull flat space mass line is here replaced by a plane, parametrized by the dimensional duo ($`m^2,\mathrm{\Lambda }`$). I will also briefly mention the relation of all this to the old problem of the $`m^20`$ limit discontinuity in matter-matter interactions  and its Newtonian counterpart .

Because my space is very limited, and most of the results are now available, I will only skim the highpoints just summarized. Indeed, let me devote a good fraction of this space to a single picture that summarizes many of these results.

Figure 1: The top/bottom halves of the half-plane represent dS/AdS (and also bosons/fermions) respectively. The $`m^2=0`$ vertical is the familiar massless helicity $`\pm s`$ system, while the other lines in dS represent truncated (bosonic) multiplets of partial gauge invariance: the lowest has no helicity zero, the next no helicities $`(0,\pm 1)`$, etc. Apart from these discrete lines, bosonic unitarity is preserved only in the region below the lowest line, namely that including flat space (the horizontal) and all of AdS. In the AdS sector, it is the topmost line that represents the pure gauge helicity $`\pm s`$ fermion, while the whole region below it, including the partially massless lines, is non-unitary. Thus, for fermions, only the region above the top line, including the flat space horizontal and all of dS, is allowed. Hence the overlap between permitted regions straddles the $`\mathrm{\Lambda }=0`$ horizontal and shrinks down to it as the spins in the tower of spinning particles grow; only $`\mathrm{\Lambda }=0`$ is allowed for generic ($`m^2`$ not growing as $`s^2`$) infinite towers.

In the remaining pages, I motivate these results in terms of a typical – and most familiar to relativists – system, namely spin 2, followed by an even briefer excursion into the fermion case. Consider then, the massive Pauli–Fierz system in a cosmological background, whose equations are

$$𝒢_{\mu \nu }(\varphi )+m^2(\varphi _{\mu \nu }\overline{g}_{\mu \nu }\varphi _\alpha ^\alpha )=0.$$
(1)
Here all metrics, indices and covariant derivatives are those of the cosmological background, and $`\varphi _{\mu \nu }`$ the spin 2 field. Thus $`𝒢_{\mu \nu }`$ is just the linearized deviation about (A)dS of the Einstein metric $`g_{\mu \nu }=\overline{g}_{\mu \nu }+\varphi _{\mu \nu }`$; the minor $`([D_\mu ,D_\nu ]\mathrm{\Lambda })`$ ambiguity in the order of the two covariant derivatives in $`𝒢_{\mu \nu }`$ is determined by requiring the order in which the Bianchi identity $`\overline{D}_\mu 𝒢^{\mu \nu }(\varphi )0`$ holds.

Now let us proceed as in flat space and determine the consequences of taking successive divergences eq. (1). It follows directly that (of course)

$$\overline{D}_\mu 𝒢^{\mu \nu }=m^2\overline{D}_\mu (\varphi ^{\mu \nu }\overline{g}^{\mu \nu }\varphi _\alpha ^\alpha ),$$
(2)
but then comes the surprise

$$\overline{D}_\mu \overline{D}_\nu 𝒢^{\mu \nu }+\frac{1}{2}m^2𝒢_\mu ^\mu =3/2m^2(m^22/3\mathrm{\Lambda })\varphi _\alpha ^\alpha .$$
(3)
\[For higher spins, further divergences are possible and generate additional terms of the form $`(m^2\alpha _i\mathrm{\Lambda })`$ on the right side.\] The first step, (2), is super-familiar: If $`m^2=0`$, the theory possesses the invariance $`\delta \varphi _{\mu \nu }=\overline{D}_\mu \varphi _\nu +\overline{D}_\nu \varphi _\mu `$ and hence has the usual two degrees of freedom (DoF) corresponding to helicity $`\pm `$2 (a valid concept in (A)dS). If $`m^20`$ we expect the loss of gauge invariance to permit the 5 helicity states $`(\pm 2,\pm 1,\mathrm{\hspace{0.33em}0})`$. But now look at (3): while it teaches us nothing further for $`m^20`$, there appears a new zero, at $`m^2=2\mathrm{\Lambda }/3`$. This is the first appearance of partial masslessness/gauge invariance. Partial masslessness because in fact this $`m^20`$ system nevertheless has null propagation just like the $`m^2=0`$ one (remember that (A)dS, being conformally flat, shares the usual Minkowski light cone). Gauge invariance because it is clear from (3) that the action leading to (1), namely $`\frac{1}{2}\varphi _{\mu \nu }[𝒢_{\mu \nu }(\varphi )+m^2(\varphi _{\mu \nu }\overline{g}_{\mu \nu }\varphi _\alpha ^\alpha )]`$ is invariant under the reduced, but still local gauge invariance

$$\delta \varphi _{\mu \nu }=(\overline{D}_\mu \overline{D}_\nu +\overline{D}_\nu \overline{D}_\mu +2\mathrm{\Lambda }/3\overline{g}_{\mu \nu })\xi (x),$$
(4)
since $`\delta I[\varphi ]=\delta \varphi _{\mu \nu }[𝒢^{\mu \nu }+m^2(\varphi ^{\mu \nu }\overline{g}^{\mu \nu }\varphi )]`$ . But a gauge invariance removes a degree of freedom, in our case that of helicity zero. This system was actually discovered earlier , as was its DoF content . The actual mechanism of this amputation in a Hamiltonian analysis of the system makes for a very amusing (if messy) calculation, but the real surprise here is that, as one varies $`m^2`$ in the $`(m^2,\mathrm{\Lambda })`$ plane in a given ($`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ fixed) geometry, this excitation turns from being a normal one to vanishing, then reemerging as a ghost – thereby generating a unitarily forbidden region as shown in the top (dS) part of Fig. 1. Let me just write the relevant part of the helicity zero Hamiltonian to show how this works:

$$H\frac{1}{2}[\nu ^2p^2+\nu ^2(q)^2].$$
(5)
Clearly, if $`\nu ^2(m^22\mathrm{\Lambda }/3)`$ is positive (as it is for $`\mathrm{\Lambda }=0`$) an obvious rescaling $`(p,q)(\nu p,\nu ^1q)`$ will give a normal action. However, in the region $`\nu ^2<0`$, the other side of the (partial) gauge line, this can only be accomplished at the price of imaginary variables or negative energy. Thus, the $`\nu ^2=0`$ line (where it is easy to see from a previous step that the whole helicity 0 action vanishes) serves as a divider between the good and forbidden regions of the $`(m^2,\mathrm{\Lambda })`$ plane.

While the above interesting behavior for bosons takes place in dS $`(\mathrm{\Lambda }>0)`$, fermions prefer AdS for reasons we do not yet understand. The simplest case is $`s=3/2`$, which actually does not display the novel behavior; that starts with the tensor-spinor $`\psi _{\mu \nu }`$ of $`s=5/2`$. Neverthless, it illustrates another deep fact (known from the birth of supergravity), that when $`\mathrm{\Lambda }0`$, gauge invariance for $`s=3/2`$ is NOT displayed at $`m`$=0 (as it is for bosons) but rather at a finite mass parameter, and only in AdS $`(\mathrm{\Lambda }<0)`$. Recall that the field equation reads

$$R^\mu \gamma ^{\mu \nu \alpha }𝒟_\nu \psi _\alpha =0,𝒟_\nu D_\nu +\frac{1}{2}\gamma _\mu m$$
(6)
and that the gauge invariant – hence truly “massless” – system occurs at $`𝒟_\mu R^\mu =0`$, namely for $`m^2+\frac{1}{3}\mathrm{\Lambda }=0`$, where $`[𝒟_\mu ,𝒟_\nu ]\psi _\alpha 0`$. The helicity $`\pm `$1/2 component of the system mimics the behavior of helicity 0 for spin 2, but in the “inverted”, AdS, sector: Above the gauge line it is present and unitary, below it it is non-unitary and is of course absent entirely at $`m^2+\frac{1}{3}\mathrm{\Lambda }=0`$. Put another way, the additional difference is that, unlike bosons, where $`s=1`$ has only one index and so no novel behavior, already at $`s=3/2`$ (and beyond) “true” masslessness, i.e., complete (not partial) gauge invariance occurs not at $`m=0`$, but rather, generically, at $`m^2=|\alpha |\mathrm{\Lambda }`$. This is due to the spinor part of the spinor-vector (or -tensor) field, and was already discovered by Dirac very long ago for $`s=1/2`$. Essentially, when one squares the Dirac equation, $`(\gamma D+m)(\gamma Dm)\psi =0`$, there is a residue proportional to ($`m^2+|\alpha |\mathrm{\Lambda }`$) due to the famous identity $`(\gamma D)^2D^2+R/4`$. That one is totally separate from and just adds to the partial mass effect from the world indices.

To complete our navigation of Fig. 1, we note first that partial gauge systems defined by the transition lines correspond to truncated multiplets from which one or more of the lowest helicities are missing, but that in each case, the remaining (higher than 0 or $`\pm `$1/2) helicities all propagate on-cone. Secondly, the gauge lines for generic spin are governed respectively by $`m_B^2\frac{1}{3}\mathrm{\Lambda }s(s1)`$ and $`m_F^2\frac{1}{3}\mathrm{\Lambda }(s\frac{1}{2})^2`$. Hence if one considers towers of rising spin particles of both statistics, and if their masses are not tuned to rise with spin (or at least not as fast as $`s^2`$) then since the allowed, unitary, region common to bosons and fermions spans a cone around $`\mathrm{\Lambda }=0`$, our infinite tower (such as found in zero slope string expansions) is only permitted at $`\mathrm{\Lambda }0`$ in the limit. This mechanism, while simple and appealing, is not necessarily robust under more physical circumstances, such as presence of dynamical gravity and of other interactions. In this connection, we mention that consistent coupling of (even massive) higher spin fields to gravity, is hard to achieve beyond supergravity. This and the additional problems for charged as well as gravitating systems has recently been investigated systematically in the last paper of .

Finally, we turn to the question that triggered some of our studies, namely the so-called vDVZ discontinuities of linearized massive gravity and spin 3/2 interacting with – necessarily prescribed – conserved matter sources . Spin 2, in flat space, for example, when coupled to a conserved external stress tensor differs from its spin 1 counterpart in that the helicity 0 mode fails to decouple from the source in the massless limit, with the result that there is a large finite difference in the prediction of light bending in the $`m^20`$ and $`m^20`$ cases once they are both fixed to give the proper Newtonian gravity limit, i.e., the effective coupling differ in the ratio of $`t_\mu ^\mu T_\nu ^\nu `$ to $`t_{\mu \nu }T^{\mu \nu }`$ couplings between two sources, being 1/3 vs 1/2 respectively. When $`\mathrm{\Lambda }0`$, however, these ratios depend on both $`(m^2,\mathrm{\Lambda })`$ parameters and can have almost any value depending on the path taken to (0,0). It is also instructive  to discuss what happens in the Newtonian $`(c\mathrm{})`$ limit. Here matter essentially consists of only $`T_0^0`$ and $`T_\mu ^\mu T_0^00`$; there should be no discontinuity since there is no light whose bending is to be explained. Indeed, one obtains a result that correctly reflects this physical expectation, but only after realizing that apparent wrong – repulsive or vanishing or infinite Newtonian couplings are excluded either by the nonunitarity of the offending “gravitons”, or by the truncated multiplet case which, by the invariance (4), can only couple to traceless conserved $`T^{\mu \nu }`$ sources.

I thank A. Waldron and B. Tekin for stimulating collaborations. This work was supported by NSF Grant PHY99-73935.


text:
# The width of the 𝜉(2230) meson

## Abstract

A lower bound of 135 MeV for the width of the $`\xi `$ meson is obtained from analyzing the $`pp`$ and $`\overline{p}p`$ interactions by use of Regge theory. The $`pp`$ data exclude a narrow $`\xi `$ as the latter would lead to $`\sigma _{tot}^{\overline{p}p}`$ far exceeding the measured ones. The broad width explains why the $`\xi `$ may not be seen in $`\overline{p}p`$ experiments.

Keywords: mesons, $`J/\psi `$ radiative decay, Regge theory.

PACS: 12.40.Nn, 12.90.+b, 13.25.-k, 13.25.Gv

One of the important predictions of the quantum chromodynamic (QCD) theory is the existence of bound states of the gluons (the glueballs), which arises from the self-coupling of the gluons. Calculations - have predicted that the lightest $`2^{++}`$ glueball has a mass about 2.2$`\pm 0.3`$ GeV. It is also generally believed that a pure glueball should decay flavor symmetric or flavor blind. The $`\xi `$ meson has been the center of attention in recent years because its reported mass and flavor-symmetric decay characteristics fit what one would expect from a glueball. This meson was first observed by the MARK III collaboration in the decay of $`J/\psi `$ to $`K_SK_S`$ and $`K^+K^{}`$ channels and was found to have quantum numbers $`J^P=(even)^+`$, masses $`M=2230_6^{+6}\pm 15`$ and $`2232_7^{+7}\pm 7`$ MeV, and widths $`\mathrm{\Gamma }=18_{15}^{+23}\pm 10`$ and $`26_{16}^{+26}\pm 7`$ MeV, respectively. The $`\xi `$ was also seen by the WA91 collaboration, but with low statistics. Although the $`\xi `$ was not seen in a number of other experiments, in 1996 the BES collaboration reported the observation of $`\xi `$ in the radiative decay of the $`J/\psi `$ to $`\overline{p}p,K^+K^{},K_S^0K_S^0,`$ and $`\pi ^+\pi ^{}`$ channels. The mass and the width of $`\xi `$ obtained in the BES-experiment agreed with those given in ref. and the data were found to be compatible with spin 2. Subsequently, the BES collaboration reported  the observation of $`\xi \pi ^0\pi ^0,\eta \eta ,\eta \eta ^{},\eta ^{}\eta ^{}`$ and concluded that the decays of $`\xi `$ to $`K^+K^{},\pi ^+\pi ^{}`$, and $`\pi ^0\pi ^0`$ are flavor symmetric. The BES results raised, therefore, the expectation that the $`\xi (2230)`$ meson may be the lightest tensor glueball predicted by the QCD theory. As a result, there have been many experimental efforts aiming at verifying the BES results. One interesting experiment consisted in looking for a resonance structure in the $`\overline{p}p\eta \eta ,\pi ^0\pi ^0`$ reactions. However, a systematic study in the mass region of 2222.7 to 2239.7 MeV led to negative results, casting serious doubts on the very existence of the $`\xi `$. The challenge of understanding these conflicting experimental results has motivated this study. I will show how the high-energy ($`>50`$ GeV) $`pp`$ cross-section data can be used to set a limit for the width of the $`\xi `$.

For notational convenience, let me denote the $`s`$-channel $`pppp`$ and the $`t`$-channel $`p\overline{p}\overline{p}p`$ scatterings, respectively as $`1234`$ and $`1\overline{3}\overline{2}4`$. The total cross section of the $`t`$-channel $`\overline{p}p\xi \overline{p}p`$ scattering is given by

$$\sigma _{tot}^{\overline{p}p}(\overline{s})=\frac{1}{8q^2}\underset{\lambda ^{}\lambda }{}m[A_{\lambda ^{}\lambda }^{(t)}(\overline{s},\overline{t})]_{\overline{t}=0}$$
(1)
where I have used the variables $`\overline{s}`$ and $`\overline{t}`$ to represent, respectively, the total c.m. energy and the momentum transfer in the $`t`$-channel. In eq.(1) $`q^2=\overline{s}/4m^2`$ is the square of the c.m. three-momentum, with $`m`$ being the mass of the proton or antiproton. Furthermore, $`\lambda ^{}=\lambda _{\overline{2}}\lambda _4`$ and $`\lambda =\lambda _1\lambda _{\overline{3}}`$, with $`\lambda _i`$ denoting the helicity of the particle $`i`$. In the helicity basis, the $`t`$-channel Feynman amplitude due to the exchange of $`\xi `$ can be written as

$$A_{\lambda ^{}\lambda }^{(t)}(\overline{s},\overline{t})=\frac{4\pi (2J+1)c_{\lambda ^{};J}c_{J;\lambda }d_{\lambda ^{}\lambda }^J(\theta _t)}{\overline{s}M^2+iM\mathrm{\Gamma }},$$
(2)
where $`J`$, $`M`$, and $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ are the spin, mass, and the width of the $`\xi `$. The $`c_{\lambda ^{};J}=2mC_IG_\lambda ^{}H_{\lambda _{\overline{2}}\lambda _4;J}(\overline{s})`$ and $`c_{J;\lambda }=2mC_IG_\lambda H_{J;\lambda _1\lambda _{\overline{3}}}(\overline{s})`$ denote the coupling strength between the $`\xi `$ and the $`\overline{p}p`$ system, with $`C_I=1/\sqrt{2}`$ being the isospin coefficient for $`\overline{p}p`$ coupling to the isospin zero $`\xi `$ meson. The $`H_{\lambda _{\overline{2}}\lambda _4;J}`$ and $`H_{J;\lambda _1\lambda _{\overline{3}}}`$ are the form factors for the $`\xi p\overline{p}`$ coupling vertex in the helicity basis with $`G_\lambda ^{}`$ and $`G_\lambda `$ being the corresponding coupling constants. There are 16 helicity amplitudes but only 5 are independent. For forward $`\overline{p}p`$ scattering ($`\theta _t=0`$),

$$\sigma _{tot}^{\overline{p}p}(\overline{s})=\frac{1}{8q^2}m[4A_{00}^{(t)}(\overline{s},\overline{t}=0)].$$
(3)
The helicity-basis form factors are related to the canonical-basis form factors $`F_{LS}`$ by a unitary transformation . For the $`\overline{p}p`$ system coupling to a $`J^P=2^+`$ state, the parity conservation leads to $`L(=J\pm 1)=1`$ or 3, and $`S=1`$ only. Since only one value of $`S`$ is allowed, $`F_{LS}`$ will henceforth be denoted as $`F_L`$. The relations between the form factors in the above two bases are $`G_0H_{}=G_0H_{}=\sqrt{2/5}g_1F_1\sqrt{3/5}g_3F_3`$ and $`G_1H_{}=G_1H_{}=\sqrt{3/5}g_1F_1+\sqrt{2/5}g_3F_3`$. Here, $``$ and $``$ represent, respectively, $`\lambda =+1/2`$ and -1/2. The $`F_L`$ has the general form $`F_L=q^Lf(t)`$. Here, the factor $`q^L`$ ensures the correct threshold behavior and $`f(t)`$ is an analytical function in both the $`s`$\- and $`t`$-channels. The form factor can be normalized in such a way that $`F_L(M^2)`$=1. Hence, at $`\overline{s}=M^2`$ and $`J=2`$, $`A_{00}^{(t)}=i40m^2\pi (\sqrt{2/5}g_1\sqrt{3/5}g_3)^2/M\mathrm{\Gamma }`$.

The coupling constants $`g_1`$ and $`g_3`$ can be determined from the $`pp`$ total and elastic differential cross sections by use of Regge theory. We recall that the Regge theory has been very successful in understanding high-energy hadronic scatterings. In recent years, Regge-theory based models have also been used to predict diffractive production of vector mesons. According to Regge theory, hadron-hadron scattering at very high energies can be described by the pole contribution of the Pomeron trajectory alone. This Pomeron dominance holds in the energy domain where $`\sigma _{ph}(s)=\sigma _{p\overline{h}}(s)`$. Here $`h`$ and $`\overline{h}`$ denote, respectively, a hadron and its antiparticle. Experiments have shown that this cross-section equality occurs at $`\sqrt{s}>40`$ GeV. The Pomeron trajectory has the linear form $`\alpha (t)=1.08+\alpha ^{}t`$ at low $`t`$’s. Here, $`t`$ is the four-momentum transfer in the $`s`$-channel or the square of the mass Of the exchanged particle. Both the $`\alpha `$ and $`\alpha ^{}`$ are complex functions of $`t`$, i.e., $`\alpha =\alpha __R+i\alpha __I`$, and $`\alpha ^{}=\alpha __R^{}+i\alpha __I^{}`$. For real $`t`$ lesser than the $`t`$-channel threshold, $`\alpha __I^{}=0`$ and, therefore, $`\alpha (t)=`$ $`\alpha __R(t)=1.08+\alpha __R^{}t`$. The Pomeron trajectory indicates that the mass of an exchanged particle having spin $`J=\alpha _R(M^2)`$ is $`M=[(J1.08)/\alpha _R^{}]^{1/2}`$. Model-independent analyses gave $`\alpha _R^{}`$ = $`0.20\pm 0.02`$  . Hence, a particle of spin 2 will have a mass $`M=2.052.26`$ GeV, which overlaps with the mass range of the $`\xi `$. The Regge-pole amplitude $`A_{\lambda ^{}\lambda }^{(t)}`$ due to the exchange of the Pomeron trajectory is given by

$$A_{\lambda _{\overline{2}}\lambda _4;\lambda _1\lambda _{\overline{3}}}^{(t)}(t,s)=C_I\frac{4\pi ^2(2\alpha +1)\beta _{\lambda ^{}\lambda }(t)(1)^{\alpha +\lambda }\frac{1}{2}[1+(1)^\alpha ]}{sin\pi (\alpha +\lambda ^{})}d_{\lambda \lambda ^{}}^\alpha (z_t),$$
(4)
where $`\alpha \alpha (t)`$ and $`z_tcos\theta _t`$. The variables $`t`$ and $`s`$ are the momentum transfer and energy in the $`s`$channel. It is easy to verify that $`t=\overline{s}`$ and $`s=\overline{t}`$. The residue function $`\beta _{\lambda ^{}\lambda }`$ is given by

$$\beta _{\lambda ^{}\lambda }(t)=4\alpha _R^{}m^2G_\lambda ^{}H_{\lambda _{\overline{2}}\lambda _4;\alpha }(t)G_\lambda H_{\alpha ;\lambda _1\lambda _{\overline{3}}}(t).$$
(5)
Detailed expressions for the $`pp`$ total cross section and $`pp`$ elastic differential cross sections in terms of $`A_{\lambda ^{}\lambda }^{(t)}`$ can be found in ref.. While the exponent $`L`$ in the threshold-behavior factor $`q^L`$ of the form factor was fixed with the integer values $`J\pm 1`$ in , in the present work I have used the relation $`L=\alpha __R(t)\pm 1`$ to continue $`L`$ to noninteger values. The $`g_1`$ and $`g_3`$ obtained from fitting the $`pp`$ total cross sections and the diffractive peak of the $`pp`$ elastic differential cross sections at $`\sqrt{s}=53`$ and $`62`$ GeV are: $`g_1=1.55\pm 0.06`$ and $`g_3=0.24\pm 0.02`$, which are not too different from what was obtained with fixed integer $`L`$’s. Using these values in eq.(3), I have calculated the $`\sigma _{tot}^{\overline{p}p}(\overline{s}=M^2)`$ as a function of $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$. These calculated cross sections are situated inside the zone between the two solid curves in fig.1. As one can see, small total widths lead to calculated cross sections that exceed the experimental $`\sigma _{tot}^{\overline{p}p}`$ (the dashed line). In order not to violate this experimental constraint, I deduce from figure 1 a lower bound of 135 MeV for the width of the $`\xi `$, which is much greater than the 22 MeV reported in the literature .

It is worth noting that the above broad width is in line with the finding of an earlier experiment by Alde et al. who observed a broad enhancement ($`\mathrm{\Gamma }140`$ MeV) with spin 2 at $`M=2220`$ MeV in the reaction $`\pi ^{}pnX,X\eta \eta ^{}`$. The broad width given by the present analysis is also consistent with the non-observation of a resonance structure in the 2.23 GeV region in the $`\overline{p}p\pi ^0\pi ^0,\eta \eta `$ experiments of Seth et al..

Using the same notation as before, the $`\overline{p}ph\overline{h}`$ cross sections can be written as

$$\left(\frac{d\sigma (\overline{s},\overline{t})}{d\overline{t}}\right)_{a^{}a}=\frac{1}{256\pi q^4}\underset{\lambda ^{}\lambda }{}\frac{4\pi (2J+1)c_{\lambda ^{};J}^{}c_{J;\lambda }d_{\lambda ^{}\lambda }^J(\theta _t)}{\overline{s}M^2+iM\mathrm{\Gamma }}^2$$
(6)
where the indices $`a`$ and $`a^{}`$ denote, respectively, the initial($`\overline{p}p`$) and the final ($`\overline{h}h`$) channels, with $`c_{\lambda ^{};J}^{}`$ being the coupling strength of the final state $`a^{}`$ to the $`\xi `$. Clearly, a resonance structure will not show up in the energy dependence of the cross section if $`c_{\lambda ^{};J}^{}=0`$, i.e., if the resonance $`\xi `$ does not exist. However, I will show below that even if $`\xi `$ exists, a resonance structure may still not be seen when its width is broad.

Let me introduce the angle-integrated cross section

$$\mathrm{\Sigma }(\overline{s})=_{\overline{\mathrm{\Omega }}}\left(\frac{d\sigma }{d\overline{t}}\right)_{a^{}a}𝑑\overline{t}$$
(7)
and the variation of the cross sections

$$V(\sqrt{\overline{s}_\delta })\frac{\mathrm{\Sigma }(M^2)}{\mathrm{\Sigma }(\overline{s}_\delta )}$$
(8)
with $`\overline{\mathrm{\Omega }}`$ being the solid angle over which the experimental differential cross sections were summed and $`\sqrt{\overline{s}_\delta }M\delta `$. If $`2\delta `$ represents the mass interval covered by the measurement, then the greater the value of $`V(\sqrt{\overline{s}_\delta })`$, the more visible will be the resonance structure in this mass region. As the numerator in eq.(6) does not vary rapidly with $`\overline{s}`$, we have $`V(\sqrt{\overline{s}_\delta })`$ $`[(\overline{s}_\delta M^2)^2+M^2\mathrm{\Gamma }^2]/M^2\mathrm{\Gamma }^2`$. For $`M=2.23`$ GeV, $`\sqrt{\overline{s}_\delta }=2.223`$ GeV, and $`\mathrm{\Gamma }135`$ MeV, we have $`V(2.223)1.01`$. In other words, the energy dependence of the cross sections is practically flat in the mass region $`2230\pm 7`$ MeV. This was exactly the finding of ref.. In fact, even if $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ were 50 MeV, one would still only have $`V(2.223)=1.08`$, i.e. only an 8% variation. Only when the width is 22 MeV, can a 40% variation be seen. Hence, the $`\overline{p}p`$ experiment of ref. can only confirm the existence of a narrow resonance. However, a non-observation of the resonance structure is not sufficient grounds for rejecting the existence of $`\xi `$. Had $`\xi `$ been an isolated resonance, it would have been possible to check the resonance by choosing a sufficiently large $`\delta `$. However, there are two isoscalar tensor resonances, the $`f_2(2150)`$ and $`f_2(2300)`$, situated only 80 MeV away and each of them has a width of about 150 to 160 MeV. These nearby resonances prevents us from probing the $`\xi `$ across a large mass interval.

In conclusion, the high-energy $`pp`$ data and the experimental $`\overline{p}p`$ total cross section at c.m. energy $`\sqrt{s_{\overline{p}p}}=2.23`$ GeV imply that the total width of the $`\xi `$ is at least 135 MeV. This broad width is compatible with the non-observation of the $`\xi `$ in the $`\overline{p}p`$ experiment of ref.. As the mass of the $`\xi `$ is situated in the region where the lightest $`2^{++}`$ tensor glueball is expected, it is of great importance to ascertain the existence of the $`\xi `$. We note that $`q\overline{q}`$ states can also have the quantum number $`2^{++}`$ and, therefore, can mix with the $`2^{++}`$ gluonium. In this latter case, an experimentally observed $`2^{++}`$ state can have a broad width. The experimental results of ref. and the present analysis all suggest that the $`\xi `$ meson, if it exists, should have a broad width. It was reported at the Hadron2001 Conference in Protvino, Russia, that the BES collaboration had repeated the measurement of $`J/\psi `$ radiative decays with much improved statistics. It will be of great interest to learn the new result.