format: text

text:
# 1 Introduction

## 1 Introduction

The best estimate for the masses of glueballs comes from lattice gauge theory calculations, which in the quenched approximation show  that the lightest glueball has $`J^{PC}=0^{++}`$ and that its mass should be in the range $`1.451.75`$ GeV. While the lattice remains immature for predicting glueball decays, Amsler and Close  first pointed out that in lattice inspired models, such as the flux tube , glueballs will mix strongly with nearby $`q\overline{q}`$ states with the same $`J^{PC}`$ . Recent studies on coarse-grained lattices appear to confirm that there is indeed significant mixing between $`G`$ and $`q\overline{q}`$ together with associated mass shifts, at least in the $`J^{PC}`$ = $`0^{++}`$ sector . If these results survive at finer lattice spacing, the conclusion will be that glueball-flavour mixing is a controlling feature of the phenomena in the $`1.31.7`$ GeV mass region of meson spectroscopy. It is our purpose in the present paper to build a phenomenological interpretation of the data based on intuition from lattice QCD, and to identify the data needed to confirm it.

To help orient readers, we first present an overview of the paper and its central conclusions.

The first analyses of $`Gq\overline{q}`$ mixing used the mass matrix with an assumed $`Gq\overline{q}`$ mixing strength . Such a mixing between a glueball and a $`q\overline{q}`$ nonet will lead to three isoscalar states of the same $`J^{PC}`$. Motivated by Lattice QCD, these analyses focussed on the physical states in the glueball mass region - the $`f_0(1370)`$ and $`f_0(1500)`$ and either predicted the existence of a further $`J=0`$ state around 1700 MeV  or assumed that the $`f_J(1710)`$ was that state . The existence of this scalar meson is now experimentally verified .

These papers differed in what they assumed for the mass of the bare glueball relative to the $`Ss\overline{s}`$, which led to some quantitative differences in output. Nonetheless, while these papers at first sight differed in detail, their conclusions share some common robust features. In particular, the flavour content of the states is predicted to have the $`n\overline{n}`$ and $`s\overline{s}`$ in phase (SU(3) singlet tendency) for the $`f_0(1370)`$ and $`f_0(1710)`$, and out of phase (octet tendency) for the $`f_0(1500)`$. In section 2 we review these papers and show why their outputs are similar. In particular these similarities highlight that further constraints are needed if we are to establish whether the bare glueball is at the upper  or lower  end of the $`1.451.75`$ GeV range favoured by quenched lattice QCD, or even whether the glueball is required .

There are now extensive data on the production and decay  of the above states. These provide further constraints on the $`Gq\overline{q}`$ content. Theoretical analysis of decays is under better control than production and so we shall discuss the implications of decays first (section 3).

The WA102 collaboration has published , for the first time in a single experiment, a complete data set for the decay branching ratios of the $`f_0(1370)`$, $`f_0(1500)`$ and $`f_0(1710)`$ to all pseudoscalar meson pairs. Ref.  and a preliminary letter by us  have examined the flavour dependence of scalar meson decay and how these data constrain the flavour and glue mixing of these scalar states. The results here too agree with the generic structure found in the mass mixing analyses of section 2. We identify why this is so and assess the implications. A result that is more general than any specific mixing scheme is that no pair out of the three $`f_0(1370),f_0(1500),f_0(1710)`$ can be in the same pure $`q\overline{q}`$ nonet; other degrees of freedom are required.

We shall see that the results are robust. They confirm lattice results that $`Gq\overline{q}`$ mixing is (nearly) flavour blind and suggest that the preferred glueball mass falls into the mass range, $`\frac{M_S+M_N}{2}>M_GM_N`$. Then (section 3.2) we will investigate the stability against flavour symmetry breaking. From these results we shall identify a systematic correlation between glueball mass, mixing, and flavour symmetry breaking. To choose among these results requires further experimental tests that can determine the dynamics of a glueball in this mass region. This brings us to section 5 and production dynamics.

Production by $`\gamma \gamma `$ is potentially the cleanest as this probes the

$`q\overline{q}`$ flavours and phases. We advocate serious study of $`\gamma \gamma 0^{++}`$ as the sharpest arbiter of the wavefunctions, but we also warn against overly naive interpretation of $`\gamma \gamma `$ couplings in the $`0^{++}`$ sector. The angular and kinematic dependence of $`pppp+0^{++}`$ also shows distinct differences among the various mesons, but the dynamical origin of this is still obscure. We note a possible systematic pattern that correlates the $`G`$ and flavour mixing in our solutions with the distributions observed in central production. Further ways of separating the $`Gq\overline{q}`$ content in the $`0^{++}`$ sector are proposed. Ideally $`\gamma \gamma `$ couplings can disentangle the amplitudes and this can then be used to decode the dynamics of central production.

## 2 Mass Mixing

Based upon intuition from lattice QCD, refs.  investigated the mixing between a $`J^{PC}=0^{++}`$ glueball, $`G`$, and a $`J^{PC}=0^{++}`$ $`q\overline{q}`$ nonet in its vicinity. The detailed assumptions of the two approaches differed but the outputs were remarkably similar in certain features. We shall first illustrate why this similarity occurs, abstract its general features and then propose further tests of the general hypothesis.

In the $`|G|gg`$, $`|S|s\overline{s}`$, $`|N|u\overline{u}+d\overline{d}/\sqrt{2}`$ basis, the mass matrix describing the $`Gq\overline{q}`$ mixing was written as follows in ref. :

$$M=\left(\begin{array}{ccc}M_G& f& \sqrt{2}fr\\ f& M_S& 0\\ \sqrt{2}fr& 0& M_N\end{array}\right).$$
(1)
Here $`fG|M|S`$ and $`rG|M|N/\sqrt{2}G|M|S`$ are the mixing strengths between the glueball and the quarkonia states. For a $`Gq\overline{q}`$ coupling that is flavour blind, $`r=1`$. Lattice QCD  finds for $`J^{PC}=0^{++}`$ that $`r=1.20\pm 0.07`$. $`M_G`$, $`M_S`$ and $`M_N`$ represent the masses of the bare states $`|G`$, $`|S`$ and $`|N`$, respectively.

Refs.  assumed that the mixing is strongest between the glueball and nearest $`q\overline{q}`$ neighbours. With the lattice (in the quenched approximation) predicting the glueball mass to be in the $`1.451.75`$ GeV region, this has naturally led attention to focus on the physical states $`|f_0(1710)`$, $`|f_0(1500)`$ and $`|f_0(1370)`$ as the eigenstates of $`M`$ with the eigenvalues of $`M_1`$, $`M_2`$ and $`M_3`$, respectively. The three physical states can be read as

$$\left(\begin{array}{ccc}|f_0(1710)& & \\ |f_0(1500)& & \\ |f_0(1370)& & \end{array}\right)=U\left(\begin{array}{ccc}|G& & \\ |S& & \\ |N& & \end{array}\right)=\left(\begin{array}{ccc}x_1& y_1& z_1\\ x_2& y_2& z_2\\ x_3& y_3& z_3\end{array}\right)\left(\begin{array}{ccc}|G& & \\ |S& & \\ |N& & \end{array}\right),$$
(2)
where

$$U=\left(\begin{array}{ccc}(M_1M_S)(M_1M_N)C_1& (M_1M_N)fC_1& \sqrt{2}(M_1M_S)rfC_1\\ (M_2M_S)(M_2M_N)C_2& (M_2M_N)fC_2& \sqrt{2}(M_2M_S)rfC_2\\ (M_3M_S)(M_3M_N)C_3& (M_3M_N)fC_3& \sqrt{2}(M_3M_S)rfC_3\end{array}\right)$$
(3)
with $`C_{i(i=1,2,3)}=[(M_iM_S)^2(M_iM_N)^2+(M_iM_N)^2f^2+2(M_iM_S)^2r^2f^2]^{\frac{1}{2}}`$ and $`\mathrm{\Sigma }M_{1+2+3}\mathrm{\Sigma }M_{G+S+N}`$.

To focus discussion, we first summarise and compare various mixings that have been proposed in the literature. In the original analysis of the glueball-$`q\overline{q}`$ mixing, ref.  worked at leading order in perturbation and obtained

$`N_G|\mathrm{\Psi }_1=|G+\xi (\sqrt{2}r|N+\omega |S)`$
$`N_s|\mathrm{\Psi }_2=|S\xi \omega |G`$
$`N_n|\mathrm{\Psi }_3=|N\xi \sqrt{2}r|G`$ (4)
where the $`N_i`$ are appropriate normalisation factors, $`\omega \frac{M_GM_N}{M_GM_S}`$ and the mixing parameter $`\xi \frac{f}{M_GM_N}`$. This leading form is strictly only valid when both $`\xi `$ and $`\xi \omega <<1`$. The $`3\times 3`$ matrix, eqs. (1)-(3) effectively generalised this to $`O(\xi ^2)`$. The pQCD analysis of ref.  suggested that the $`ggq\overline{q}`$ mixing amplitude manifested in $`\psi \gamma R(q\overline{q})`$ is qualitatively $`O(\alpha _s)0.5`$. While the absolute value of $`\xi `$ was not precisely determined, it nonetheless suggested that $`O(\xi ^2)`$ effects may be significant, as in eqs. (2,3). In particular this introduces $`N`$ into $`\mathrm{\Psi }_2`$ and $`S`$ into $`\mathrm{\Psi }_3`$.

Mixing based on lattice glueball masses leads to two classes of solution of immediate interest:

(i) $`\omega 0`$, corresponding to $`G`$ in the midst of the nonet

(ii) $`\omega >1`$, corresponding to $`G`$ above the $`q\overline{q}`$ members of the nonet .

The model of Genovese  is a particular case where the $`G`$ and $`S`$ are degenerate; mathematically his solution is subsumed in eq. (2) when $`\xi 0`$; $`\omega \mathrm{}`$ with $`\xi \omega 1`$.

Weingarten  constructed his mixing model based on the scenario from lattice QCD that the scalar $`s\overline{s}`$ state, in the quenched approximation, may lie lower than the scalar glueball  (thus $`\omega >1`$ in the above formalism). In their most recent computation of ref. , the input “bare” masses were $`M_N=1470`$ MeV; $`M_S=1514`$ MeV; $`M_G=1622`$ MeV and the mixing strength $`f\xi \times (M_GM_N)=64\pm 13`$ MeV, whereby $`\xi 0.4\pm 0.1`$. The resulting mixtures, with errors shown in parentheses, are (up to an overall phase)

$$\begin{array}{cccc}& f_{i1}^{(G)}& f_{i2}^{(S)}& f_{i3}^{(N)}\\ f_0(1710)& 0.86(5)& 0.30(5)& 0.41(9)\\ f_0(1500)& 0.13(5)& 0.91(4)& 0.40(11)\\ f_0(1370)& 0.50(12)& 0.29(9)& 0.82(9)\end{array}$$
(5)
It is instructive to compare this with the assumption of ref.  where, for example,the $`G`$ lies between $`n\overline{n}`$ and $`s\overline{s}`$ such that the parameter $`\omega 2`$. At first sight this would appear to be quite different to the above, but if for illustration we adopt $`\xi =0.5\alpha _s`$, the resulting mixing amplitudes are

$$\begin{array}{cccc}& f_{i1}^{(G)}& f_{i2}^{(S)}& f_{i3}^{(N)}\\ f_0(1710)& 0.60& 0.76& 0.22\\ f_0(1500)& 0.61& 0.61& 0.43\\ f_0(1370)& 0.50& 0.13& 0.86\end{array}$$
(6)
It is immediately apparent that the solutions for the lowest mass state in the two schemes are similar, as are the relative phases throughout and also the qualitative importance of the $`G`$ component in the high mass state. Both solutions exhibit destructive interference between the $`N`$ and $`S`$ flavours for the middle state.

This parallelism is not a coincidence. The essential dynamical assumption of ref.  and here is that the basic $`Gq\overline{q}`$ coupling is (nearly) flavour symmetric. A general feature of such a three way mixing is that in the extreme limit of infinitely strong mixing the central state would tend towards flavour octet with the outer (heaviest and lightest) states being orthogonal mixtures of glueball and flavour singlet, namely

$$\begin{array}{ccc}f_0(1710)& & |q\overline{q}(\mathrm{𝟏})+|𝐆\\ f_0(1500)& & |q\overline{q}(\mathrm{𝟖})+ϵ|𝐆\\ f_0(1370)& & |q\overline{q}(\mathrm{𝟏})|𝐆\end{array}$$
(7)
where $`ϵ\xi ^10`$. In effect, in such an extreme case the glueball would have leaked away maximally to the outer states even in the case (ref. ) where the bare glueball (zero mixing) was in the middle of the nonet to start with. The leakage into the outer states becomes significant once the mixing strength (off diagonal term in the mass matrix) becomes comparable to the mass gap between glueball and $`q\overline{q}`$ states (i.e. either $`\xi 1`$ or $`\xi \omega 1`$). Even in the zero width approximation of ref.  this tends to be the case and when one allows for the widths being of $`O(100)`$ MeV while the nonet masses and glueball mass are themselves spread over only a few hundred MeV, it is apparent that there will be considerable mixing of the glueball into the $`q\overline{q}`$ nonet. The tendency for the $`q\overline{q}`$ content to separate into two constructive (“singlet tendency”) and one destructive (“octet tendency”) happens for even mild mixing; the complete leakage of glueball from the latter is only effected as the mixing indeed tends towards infinity.

If the $`Gq\overline{q}`$ coupling is flavour dependent, such that (as above)

$$rG|M|N/\sqrt{2}G|M|S1$$
(8)
the “asymptotic maximal mixing” solution will reflect this. Specifically (up to overall normalisation factors)

$$\begin{array}{ccc}f_0(1710)& & |G+\frac{1}{\sqrt{2r^2+1}}|\sqrt{2}rN+S\\ f_0(1500)& & ϵ|G+\frac{1}{\sqrt{2r^2+1}}|N\sqrt{2}rS\\ f_0(1370)& & |G+\frac{1}{\sqrt{2r^2+1}}|\sqrt{2}rN+S\end{array}$$
(9)
The pattern of $`N`$ and $`S`$ phases in equations (5) and (6), namely two constructive and one destructive, emerge so long as $`r>0`$. The lattice results of ref.  imply $`r=1.20\pm 0.07`$. It is for these reasons, inter alia, that the output of refs.  and  are rather similar. In contrast, ref.  finds opposite phases to the above and this is because their mass matrix has $`r<0`$, which would correspond to the mixing being driven by octet. This differs radically from what would be expected for mixing driven by a glueball. In the flavour symmetry limit, a glueball transforms as a flavour singlet; there is a small octet component, if the above results of lattice QCD  are a guide, but the idea that it should be orthogonal to this and dominantly octet seems bizarre. We note the mathematical consistency whereby if $`rr`$ in ref. , their conclusions and results would parallel those reported here, but for the reasons just outlined, this is so far from the lattice expectation that we do not discuss it further.

The sharing of the glueball intensity among the three states is driven by the proximity of the glueball to the bare states, amplified by their $`n\overline{n}`$ contents (due to the factor $`\sqrt{2}`$ relative amplitude for coupling to $`n\overline{n}`$ versus $`s\overline{s}`$). Apart from this, the overall qualitative pattern of phases makes it hard to distinguish among them. So the debate about whether the bare glueball lies within  or above  a prominent $`q\overline{q}`$ nonet may be academic unless fine measurement of the quantitative rather than simply qualitative pattern can be extracted from data. However, this robust general feature of the phase pattern enables this picture of glueball-nonet mixing to be disproved if their common implications fail empirically.

In this context we draw attention to the non-trivial implications of these dynamics for the flavour content of the $`f_0(1500)`$. While there has been considerable debate about the nature of this state, there is rather general agreement empirically that the flavour content of the $`f_0(1500)`$ has $`N`$ and $`S`$ out of phase. It is interesting that this emerges naturally, and as a necessary consequence, for the “middle” member when $`Gq\overline{q}`$ mixing is involved. While not a proof, this adds weight to the hypothesis that the $`f_0(1500)`$ is in a trio, with one partner higher and one lower in mass.

Conversely, had the $`f_0(1500)`$ not had these characteristics then this dynamics could have been eliminated.

Since those mass mixings were first discussed, there have emerged extensive data on the flavour-dependence of these states’ decays into pairs of pseudoscalar mesons. Analysis of these decays can be used to give measures of the flavour composition of these scalars, which bear no a priori relation to the mass mixing arguments. As such they provide an independent check on the above. We shall now examine this in section 3.

## 3 Mixing and Decays

The WA102 Collaboration at CERN has published a complete set of decay branching ratios for the $`f_0(1370),f_0(1500)`$ and $`f_0(1710)`$ to all kinematically allowed combinations of pairs of pseudoscalars . These relative strengths depend upon the flavour content of the scalars. The challenge is to decode this information and to compare the resulting pattern with that deduced from the mass mixings above.

We shall use the WA102 data in our primary analysis. If instead we use a world average, our conclusions are stable (shown in section 3.1.1). In order to reduce model dependence, we shall take intuition from the flux tube model , which is based on lattice QCD. This suggests three major pathways for triggering the decays ,

(i) the direct coupling of the quarkonia component of the three states to the final pseudoscalar mesons ($`PP`$) (fig. 1a),

(ii) the decay of $`ggqq\overline{qq}`$ as in fig. 1b. The resulting amplitudes can be obtained from eqs. (A4) of ref.  and have overall strength $`r_2`$ (to be fitted) relative to the mode (i) .

Finally, following ref. , we allow for (iii) in fig. 1c, the direct coupling of the glue in the initial state to isoscalar mesons (i.e. $`\eta \eta `$ and $`\eta \eta ^{}`$ decays) and allow $`r_3`$ to be the ratio of mode (iii) to (i) .

In order to unfold the production kinematics we use the invariant decay couplings ($`\gamma _{ij}`$) for the observed decays, namely we express the partial width ($`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{ij}`$) as

$$\mathrm{\Gamma }_{ij}=\gamma _{ij}^2|F_{ij}(\stackrel{}{q})|^2S_p(\stackrel{}{q})$$
(10)
where $`S_p(\stackrel{}{q})`$ denotes the phase space and $`F_{ij}(\stackrel{}{q})`$ are form factors appropriate to exclusive two body decays. Here we have followed ref.  and have chosen

$$|F_{ij}(\stackrel{}{q})|^2=q^{2l}exp(q^2/8\beta ^2)$$
(11)
where $`l`$ is the angular momentum of the final state with daughter momenta $`q`$ and we have used $`\beta `$ = 0.5 GeV/c . The $`f_0(1500)`$ lies very near to threshold in the $`\eta \eta ^{}`$ decay mode, therefore we have used an average value of $`q`$ (190 MeV/c) derived from a fit to the $`\eta \eta ^{}`$ mass spectrum.

The branching ratios measured by the WA102 experiment for the $`f_0(1370)`$, $`f_0(1500)`$ and $`f_0(1710)`$ are given in table 1.

For quarkonium states the invariant couplings are dependent on the flavour mixing angle $`|Q\overline{Q}\mathrm{cos}\theta |N\mathrm{sin}\theta |S`$. Figs. 2, 3 and 4 show a plot of the ratio of the invariant couplings as a function of $`\theta `$ for the $`f_0(1370)`$, $`f_0(1500)`$ and $`f_0(1710)`$ respectively. Superimposed on the plot are the measured ratios with the $`\pm 1\sigma `$ limits shown shaded.

As can be seen it is possible to find a solution for the $`f_0(1370)`$ and $`f_0(1500)`$ for small values of $`\theta `$ corresponding to them having a large $`Nn\overline{n}`$ content. This is already an indication that they cannot both be members of the same $`q\overline{q}`$ nonet unless further degrees of freedom are present. It could be that the $`f_0(1370)`$ belongs to a lower multiplet than the $`f_0(1500)`$ or that it does not exist . Even were either of these the case, there would be need for a partner to the $`f_0(1500)`$ with $`\theta 90^{}110^{}`$. Figure 4 shows that the $`f_0(1710)`$ does not satisfy this. Thus we can already conclude the following:

(i) The $`f_0(1500),f_0(1370)`$ data show that if both of these states are real, they cannot be in the same $`q\overline{q}`$ nonet without further degrees of freedom, such as a glueball.

(ii) The $`f_0(1710)`$ data demonstrate the need to go beyond a simple $`q\overline{q}`$ picture at some point or that data need to change.

Performing an elementary SU(3) calculation gives the reduced partial widths in table 2, where $`\alpha =(\mathrm{cos}\varphi \sqrt{2}\mathrm{sin}\varphi )/\sqrt{6}`$, $`\beta =(\mathrm{sin}\varphi +\sqrt{2}\mathrm{cos}\varphi )/\sqrt{6}`$, and $`\varphi `$ is the $`q\overline{q}`$ $`SN`$ mixing angle of $`\eta `$ and $`\eta ^{}`$. This mixing angle has been determined primarily from electromagnetic interactions that couple directly to the $`q\overline{q}`$ content of the $`\eta ,\eta ^{}`$ states. The relative importance of glue coupling to $`\eta `$ and $`\eta ^{}`$ may be determined by gluon-driven processes, such as $`\psi \gamma \eta (\eta ^{})`$, or from theoretical arguments about the coupling of the gluon current to the $`\eta ^{}`$ system . These independent methods yield consistent results as follows.

(i) The ratio of $`\psi `$ radiative widths:

$$\frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }(\psi \eta ^{}\gamma )}{\mathrm{\Gamma }(\psi \eta \gamma )}=(\frac{q_\eta ^{}}{q_\eta })^3|\frac{0|j|\eta ^{}}{0|j|\eta }|^2$$

yields

$$|\frac{g_\eta ^{}}{g_\eta }||\frac{0|j|\eta ^{}}{0|j|\eta }|=2.5\pm 0.2$$

(ii) Theoretical arguments about the coupling of the gluon current to the $`\eta ^{}`$ system  give

$$\frac{g_\eta ^{}}{g_\eta }=\frac{m_\eta ^{}^2}{\sqrt{2}m_\eta ^2}=2.2$$

We then perform a $`\chi ^2`$ fit based on the branching ratios given in table 1, where we have required that the matrix $`U`$ in eq. (2) is unitary, which applies an additional 6 constraints to the fit. As input we use the masses of the $`f_0(1500)`$ and $`f_0(1710)`$. In this way the nine parameters, $`M_G`$, $`M_N`$, $`M_S`$, $`M_3`$, $`f`$, $`r_2`$, $`r_3`$, $`r`$ and $`\varphi `$ are determined from the fit. The mass of the $`f_0(1370)`$ is not well established so we have left it as a free parameter ($`M_3`$).

### 3.1 Flavour-Blind Glueball

The parameters determined from the fit are given in table 3 and the fitted branching ratios together with the $`\chi ^2`$ contributions of each are given in table 1. Two robust features merit immediate comment. As can be seen the fit prefers a value of $`r`$ 1, in line with the result of Lattice QCD . The mixing angles for the $`\eta `$, $`\eta ^{}`$ were unconstrained and the fit chooses the canonical value of $`19^o`$, in agreement with results from elsewhere. The resulting flavour content of the mixed states is

$$\begin{array}{cccc}& f_{i1}^{(G)}& f_{i2}^{(S)}& f_{i3}^{(N)}\\ f_0(1710)& 0.39& 0.91& 0.14\\ f_0(1500)& 0.69& 0.34& 0.63\\ f_0(1370)& 0.62& 0.13& 0.77\end{array}$$
(12)
This matrix confirms the robustness of the qualitative pattern that had followed from the mass matrix analyses, namely two states with a singlet tendency and one with an octet. Although these relative phases appear to be stable, the relative intensities of $`G`$ and flavours differ; the $`m_G1440\pm 10`$ MeV is in the lower end of the mass range preferred by some reports from Lattice-QCD , while rather lower than the preferred solution of ref. . Consequently the leading structure of the mixing pattern follows from degenerate perturbation theory with basis states $`S,(N\pm G)/\sqrt{2}`$. The structure of eq. LABEL:eq:j, and what follows, all show this tendency. We shall discuss the implications of these results in more detail later.

This conclusion following from the decay analysis appears to be stable against changes in the detailed dynamics. As an example we return to the model assumption made in our previous paper , namely that the glue couple to the $`\eta `$ states in proportion to their $`s\overline{s}`$ content. The expressions for the partial widths are given in table 4. (In this table we have corrected a sign error that appeared in table 3 of ref. )). The results of the fit using these expressions are given in tables 5 and 6. The $`\chi ^2`$ of the fit is 13.7 which is worse that the value obtained from the previous fit but the structure essentially remains unchanged:

$$\begin{array}{cccc}& f_{i1}^{(G)}& f_{i2}^{(S)}& f_{i3}^{(N)}\\ f_0(1710)& 0.42& 0.89& 0.16\\ f_0(1500)& 0.64& 0.37& 0.67\\ f_0(1370)& 0.63& 0.15& 0.76\end{array}$$
(13)
The general conclusion appears to be that analysis of decays of these scalars reveals the same qualitative pattern of mixing phases as deduced in the mass mixing analyses. The most general interpretation is that these three states are mixed by a flavour singlet coupling: a glueball is a particular example of this. While this does not prove that the glueball is responsible, the robustness of the results, and the implications of lattice QCD that such a state should exist in this mass range, are strongly suggestive.

#### 3.1.1 Insensitivity to choice of data sets

To date we have used the branching ratios measured by experiment WA102 since this is the only experiment in the world to have measured all the ratios. However, the branching ratios have in part been measured by other experiments. Crystal Barrel  have presented ratios for the $`f_0(1370)`$ and $`f_0(1500)`$. BES have produced a measurement of the $`\pi ^+\pi ^{}`$/$`KK`$ ratio for the $`f_0(1370)`$  and there are measurements of the $`\pi ^+\pi ^{}`$/$`KK`$ ratio for the $`f_0(1710)`$ from experiments WA76  and Mark III . It is important to note that these other measured values are compatible with the ones measured by experiment WA102.

We have calculated the world average branching ratios for the $`f_0(1370)`$, $`f_0(1500)`$ and the $`f_0(1710)`$ using all the available data. The values are given in table 7. We have performed a fit to these values using our formula and with $`r`$ = 1 and $`\varphi `$ = -19 degrees. The parameters from the fit are given in table 8.

The mixed states are

$$\begin{array}{cccc}& f_{i1}^{(G)}& f_{i2}^{(S)}& f_{i3}^{(N)}\\ f_0(1710)& 0.42& 0.89& 0.16\\ f_0(1500)& 0.66& 0.37& 0.64\\ f_0(1370)& 0.61& 0.14& 0.78\end{array}$$
(14)
and the $`\chi ^2=14`$. These are identical within the errors to the results that followed from the fit to the WA102 data alone.

#### 3.1.2 Widths

Anisovich  has argued that a signature of a glueball driven mixing will be the presence of two states that are narrow and one that is broad. This result would arise if the flavour singlet channels that drive

the mixing, also dominate the physical hadron states (in which case the “octet” will be narrow due to decoupling, the “glue + singlet” enhanced by constructive interference while the “glue $``$ singlet” will be suppressed by destructive interference), but it is less clear in a dynamics such as we have considered here. The analyses of section 3 and 3.1 do have implications for the relative sizes of the total widths of the scalars for decays into pseudoscalar pairs. A consistency check on these results should take account of this; that is the purpose of this subsection.

The measured widths for the $`f_0(1370)`$, $`f_0(1500)`$ and $`f_0(1710)`$ are 272 $`\pm `$ 40 $`\pm `$30 MeV, 108 $`\pm `$ 14 $`\pm `$12 MeV and 124 $`\pm `$ 16 $`\pm `$18 MeV respectively . Based on the observed decay modes of these states  and taking into account the uncertainty in possible $`\rho \rho `$ modes, which would also imply the presence of $`\omega \omega `$ decay modes, the sums of the partial widths to pseudoscalar pairs are:

$$f_0(1370)=12\pm 5\mathrm{MeV};f_0(1500)=56\pm 8\mathrm{MeV};f_0(1710)=124{}_{50}{}^{+16}\mathrm{MeV}$$

If in addition to the analysis of section 3.1 we constrain the ratios of the observed total widths into pseudoscalar pairs, then we find an acceptable fit such that

$$\frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }(1710)}{\mathrm{\Gamma }(1370)}=7.1\pm 2.2;\frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }(1500)}{\mathrm{\Gamma }(1370)}=10.0\pm 3.0;\frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }(1710)}{\mathrm{\Gamma }(1500)}=0.7\pm 0.2$$

which are compatible with the empirical values above. Performing a fit to the measured branching fractions gives the parameters in table 1 and 3.

As can be seen, adding the constraint of the ratio of the total widths makes the $`M_N`$ and $`M_G`$ come very close together

$$M_G=1415\mathrm{MeV};M_S=1677\mathrm{MeV};M_N=1402\mathrm{MeV}$$

the mixed states are

$$\begin{array}{cccc}& f_{i1}^{(G)}& f_{i2}^{(S)}& f_{i3}^{(N)}\\ f_0(1710)& 0.35& 0.93& 0.13\\ f_0(1500)& 0.61& 0.29& 0.74\\ f_0(1370)& 0.76& 0.16& 0.63\end{array}$$
(15)
and the $`\chi ^2=10`$.

There is an immediate physical reason for the pattern that emerges in eq. (LABEL:eq:k), namely the proximity of $`m_Gm_N`$. In this case the parameters have the values $`\xi >1`$ whereas $`\xi \omega 1/3`$. Thus mixing in the $`GN`$ sector tends to be maximal (analogous to eq. (7) or eq. (9)) and the structure of the mixed states will tend towards

$$\begin{array}{cccc}& f_{i1}^{(G)}& f_{i2}^{(S)}& f_{i3}^{(N)}\\ f_0(1710)& O(\xi \omega )& 1& O(\sqrt{2}(\xi \omega )^2)\\ f_0(1500)& \sqrt{1/3}& O(\xi \omega )& \sqrt{2/3}\\ f_0(1370)& \sqrt{2/3}& O(\xi \omega )& \sqrt{1/3}\end{array}$$
(16)
This structure is common to eq. (LABEL:eq:k) and indeed all of the mixing patterns found throughout section 3.1 where the decay data constraints have been imposed. The central message of the decay data is that they prefer $`m_Gm_N`$. $`m_G`$ nonet with

### 3.2 Flavour dependent $`Gq\overline{q}`$

#### 3.2.1 $`m_G>m_S`$

Our analysis of decays has pointed towards a $`Gq\overline{q}`$ coupling that is approximately flavour independent, and a $`m_G<\frac{m_S+m_N}{2}`$. This is in contrast to the analysis in ref.  which preferred $`m_S>m_G`$. In this section we ask what flavour dependence of $`G`$ decays would be required for the latter solution to emerge.

If we write $`R\frac{\gamma (Gn\overline{n})}{\sqrt{2}\gamma (Gs\overline{s})}`$ then the reduced partial widths are given in table 9.

$`R1`$ recovers the previous formulae, and initially we set $`r_3=0`$ (i.e. consider only $`Gq\overline{q}`$ and ignore any possible additional direct coupling of $`G\eta ,\eta ^{}`$). Performing a fit to the measured branching fractions gives the parameters in table 10 and 11.

The best fit (table 10) has $`r_25.4`$ (which implies that the $`G`$ dominates the decays) and $`R0.67`$ (which implies that $`G`$ couples more strongly to $`s\overline{s}`$ than to $`n\overline{n}`$). This is what is required, at least within the decay dynamics that we have assumed in this paper, if the mass matrix solution of ref.  is to be consistent with the decay data. However, we note that the $`\chi ^2=80`$. The major mismatches between fit and data are driven by $`f_0(1710)\pi \pi /K\overline{K}`$; $`f_0(1710)\eta \eta ^{}/K\overline{K}`$ and some from $`f_0(1500)\eta \eta ^{}/\eta \eta `$. A challenge for future data will be to determine the accuracy of these critical branching ratios.

We have investigated whether these conclusions are radically altered if we allow $`r_3`$ to be free (i.e. allow additional direct coupling of $`G\eta \eta ^{}`$). These results also are given in tables 10 and 11. The $`\chi ^2`$ falls to 19 and is significantly driven by the $`K\overline{K}/\pi \pi `$ ratio being smaller (larger) than data for the $`f_0(1500)`$ ($`f_0(1370)`$) respectively. $`R0.5`$ which still implies a significant favouring of $`G`$ coupling to the heavier flavoured $`S`$ rather than $`N`$. With the advent of more powerful studies of QCD on the lattice, it will be interesting to see if such behaviour is realised. However, the $`\chi ^2`$ is much larger than the value of 5.4 that was found for the solution of table 1, eq. (LABEL:eq:j) and section 3.1.

#### 3.2.2 Light Glueball: $`m_G<m_N`$

In concluding our studies of flavour dependent $`G`$ couplings, we note that if we allow the bare masses to be free and keep $`r_3`$ = 0, then there exists a solution ($`\chi ^2=13`$) with $`R=1.4\pm 0.4`$, for which the mass of the bare glueball is $`m_G=1310\pm 14`$MeV . See tables 12 and 13. The mixing matrix has the generic structure exhibited in eq. (LABEL:eq:inflimit), modulated by the $`G,N`$ tending to settle into the $`f_0(1370)`$ and $`f_0(1500)`$ states. Explicitly it is

$$\begin{array}{cccc}& f_{i1}^{(G)}& f_{i2}^{(S)}& f_{i3}^{(N)}\\ f_0(1710)& 0.25& 0.96& 0.10\\ f_0(1500)& 0.37& 0.13& 0.92\\ f_0(1370)& 0.89& 0.14& 0.44\end{array}$$
(17)
We do not discuss this further here, other than to note that it implies that a light glueball may be compatible with data. Furthermore, it is tantalising that such a result could be in accord with Lattice QCD (see for example the results with coarse lattices in ref. ). If such a result should emerge from future studies of QCD with fine grain lattices and including mixing then a detailed analysis of the phenomenology along the lines we have instigated here would be most interesting. We leave this as a future challenge for Lattice QCD.

If we then allow $`r_3`$ to be a free parameter we get a $`\chi ^2`$ of 6.7. The results are given in tables 12 and 13. In this case $`M_G`$ is tending towards $`M_N`$ and the solution is similar to the one we obtain in tables 1 and 3. The mixing matrix naturally shows the form of eq. (LABEL:eq:inflimit).

We note that $`m_G1402`$ MeV is only slightly lower than $`m_N1446`$ MeV and the result is not dissimilar to that preferred in section 3.1. However, in both the cases $`m_G>m_S`$ and $`m_G<m_N`$ there is a clear omission, namely of mixing with nearest neighbour states above the glueball when $`m_G>m_S`$, (section 3.2.1), or below it when $`m_N<m_G`$, (section 3.2.2). Therefore, if $`m_G`$ should indeed turn out to be $`<m_N`$, further analysis should be required involving the $`f_0(980)`$ region, or the $`\pi \pi `$ $`S`$wave continuum below 1 GeV .

## 4 Result

Given the concerns expressed above about the $`m_G>m_S`$ and $`m_G<m_N`$ scenarios, it is the results of section 3.1 that are our preferred solution. With the hypotheses that the mixing describe the ratios of partial widths for each individual resonance and also among the resonances, we take into account the variability between WA102 data and world averages, and we allow for the uncertainties in flavour dependence of the glueball coupling. This gives our final result, based on eqs. (LABEL:eq:j, 14, LABEL:eq:k), as follows.

$$\begin{array}{cccc}& f_{i1}^{(G)}& f_{i2}^{(S)}& f_{i3}^{(N)}\\ f_0(1710)& 0.39\pm 0.03& 0.91\pm 0.02& 0.15\pm 0.02\\ f_0(1500)& 0.65\pm 0.04& 0.33\pm 0.04& 0.70\pm 0.07\\ f_0(1370)& 0.69\pm 0.07& 0.15\pm 0.01& 0.70\pm 0.07\end{array}$$
(18)
and for which $`m_G`$ = $`1443\pm 24`$ MeV, $`m_N`$ = $`1377\pm 20`$ MeV

and $`m_S`$ = $`1674\pm 10`$ MeV.

The specific numbers in the above matrix correlate with the specific values of $`m_{G,N,S}`$ but the generic structure shows the form of eq. (LABEL:eq:inflimit). Physically this reflects the dominant flavour-blind nature of the $`Gq\overline{q}`$ coupling, amplified by the proximity of $`m_Gm_N`$ whereas $`m_Gm_S`$. In the degenerate limit of $`m_Gm_N`$, the mixing would indeed tend towards that in eq. (LABEL:eq:inflimit).

## 5 Further Tests

### 5.1 $`\gamma \gamma `$ couplings

The most sensitive probe of flavours and phases is potentially in $`\gamma \gamma `$ couplings. The advantage is that $`\gamma \gamma `$ couple to the $`e^2`$ of the flavours in amplitude and so the net result is sensitive to the relative phases as well as the intensities. That this is a dominant dynamics is empirically well established for the $`2^{++}`$ and $`0^+`$ nonets; however it is moot whether it will in fact be so clean for the $`0^{++}`$. If it is dominant for this $`J^{PC}`$ also, then in the spirit of ref. , ignoring mass-dependent effects, the above imply

$`\mathrm{\Gamma }(f_0(1710)\gamma \gamma ):\mathrm{\Gamma }(f_0(1500)\gamma \gamma ):\mathrm{\Gamma }(f_0(1370)\gamma \gamma )=`$
$`(5z_1+\sqrt{2}y_1)^2:(5z_2+\sqrt{2}y_2)^2:(5z_3+\sqrt{2}y_3)^2`$ (19)
For the case of the flavour blind glueball given in section 3.1 we get two predictions for these relationships: one for the case when we do not add the total widths as a constraint and one when we do. We have averaged these two values and used their difference as a measure of the systematic error

$`\mathrm{\Gamma }^{\gamma \gamma }(f_0(1710):f_0(1500):f_0(1370))=4.1\pm 0.9\pm 0.3:9.7\pm 0.9\pm 2.0:14.6\pm 0.9\pm 2.0`$ (20)
The $`\gamma \gamma `$ width of $`f_0(1500)`$ exceeding that of $`f_0(1710)`$ arises because the glueball is nearer to the $`N`$ than the $`S`$. The pattern is radically different if nature chooses $`G`$ near to (or even above) the $`S`$, in which case the $`f_0(1500)`$ has the smallest $`\gamma \gamma `$ coupling of the three states . For example, in the case of flavour dependent mixing with $`M_G`$ $`>`$ $`M_S`$ (section 3.2.1) we find

$`\mathrm{\Gamma }^{\gamma \gamma }(f_0(1710):f_0(1500):f_0(1370))=6.4\pm 1.1:0.6\pm 0.2:23.8\pm 2.2`$ (21)
Contrast this with the case of flavour dependent mixing with $`M_G`$ $`<`$ $`M_N`$ (section 3.2.2) for which

$`\mathrm{\Gamma }^{\gamma \gamma }(f_0(1710):f_0(1500):f_0(1370))=3.2\pm 1.1:16.3\pm 1.8:9.0\pm 0.8`$ (22)
This shows how these $`\gamma \gamma `$ couplings have the potential to pin down the input pattern. However, we note a caution with regards to $`\gamma \gamma `$ couplings necessarily being the arbiter on $`Gq\overline{q}`$ wavefunctions in the $`0^{++}`$ partial waves. A problem here is that $`0^{++}`$ states decay to meson pairs in S-wave (this is kinematically forbidden for the low-lying $`0^+`$ or $`2^{++}`$ nonets) and so meson loops may be expected to intercede between the $`\gamma \gamma `$ and $`q\overline{q}`$ levels. Insights from $`\gamma \gamma f_0(980)/a_0(980)`$, from models and ultimately from lattice QCD will be needed to establish how clean in practice the $`\gamma \gamma `$ measurements can be in the $`0^{++}`$ sector.

### 5.2 Glue and Pomeron induced reactions: Central Production

Our preferred solutions have two further implications for the production of these states in $`p\overline{p}`$ annihilations, in central $`pp`$ collisions and in radiative $`J/\psi `$ decays that are in accord with data. These are interesting in that they are consequences of the output and were not used as constraints.

The production of the $`f_0`$ states in $`p\overline{p}\pi +f_0`$ is expected to be dominantly through the $`Nn\overline{n}`$ components of the $`f_0`$ state, possibly through $`G`$, but not prominently through the $`Ss\overline{s}`$ components. (The possible presence of hidden $`s\overline{s}`$ at threshold, noted by  is in general swamped by the above, and in any event appears unimportant in flight). The above mixing pattern implies that

$$\sigma (p\overline{p}\pi +f_0(1710))<\sigma (p\overline{p}\pi +f_0(1370))\sigma (p\overline{p}\pi +f_0(1500))$$
(23)
Experimentally  the relative production rates are,

$$p\overline{p}\pi +f_0(1370):\pi +f_0(1500))1:1.$$
(24)
and there is no evidence for the production of the $`f_0(1710)`$. This would be natural if the production were via the $`n\overline{n}`$ component. The actual magnitudes would however be model dependent; at this stage we merely note the consistency of the data with the results of the mixing analysis above.

For central production, the cross sections of well established quarkonia in WA102 suggest that the production of $`s\overline{s}`$ is strongly suppressed  relative to $`n\overline{n}`$. The relative cross sections for the three states of interest here are

$$pppp+(f_0(1710):f_0(1500):f_0(1370))0.14:1.7:1.$$
(25)
This would be natural if the production were via the $`N`$ and $`G`$ components in phase.

In addition, the WA102 collaboration has studied the production of these states as a function of the azimuthal angle $`\varphi `$, which is defined as the angle between the $`p_T`$ vectors of the two outgoing protons. An important qualitative characteristic of these data is that the $`f_0(1710)`$ and $`f_0(1500)`$ peak as $`\varphi 0`$ whereas the $`f_0(1370)`$ is more peaked as $`\varphi 180`$ . If the $`G`$ and $`N`$ components are produced coherently as $`\varphi 0`$ but out of phase as $`\varphi 180`$, then this pattern of $`\varphi `$ dependence and relative production rates would follow; however, the relative coherence of $`G`$ and $`N`$ requires a dynamical explanation. We do not have such an explanation and open this for debate.

In $`J/\psi `$ radiative decays, the absolute rates depend sensitively on the phases and relative strengths of the $`G`$ relative to the $`q\overline{q}`$ component, as well as the relative phase of $`n\overline{n}`$ and $`s\overline{s}`$ within the latter. The general pattern though is clear. Following the discussion in ref.  we expect that the coupling to $`G`$ will be large; coupling to $`q\overline{q}`$ with “octet tendency” will be suppressed; coupling to $`q\overline{q}`$ with “singlet tendency” will be intermediate. Hence the rate for $`f_0(1370)`$ will be smallest as the $`G`$ interferes destructively against the $`q\overline{q}`$ with “singlet tendency”. Conversely, the $`f_0(1710)`$ is enhanced by their constructive interference. The $`f_0(1500)`$ contains $`q\overline{q}`$ with “octet tendency” and its production will be driven dominantly by its $`G`$ content. If the $`G`$ mass is nearer to the $`N`$ than to the $`S`$, as our results suggest, the $`G`$ component in $`f_0(1500)`$ is large and causes the $`J/\psi \gamma f_0(1500)`$ rate to be comparable to $`J/\psi \gamma f_0(1710)`$.

In ref. , the branching ratio of BR$`(J/\psi \gamma f_0)(f_0\pi \pi +K\overline{K})`$ for the $`f_0(1500)`$ and $`f_0(1710)`$ is presented. Using the WA102 measured branching fractions  for these resonances and assuming that all major decay modes have been observed, the total relative production rates in radiative $`J/\psi `$ decays can be calculated to be:

$$J/\psi f_0(1500):J/\psi f_0(1710)=1.0:1.1\pm 0.4$$
(26)
which is consistent with the prediction above based on our mixed state solution.

In these mixed state solutions, both the $`f_0(1500)`$ and $`f_0(1710)`$ have $`N`$ and $`S`$ contributions and so it would be expected that both would be produced in $`\pi ^{}p`$ and $`K^{}p`$ interactions. The $`f_0(1500)`$ has clearly been observed in $`\pi ^{}p`$ interactions: it was first observed in the $`\eta \eta `$ final state, although at that time it was referred to as the $`G(1590)`$ . There is also evidence for the production of the $`f_0(1500)`$ in $`K^{}pK_S^0K_S^0\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ . The signal is much weaker compared to the well known $`s\overline{s}`$ state the $`f_2^{}(1525)`$, as expected with our preferred mixings in eq. 18 and the suppressed $`K\overline{K}`$ decay associated with the destructive $`n\overline{n}s\overline{s}`$ phase in the wavefunction.

There is evidence for the $`f_0(1710)`$ in the reaction $`\pi ^{}pK_S^0K_S^0n`$, originally called the $`S^{}(1720)`$ . One of the longstanding problems of the $`f_0(1710)`$ is that in-spite of its dominant $`K\overline{K}`$ decay mode it was not observed in $`K^{}p`$ experiments . However, these concerns were based on the fact that initially the $`f_0(1710)`$ had $`J`$ = 2. In fact, in ref.  it was demonstrated that if the $`f_0(1710)`$ had $`J`$ = 0, as it has now been found to have, then the contribution in $`\pi ^{}p`$ and $`K^{}p`$ are compatible. One word of caution should be given here: the analysis in ref.  was performed with a $`f_0(1400)`$ rather than the $`f_0(1500)`$ as we know it today. As a further test of our solution, it would be nice to see the analysis of ref.  repeated with the mass and width of the $`f_0(1500)`$ and the decay parameters of the $`f_0(1710)`$ determined by the WA102 experiment.

## 6 Conclusions

We took as our guide the prediction of Lattice-QCD that, in the quenched approximation, $`m_G(0^{++})1.5`$ GeV, and we explored the implications of the hypothesis that this glueball mixes with its nearest $`q\overline{q}`$ neighbours. This led us naturally to focus on the physical states the $`f_0(1370),f_0(1500)`$ and $`f_0(1710)`$. This has been the philosophy behind several recent analyses, which appear different in detail at first sight, but which turn out to have certain robust common features. We have abstracted these and specified the critical data that are now required to make further progress.

The first studies of mixing were based on the mass matrix and the assumption that the glueball-$`q\overline{q}`$ mixing is dominantly singlet in character. The resulting output of two states that have constructive interference “singlet tendency” and one that has destructive “octet tendency” is then general. This can be seen as a common feature of .

The absolute values of the flavour content are correlated with the assumed masses of the bare glueball and quarkonium states. Weingarten’s initial work on the lattice assumed that the glueball was higher in mass than the $`s\overline{s}`$ member of the nonet; this led to a large glueball component in the heaviest state, the $`f_0(1710)`$ \- eq. (5) and a large $`s\overline{s}`$ content for the $`f_0(1500)`$. Close and Amsler in contrast assumed that the glueball was initially at a mass spanned by the nonet. This led to a different apportioning of the glue among the states, eq. (6), in particular the $`G`$ and $`s\overline{s}`$ have similar intensities in $`f_0(1500)`$ and $`f_0(1710)`$.

Subsequent work has also considered the decays into pseudoscalar pairs. The qualitative features of the mixing are preserved, essentially due to the assumed singlet dominance of the (glueball) mixing. A general feature of these later works has been the assumption that the glueball component of the wavefunctions has flavour independent couplings; any deviation from this in the decays of the physical states is then due to the glueball-flavour mixed eigenstates.

A common feature of the various solutions in eqs. (5,6,LABEL:eq:j) and (LABEL:eq:k) is

(1) the $`f_0(1370)`$ has large $`n\overline{n}`$, small $`s\overline{s}`$ and significant $`G`$ content

(2) the $`f_0(1710)`$ has a large $`s\overline{s}`$ content in all except Weingarten (eq. (5)) whose solution instead has a large $`G`$

(3) $`f_0(1500)`$,as the central member of the trio, has $`s\overline{s}`$ and $`n\overline{n}`$ out of phase.

The decay analyses, eqs. (LABEL:eq:j) and (LABEL:eq:k) do show a systematic shift relative to the original mass matrix analyses, eqs. (5) and (6). This appears in two noticeable ways:

(1) The decay analyses want more $`S`$ in the $`f_0(1700)`$ and more $`G`$ in the $`f_0(1370)`$. This is correlated to them wanting a rather light $`G`$ mass, whereby the $`G`$ mixes primarily with $`N`$, leaving the “distant” $`f_0(1700)`$ as $`S`$ in leading order with a 10-20 % $`G`$ intensity.

(2) A corollary is that the $`S`$ content of the $`f_0(1500)`$ tends to be driven smaller by the decay analyses. This is in marked contrast to Weingarten where the $`S`$ content of the $`f_0(1500)`$ dominates, driven by the nearness of $`M_{s\overline{s}}`$ to the physical eigenstate in his solution.

Therefore, if the $`G`$ decay is intrinsically flavour-blind, the results of the decay analyses would imply that the $`G`$ is rather light, nearer to the $`N`$ than to the $`S`$. This is radically different to Weingarten’s assumption that $`m_G>m_S>m_N`$. The latter requires, within the assumptions of our analysis, that $`G`$ couples to $`S`$ more strongly than to $`N`$, and also that the coupling of $`G`$ meson pairs is stronger than $`Q\overline{Q}`$ to the same meson pairs. This latter result appears unnatural to us. It will be a challenge to lattice QCD to study these couplings to see if there is any sign of such unexpected behaviour. In the absence of such an anomaly, we anticipate that the likely inference of this analysis is that $`G`$ is rather light, nearer to $`N`$ than to $`S`$.

With the hypotheses that the mixing describe the ratios of partial widths for each individual resonance and also among the resonances, allowing for variability between WA102 data and world averages, and allowing for the uncertainties in flavour dependence of the glueball coupling, the results of section 3 lead us to the following summary for the favoured result:

$$\begin{array}{cccc}& f_{i1}^{(G)}& f_{i2}^{(S)}& f_{i3}^{(N)}\\ f_0(1710)& 0.39\pm 0.03& 0.91\pm 0.02& 0.15\pm 0.02\\ f_0(1500)& 0.65\pm 0.04& 0.33\pm 0.04& 0.70\pm 0.07\\ f_0(1370)& 0.69\pm 0.07& 0.15\pm 0.01& 0.70\pm 0.07\end{array}$$
(27)
for which $`m_G=1443\pm 24`$ MeV, $`m_N=1377\pm 20`$ MeV and $`m_S=1674\pm 10`$ MeV.

We make two further comments about this result.

(i) In the quenched approximation one would expect an $`a_0`$ state that is mass degenerate with the $`N`$ state before any mixing. Hence we would expect the $`a_0`$ to be in this region of $`13501400`$ MeV. The existence and mass of any $`a_0`$ other than the $`a_0(980)`$ is still controversial and we advertise this as an important datum that could further constrain analyses such as those we have made in this paper. The presence or absence of an $`a_0`$ in the mass region favoured by us could have implications for the interpretation of the $`a_0(980)`$ and $`f_0(980)`$ states. Establishing the status of $`a_0(1400)`$ should be a high priority in the quest to understand the nature of the $`0^{++}`$ mesons.

(ii) We also note that our result that $`m_Sm_N300`$ MeV is consistent with what one would expect from $`f_2(1525)f_2(1270)`$ or, equivalently, the naive accounting of masses for constituent quarks where $`2m_s2m_n0.3`$ GeV.

In summary, based on the hypothesis that the scalar glueball mixes with the nearby $`q\overline{q}`$ nonet states, we have determined the flavour content of the $`f_0(1370),f_0(1500)`$ and $`f_0(1710)`$ by studying their decays into all pseudoscalar meson pairs. It suggests that the $`m_G`$ is relatively light, nearer in mass to $`m_N`$ than $`m_S`$. The solution we have found is also compatible with the relative production strengths of the $`f_0(1370),f_0(1500)`$ and $`f_0(1710)`$ in $`pp`$ central production, $`p\overline{p}`$ annihilations and $`J/\psi `$ radiative decays.

Acknowledgements

We are indebted to C. Michael and M. Teper for discussions on glueballs and mixing in lattice QCD. This work is supported, in part, by grants from the British Particle Physics and Astronomy Research Council, the British Royal Society, and the European Community Human Mobility Program Eurodafne, contract NCT98-0169.

Figures

Figure 1

Figure 2

Figure 3

Figure 4


text:
# Crossover from Quarter-Filling to Half-Filling in a One-Dimensional Electron System with a Dimerized and Quarter-Filled Band**footnote *submitted to J. Phys. Soc. Jpn.

## Acknowledgements

The authors would like to thank E. Orignac for discussion on the resistivity and also H. Seo for useful comments.


text:
# Collective Rabi Oscillations and Cold Collisions.

## Abstract

We examine cold atomic collisions within a resonant optical cavity. The quantized cavity mode can be used to manipulate the collisions between the cold atoms, such that periodic exchange of excitations between the atoms and the electromagnetic field strongly alters the collision dynamics. A colliding pair of atoms can thereby oscillate between its ground and excited states during the collision time. Using a semiclassical model, it can be predicted that such Rabi-like oscillations are revealed in the atomic trap-loss probabilities, which show maxima and minima as a function of the detuning between the frequencies of the mode and the atomic transition.

Exchange of excitations between the energy levels of atoms or molecules and the quantum electromagnetic field  is one basic interaction process between matter and light. In this context, the Jaynes-Cummings model , describing a single two-level system and a monochromatic lossless field, reveals several characteristics of this interaction. In the quantum Rabi oscillation , in particular, a single energy quantum is periodically exchanged between system and field. On the other hand, when several atoms or molecules interact with the same field, quantum coherence can build among them leading to well known collective behaviors, such as superradiance , for which multiparticle entanglement plays a major role. It should be noticed, however, that the systems with which the field interacts need not be solely composed of stable atoms or molecules. The above characteristics of the matter-field interaction can be present as well when two cold atoms collide in presence of a quantum field. An additional effect is that the very dynamics of the cold atomic collision  can be strongly modified by this field. Indeed, pairs of colliding atoms so far apart from each other that their direct mutual interaction is negligible, can be entangled by the field and, thereby, influence one another in a nonlocal way. In the following we study cold atomic collisions within a gas of cold atoms trapped in the center of a high-$`Q`$ cavity. It is possible to show that an analogous collective Rabi oscillation can show up in the trap-loss probabilities as a function of the detuning between the cavity mode frequency and the atomic resonance.

The internuclear potential energy of two colliding atoms depends on the electronic states. In particular, the inverse-cube law dipole-dipole potential $`\pm 1/R^3`$ between alkali neutral atoms, separated by a distance $`R`$, predominates when the asymptotic atomic states involved are $`nS_{1/2}`$ and $`nP_{1/2}`$ (Fig. 1). When the collision is slow , the atoms can undergo changes in their electronic states during the collision, either as spontaneous decay or induced transitions. In a previous work , it was examined how cold collisions can be manipulated as spontaneous decay is driven by the colored vacuum of a cavity. The highly increased emission rate of multiply entangled pairs being able to emit coherently to the same cavity mode was then predicted to practically interrupt the collision process. In the present case, we neglect the cavity loss (high-$`Q`$) and allow reabsortions of the field energy. We study how these induced transitions affect cold collisions. Cavity Quantum Electrodynamics (CQED) effects on atomic motion in high-$`Q`$ cavities have been investigated recently. Modifications of mechanical forces of light acting on atoms , or appearance of new quasi-bound molecular states of two colliding atoms  illustrate the interplay between CQED and cold atoms.

A pair of colliding atoms under the attractive potential $`U(R)=C_3/R^3`$, with $`C_3`$ a constant, is described as in  by a two-level system. Its energy splitting $`\mathrm{}\omega _R=\mathrm{}\omega _A+U(R)`$ depends on the internuclear distance $`R`$ and approaches the atomic energy difference $`\mathrm{}\omega _A`$ between $`nS_{1/2}`$ and $`nP_{1/2}`$ as $`R\mathrm{}`$. In this asymptotic limit, the excited state of the pair denoted by $`|e`$ correlates to $`nS_{1/2}+nP_{1/2}`$, whereas the ground state denoted by $`|g`$ correlates to $`nS_{1/2}+nS_{1/2}`$ and the van der Waals potential in this latter case is neglected. Since the atoms are weakly bound by $`U(R)`$ in $`|e`$ we call them quasimolecules, extrapolating this denomination to $`|g`$ as well. The formation of this quasimolecule occurs at the Condon point $`R_C`$, the distance at which $`\omega _R`$ becomes resonant with an excitation laser of frequency $`\omega _L<\omega _A`$. The nuclei may then attract each other starting from $`R_C`$. An eventual spontaneous decay from $`|e`$ to $`|g`$ releases a kinetic energy $`\mathrm{\Delta }K=\mathrm{}\omega _L\mathrm{}\omega _\gamma `$ (see Fig 1). If $`\mathrm{\Delta }K`$ is more than twice the trap depth $`V_0`$, i.e., if the decay occurs below $`R_e`$, the pair is ejected from the trap in the so-called radiative escape collision . This two-level approximation neglects hyperfine splittings of the atomic fine structure and possible (anti) crossings of potential curves, whereas the nuclear motion is treated semiclassically. Nevertheless, this turns out to be reliable for a satisfactory description of cold collisions in the case of 85Rb, a range of hundreds of MHz for the detuning $`\delta =\omega _L\omega _A`$, and a weak excitation laser intensity . Trapping the atoms in their ground state, e.g. with a far off-resonance trap (FORT) , is most suited since optical pumping effects by the trapping light can be avoided; ejected atoms can then be controlled more efficiently by a separate excitation light field.

For a high-$`Q`$ cavity, the main difference with our previous work  is the exchange of excitations between the cavity mode and the quasimolecules. A set of $`N`$ identical quasimolecules is described by

$$H_m=\frac{\mathrm{}\omega _R}{2}\underset{i=1}{\overset{N}{}}(\sigma _{zi}+1),$$
(1)
where each $`\sigma _{zi}`$ is a Pauli spin matrix. Due to the nuclear motion, $`\omega _R`$ becomes formally time dependent since $`R`$ may change with time. The actual value of $`N`$ depends on the detuning $`\delta `$, the total number $`N_A`$ of atoms and their density $`n_A`$. The hamiltonian of the quantized field of the cavity mode is in turn given by

$$H_c=\mathrm{}\omega _ca^{}a,$$
(2)
where $`\omega _c`$ is the cavity resonance frequency and $`a^{}`$ ($`a`$), the bosonic creation (annihilation) operator of the field. The interaction hamiltonian in the rotating-wave approximation is

$$H_{int}=\underset{i=1}{\overset{N}{}}\left(\frac{\mathrm{}\mathrm{\Omega }_i}{2}a^{}\sigma _i+\frac{\mathrm{}\mathrm{\Omega }_i^{}}{2}a\sigma _i^{}\right).$$
(3)
Here, the Pauli matrices $`\sigma _i^{}`$ and $`\sigma _i`$ are raising and lowering operators, respectively, acting on $`|e`$ and $`|g`$ of the i-th quasimolecule. The individual Rabi frequencies

$$\mathrm{\Omega }_i=2(\omega _c)f_c(𝐫_i)\mathit{ϵ}𝐝_i/\mathrm{}$$
(4)
depend on the field strength per photon $`(\omega )=(2\pi \mathrm{}\omega /V)^{1/2}`$ ($`V`$ being the mode volume), polarization $`\mathit{ϵ}`$, mode profile $`f_c(𝐫)`$, and the molecular dipole moment $`𝐝_i`$ of the transition $`|g|e`$ (whose absolute value $`|𝐝_i|=\sqrt{2}|𝐝_A|`$, $`𝐝_A`$ being the atomic dipole moment of $`nS_{1/2}nP_{1/2}`$).

If the excitation laser beam is normal to the cavity axis, the quasimolecules are excited independently from each other since the wavelength $`2\pi c/\omega _R`$ is in the optical domain and is much shorter than the average separation between quasimolecules . This corresponds, for each quasimolecule, to a no-cavity condition since, in the optical domain and for alkalis, typically $`\mathrm{\Omega }_i\mathrm{\Gamma }`$, where $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ is the spontaneous decay rate of state $`|e`$ . In contrast, using for the excitation the quantized mode of the cavity by injecting the laser through the cavity axis (with $`\omega _L=\omega _c`$), the quasimolecules become indistinguishable to the mode $`a^{}a`$ and all of them have a quantum probability amplitude to be excited. They therefore end up in a multiparticle entangled excited state. Considering only one excitation, it follows from $`H_{int}`$ that this state is $`|E,0=_i\mathrm{\Omega }_i|i,0/\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Omega }}`$, where $`|1,0|eg\mathrm{}g|0,|2,0|ge\mathrm{}g,|0`$ and so forth, with energy $`E_e(R)=\mathrm{}\omega _R`$. It couples to the ground state $`|G,1|g\mathrm{}g|1`$, with energy $`E_0=\mathrm{}\omega _c`$ of one field excitation in the mode and all quasimolecules in their ground state $`|g`$, by a coupling constant

$$\mathrm{}\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Omega }}=(\underset{i}{}|\mathrm{}\mathrm{\Omega }_i|^2)^{1/2}.$$
(5)
These two states form a closed subspace for the total hamiltonian

$$H=H_m+H_c+H_{int}.$$
(6)
It may be asked whether the evolution of the states $`|E,0`$ and $`|G,1`$ under this hamiltonian starts immediately after one excitation is injected into the cavity mode. Consider the case of one single pair of free atoms approaching each other in the state $`|g`$ (asymptotic to $`S_{1/2}+S_{1/2}`$). In the presence of a light field, the pair may adiabatically pass from $`|g`$ to $`|e`$. If a Landau-Zener approximation  holds, the probability for this to occur is $`1e^{2\pi \mathrm{\Delta }}`$, where $`\mathrm{\Delta }=\mathrm{}\mathrm{\Omega }^2/v_{\mathrm{}}|U^{}(R_C)|`$, $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ being the coupling (Rabi frequency) between $`|g`$ and $`|e`$, and $`v_{\mathrm{}}`$, the asymptotic relative velocity. This approximation is satisfactory for detunings $`|\delta |10\mathrm{\Gamma }_A`$ and small intensity $`\mathrm{\Omega }^2`$ . Analogously, the probability $`P_E`$ to excite the collective state $`|E,0`$ from $`|G,1`$ may be estimated by

$$P_E=1e^{2\pi \stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Delta }}},\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Delta }}=\frac{\mathrm{}\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Omega }}^2}{v_{\mathrm{}}|U^{}(R_C)|},$$
(7)
where the collective coupling $`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Omega }}`$ replaces $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$. Since $`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Omega }}>\mathrm{\Omega }`$, an immediate consequence of the cavity mode is to increase the excitation probability. Once $`|E,0`$ is formed, the quasimolecules’ evolution is then governed by Eq.(6). Actually, we use a large value for $`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Omega }}`$ and the Landau-Zener approximation may fail . Nevertheless, with equal fractions of excited quasimolecules in both situations with and without cavity, the excitation probability can be factored out. Therefore, only the trap loss probability that an excited quasimolecule, either in the collective state or in $`|e`$, is ejected from the trap becomes significant.

The most notable feature arises as time goes on. One expects a Rabi oscillation between $`|E,0`$ and $`|G,1`$ as the excitation is exchanged between the quasimolecules and the cavity mode. This implies that the quasimolecules switch between $`|e`$ and $`|g`$ at the collective rate $`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Omega }}`$, altering completely the collisional encounter compared to how it would proceed without the quantum field; and the larger the number of quasimolecules $`N`$, the faster such oscillation will be , since $`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Omega }}`$ scales with $`\sqrt{N}`$. This oscillation looses strength as $`\omega _R`$ detunes gradually from $`\omega _c`$. When $`|\omega _R\omega _c|\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Omega }}`$, we may neglect $`H_{int}`$ and let the quasimolecules evolve freely, subject at most to spontaneous decay. It is interesting to mention here that the resonance condition is determined by $`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Omega }}`$ instead of the cavity (or molecular) linewidth. This is analogous to a power broadening effect, even though we consider a single excitation in the cavity: the “power” here is increased via an increase of the collective dipole. If there is a probability that the quasimolecules remain excited on entering the off-resonance region $`R<R^{}`$, determined by

$$\omega _{R_C}\omega _R^{}\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Omega }},$$
(8)
they may reach $`R<R_e`$ where spontaneous decay of $`|E,0`$ ejects a pair from the trap. In contrast, if the interaction time is such that the quasimolecules leave the resonant region $`R^{}<R<R_C`$ in the ground state $`|G,1`$ (having thus undergone a so-called $`\pi `$-pulse), practically no trap loss will be recorded at all. From the dependence of this interaction time on the detuning $`\delta `$, we deduce in the following an expression for the trap-loss probability as a means to observe and measure this collective Rabi oscillation of colliding cold atoms as a function of $`\delta `$.

If $`t_c2\pi /\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Omega }}`$ is the interaction time spent in the resonance region $`R^{}<R<R_C`$, we keep the resonance condition $`\omega _R\omega _c`$, since $`|\omega _R\omega _c|t_c\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Omega }}\times 2\pi /\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Omega }}2\pi `$ completes at most a single cycle. Analogously, the time variation of $`\dot{\omega }_R0`$ is neglected: the phase $`\theta (t_c)_0^{t_c}𝑑\tau |\dot{\omega _R}|\tau `$ that such time dependence would introduce to the dynamics is at most of order $`2\pi `$ if we use that $`t_c2\pi /\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Omega }}`$ and $`|\mathrm{\Delta }\omega _R|\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Omega }}`$. A full solution is possible, but this suffices for our purposes, limiting us, however, to few oscillations. The spontaneous decay rate of the state $`|e`$ is $`\mathrm{\Gamma }=2\mathrm{\Gamma }_A`$, where $`1/\mathrm{\Gamma }_A`$ is the lifetime of the atomic state $`nP_{1/2}`$ , and retardation effects can be neglected ($`R`$ is safely smaller than $`2\pi c/\omega _R`$). Since the cavity mode solid angle is small, the rate of emission into the rest of free space is nearly $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$. For the quasimolecules and the cavity mode, the Liouville-von Neumann equation with dissipation is

$$\dot{\rho }=\frac{1}{i\mathrm{}}[H,\rho ]+\underset{i=1}{\overset{N}{}}\frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }}{2}(2\sigma _i\rho \sigma _i^{}\sigma _i^{}\sigma _i\rho \rho \sigma _i^{}\sigma _i),$$
(9)
where the cavity dissipation is neglected. The dissipator in this equation assumes an incoherent decay of each quasimolecule independently from each other, since the emitted wavelength is shorter than the average separation of quasimolecules . When the emission is towards the cavity mode, in contrast, a collective effect in the quasimolecules’ emission is fully contained in the interaction with the field.

For the initial condition $`\rho (0)=|E,0E,0|`$, we calculate the probability

$$p_E(t)=\mathrm{tr}[|E,0E,0|\rho (t)]$$
(10)
that the system remains in the state $`|E,0`$ after a time interval $`t`$. The solution can be found by enlarging the subspace spanned by $`|E,0`$ and $`|G,1`$ to include the vacuum state $`|V|G,0|gg\mathrm{}g|0`$ to which the system evolves due to dissipation. In the interaction representation, one has

$`\rho _I(t)`$ $`=`$ $`e^{i(H_m+H_c)t/\mathrm{}}\rho (t)e^{i(H_m+H_c)t/\mathrm{}}`$ (11)
$`=`$ $`p_E|E,0E,0|+p_G|G,1G,1|+p_V|G,0G,0|`$ (14)
$`+(c_{EG}|E,0G,1|+c_{EV}|E,0G,0|`$
$`+c_{GV}|G,1G,0|+\mathrm{adj}.).`$
The time-dependent probabilities $`p_E`$, $`p_G`$, and $`p_V`$, and the coherences $`c_{EG}`$, $`c_{EV}`$, and $`c_{GV}`$ are found by substitution of $`\rho _I(t)`$ into the interaction representation of the Liouville-von Neumann equation and projecting into each component of $`\rho _I(t)`$. The damping terms generate no new state and we get for the $`p`$’s

$`\dot{p}_E`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{\Gamma }p_E+i\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Omega }}(c_{EG}c_{EG}^{}),`$ (15)
$`\dot{p}_G`$ $`=`$ $`i\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Omega }}(c_{EG}c_{EG}^{}),`$ (16)
$`\dot{p}_V`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{\Gamma }p_E,`$ (17)
and for the $`c`$’s

$`\dot{c}_{EG}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }}{2}}c_{EG}+i\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Omega }}(p_Ep_G),`$ (18)
$`\dot{c}_{EV}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }}{2}}c_{EV}i\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Omega }}c_{GV},`$ (19)
$`\dot{c}_{GV}`$ $`=`$ $`i\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Omega }}c_{EV}.`$ (20)
From the last two equations, it follows that $`c_{EV}(t)=c_{GV}(t)=0`$ if this holds initially. From Eq.(15), Eq.(16), and Eq.(18), $`p_E(t)`$ can be solved straightforwardly. Since $`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Omega }}>\mathrm{\Gamma }/4`$ (condition for Rabi oscillations) is supposed to be fulfilled with the parameters we adopt, the solution is the underdamped one

$$p_\mathrm{\Omega }(t)p_E(t)=e^{\mathrm{\Gamma }t/2}\left(\mathrm{cos}\beta t\frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }}{4\beta }\mathrm{sin}\beta t\right)^2,$$
(21)
where

$$\beta \sqrt{\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Omega }}^2(\mathrm{\Gamma }/4)^2},\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Omega }}>\mathrm{\Gamma }/4.$$
(22)
As already mentioned, this solution is to be applied so long as the resonance condition $`|\omega _R\omega _c|\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Omega }}`$ holds, that is, as the quasimolecules-field interaction is significant. For $`|\omega _R\omega _c|\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Omega }}`$, on the other hand, we neglect this interaction. The solution then is formally equivalent to taking the limit $`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Omega }}0`$ in the overdamped regime, which follows from Eq.(21) by substituting $`i|\beta |`$ for $`\beta `$ (i.e., solving Eq.(9) without $`H_{int}`$),

$$p_E(t)e^{\mathrm{\Gamma }t},|\omega _R\omega _c|\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Omega }}.$$
(23)
As expected, this equation implies the value $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ for the decay rate of the collective state $`|E,0`$, the same as the molecular value for $`|e`$. This can be derived directly from a perturbation calculation à la Fermi’s golden rule by coupling the quasimolecules to all the electromagnetic vacuum modes except the cavity mode $`\omega _c`$, whose small solid-angle is neglected. It reflects the fact that the average separation between quasimolecules is larger than the wavelength of the emitted radiation, and the indistinguishability of which quasimolecule emits into free space can no longer hold .

We need $`p_\mathrm{\Omega }`$ to obtain the probability that one pair of atoms is ejected from the trap after excitation by the cavity mode. The transition from $`|E,0`$ to $`|G,1`$ should then occur for $`R<R_e`$. In the first passage in this region, the probability $`l_1`$ that a pair of atoms from any one of the $`N`$ quasimolecules is ejected is constructed as

$`l_1`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{i=1}{\overset{N}{}}}\left|{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Omega }_i}{\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Omega }}}}\right|^2p_\mathrm{\Omega }(t_c)e^{t^{}\mathrm{\Gamma }}(1e^{2t_e\mathrm{\Gamma }})`$ (24)
$`=`$ $`p_\mathrm{\Omega }(t_c)e^{t^{}\mathrm{\Gamma }}(1e^{2t_e\mathrm{\Gamma }}),`$ (25)
where $`t_e`$ ($`t^{}`$, or $`t_c`$) is the time interval spent between $`R=0`$ and $`R_e`$ ($`R_e`$ and $`R^{}`$, or $`R^{}`$ and $`R_C`$). This $`l_1`$ is thus a sum of products of conditional probabilities , which in our case involve Eq.(21) and Eq.(23). Now, by letting $`R`$ evolve further, the quasimolecules can vibrate between $`R_C`$ and $`R=0`$ before emission takes place, that is, they may pass several times across $`R_e`$ while still in $`|E,0`$. Summing over these multiple passages  and composing them with conditional probabilities, the probability $`_c`$ for a pair of atoms to be ejected at any time is then

$`_c`$ $`=`$ $`l_1+l_2+l_3+\mathrm{}`$ (26)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{i=1}{\overset{N}{}}}|{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Omega }_i}{\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Omega }}}}|^2\{p_\mathrm{\Omega }(t_c)e^{t^{}\mathrm{\Gamma }}(1e^{2t_e\mathrm{\Gamma }})`$ (30)
$`+p_\mathrm{\Omega }(t_c)\left[e^{2(t^{}+t_e)\mathrm{\Gamma }}p_\mathrm{\Omega }(2t_c)\right]e^{t^{}\mathrm{\Gamma }}(1e^{2t_e\mathrm{\Gamma }})`$
$`+p_\mathrm{\Omega }(t_c)\left[e^{2(t^{}+t_e)\mathrm{\Gamma }}p_\mathrm{\Omega }(2t_c)\right]^2e^{t^{}\mathrm{\Gamma }}(1e^{2t_e\mathrm{\Gamma }})`$
$`+\mathrm{}\}`$
$`=`$ $`p_\mathrm{\Omega }(t_c){\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{sinh}(\mathrm{\Gamma }t_e)}{\frac{1}{2}\left[e^{(t^{}+t_e)\mathrm{\Gamma }}p_\mathrm{\Omega }(2t_c)e^{(t^{}+t_e)\mathrm{\Gamma }}\right]}}.`$ (31)
As in Eq.(24), the summation over the $`N`$ quasimolecules is factored since the multiple passages probabilities $`l_n`$ are the same for each quasimolecule. In $`l_n`$, $`p_\mathrm{\Omega }(t_c)`$ is the probability that a quasimolecule exits the region $`R^{}<R<R_C`$ in the excited state $`|e`$ after having been excited at $`R_C`$, whereas $`p_\mathrm{\Omega }(2t_c)`$ gives the probability of crossing $`R^{}`$ in $`|e`$ from the right after having crossed it from the left in $`|e`$.

The dependence of $`_c`$ on the collective Rabi frequency $`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Omega }}`$ can be observed formally by changing the interaction time $`t_c`$ and thus making $`p_\mathrm{\Omega }`$ oscillate. This time interval in turn is a function of the detuning $`\delta =\omega _c\omega _A`$ and can be obtained by integration of the energy conservation condition

$$\frac{\mu \dot{R}^2}{2}+U(R)=\mathrm{const}..$$
(32)
Indeed, choosing $`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Omega }}`$ such that $`t^{}0`$ (i.e., $`R^{}R_e`$, see Eq.(8)), we have $`\mathrm{}\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Omega }}=2V_0`$ (emission on resonance with the cavity will not lead to trap-loss) and neglecting the initial velocity $`\dot{R}`$ at $`R=R_C`$, it follows from Eq.(32)

$`t_c`$ $`=`$ $`t_0(\delta )f(\delta ),(t^{}0,R^{}R_e)`$ (33)
$`t_e`$ $`=`$ $`t_0(\delta )[1f(\delta )],`$ (34)
where $`t_0=t_c+t_e`$ is the total time interval between $`R_C`$ and $`R=0`$, and $`f(\delta )`$ is the fraction of $`t_0`$ spent between $`R_C`$ and $`R_e`$,

$`t_0(\delta )`$ $`=`$ $`g_0\left({\displaystyle \frac{\mu }{2C_3}}\right)^{1/2}\left({\displaystyle \frac{C_3}{\mathrm{}|\delta |}}\right)^{5/6},`$ (35)
$`f(\delta )`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{g_0}}{\displaystyle _r^1}𝑑u{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{u^31}}},r{\displaystyle \frac{R_e}{R_C}}=\left(1+{\displaystyle \frac{\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Omega }}}{|\delta |}}\right)^{1/3},`$ (36)
$`g_0=0.746`$ normalizing $`f(0)`$ to unity. A slight complication is the dependence of $`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Omega }}`$ on $`\delta `$ as well via the total number $`N=N(\delta )`$ of quasimolecules, so that $`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Omega }}`$ changes as $`t_c(\delta )`$ is changed. In order to obtain $`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Omega }}=\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Omega }}(\delta )`$, we approximate for large $`N`$ the summation in Eq.(5) by an average ($`𝐞_i`$ being the orientation of $`𝐝_i`$, and $`d`$ its modulus)

$`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Omega }}^2`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{i}{}}|\mathrm{\Omega }_i|^2`$ (37)
$`=`$ $`N{\displaystyle \frac{^2d^2}{\mathrm{}^2}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{1}{N}}{\displaystyle \underset{i}{}}|f_c(𝐫_i)|^2|\mathit{ϵ}𝐞_i|^2\right)`$ (38)
$``$ $`N{\displaystyle \frac{^2d^2}{\mathrm{}^2}}|f_c(𝐫_i)|^2|\mathit{ϵ}𝐞_i|^2`$ (39)
$``$ $`N{\displaystyle \frac{^2d^2}{6\mathrm{}^2}}N\mathrm{\Omega }^2,`$ (40)
with $`|f_c(𝐫_i)|\mathrm{cos}(z_ik_c)`$ ($`z`$ along the cavity axis and $`k_c=\omega _c/c`$) and $`𝐞_i`$ being randomly oriented, and $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ denoting an (averaged) single quasimolecule Rabi frequency. The total number $`N`$ can be estimated by counting all pairs of atoms whose separation $`R`$ is such that $`\omega _R=\omega _c`$, with a spread $`\mathrm{\Delta }R`$ about the Condon Point $`R_C`$ determined by the linewidth $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ of the state $`|e`$, namely,

$`N`$ $``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}N_An_A\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}4}\pi R_C^2\mathrm{\Delta }R`$ (41)
$``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}N_An_A\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}4}\pi R_C^2{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }}{|d\omega _R/dR|_{R_C}}}`$ (42)
$``$ $`N_An_A{\displaystyle \frac{2\pi C_3}{3\mathrm{}\mathrm{\Gamma }}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }}{\delta }}\right)^2,`$ (43)
having used that $`C_3/R_C^3=\mathrm{}|\delta |`$.

For the sake of comparison, we calculate the trap loss probability $`_{}`$ that, in the absence of the cavity, $`|e`$ decays in the region $`R<R_e`$ after multiple passages across $`R_e`$. Both $`_c`$ and $`_{}`$ are similar, except by $`p_\mathrm{\Omega }(t)`$ which is substituted for the pure decay $`p_E(t)e^{t\mathrm{\Gamma }}`$

$$_o=\frac{\mathrm{sinh}(t_e\mathrm{\Gamma })}{\mathrm{sinh}(t_c+t_e)\mathrm{\Gamma }},$$
(44)
describing the trap loss probability of a statistical mixture of pairs of atoms colliding independently .

For numerical estimates, we consider 85Rb atoms and the atomic transition $`5S_{1/2}5P_{1/2}`$. The wavelength of the transition is $`\lambda _A=2\pi c/\omega _A=795`$ nm, with atomic decay rate $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_A/2\pi =6`$ MHz. The coefficient of the dipole-dipole potential is taken as $`C_311\times 10^{11}`$ erg Å3  and the detunning $`\delta =\omega _c\omega _A<0`$ is made to decrease, starting from $`\delta /2\pi =350`$ MHz. For this $`\delta `$, the Condon point is $`R_C=366`$ Å and the total time $`t_0=1.07\times 10^8`$ s. The trap depth $`V_0`$ is chosen of order $`5`$ mK ($`100`$ MHz) and would have to decrease as $`\delta `$ is decreased in order to match the condition (see Eq.(32) et seq.)

$$2V_0=\mathrm{}\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Omega }},\mathrm{or}\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Omega }}/2\pi 200\mathrm{MHz}.$$
(45)
This choice for $`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Omega }}`$ allows for the quasimolecules to enter directly the trap escape region $`R<R_e`$ as they exit the resonant region $`R_e<R<R_C`$ in which their interaction with the cavity mode is strongest. With such parameters, and $`\delta `$ going down to $`1.0`$ GHz (when $`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Omega }}/2\pi 70`$ MHz), we can approximate $`\beta \stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Omega }}`$ and neglect the sine in Eq.(21),

$$p_\mathrm{\Omega }(t_c)e^{t_c\mathrm{\Gamma }/2}\mathrm{cos}^2(\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Omega }}t_c).$$
(46)
For the detuning $`\delta =350`$ MHz, one obtains $`t_c=t_0f=0.55t_0`$ and $`t_e=(1f)t_0=0.45t_0`$. The largest phase becomes then $`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Omega }}t_c2\pi \times 200\mathrm{M}\mathrm{H}\mathrm{z}\times 0.55\times 1.07\times 10^8\mathrm{s}=2.35\pi `$ and $`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Omega }}t_c`$ will decrease as $`\delta `$ decreases. In Fig.(2), we plot $`_{}`$ and $`_c`$, assuming the quasimolecules are equally excited in both cases so that the excitation probabilities can be factored out. Outside the range of detunings shown, the approximations in our model are no longer valid : for smaller $`|\delta |`$, a full quantum mechanical treatement of the nuclear dynamics is required, whereas the discrete quantum vibrational levels of the dipole-dipole potential $`U(R)`$ become resolved for $`|\delta |1.0`$ GHz.

Within this detuning window, nevertheless, it can be clearly seen the drastic change brought about by the cavity mode. The collective Rabi oscillations begin mildly at a large $`|\delta |`$ and become more pronounced at smaller values of absolute detuning, where the interaction time $`t_c`$ is longer. At the minima of $`_c`$, the quasimolecules leave the resonant region in the state $`|G,1`$ (having undergone a $`\pi `$-pulse) and the kinetic energy is insufficient to eject a pair of atoms from the trap. The maxima of $`_c`$, where the quasimolecules leave the resonant region in the excited state, are above $`_{}`$ since, without the cavity effect, the probability of a quasimolecule to reach the escape region in the excited state $`|e`$ is smaller. These maxima increase with decreasing $`\delta `$ because the potential becomes steeper and, therefore, the time $`t_c`$ decreases. The effect of damping during the interaction with the cavity mode becomes less and less important and $`p_\mathrm{\Omega }`$ becomes closer to one (see Eqs.(21) and (26)).

It should be noted that an actual realization of such an experiment is quite difficult. For a centimeter sized optical resonator with mirrors separated by $`l1`$ cm, the mode volume $`V\pi w_o^2l4.0\times 10^5`$ cm3, with a waist $`w_o=\sqrt{cl/\omega _c}36\mu `$m, so that using $`d=\sqrt{2}d_A`$ and $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_A=4d_A^2\omega _A^3/3\mathrm{}c^3`$ ($`\omega _A\omega _c`$), the averaged single quasimolecule Rabi frequency in Eq.(37) is $`\mathrm{\Omega }/2\pi 0.42`$ MHz. From Eq.(45) and Eq.(37), one needs at least $`N(\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Omega }}/\mathrm{\Omega })^22.3\times 10^5`$ quasimolecules (but less for larger $`|\delta |`$). Using Eq.(41), this could only be achieved with a gas of $`N_A2.0\times 10^9`$ atoms occupying all the mode volume $`V`$, i.e., at a high density $`n_A4.0\times 10^{13}`$ cm-3. A possible remedy that could do with less atoms at lower densities would imply, however, a smaller $`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Omega }}`$ and thus a substantially longer interaction time $`t_c`$ in order for the phase $`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Omega }}t_c`$ to reach $`2\pi `$ and show a “collisional Rabi oscillation”; for these longer times, the detuning would fall below the limit $`|\delta |10\mathrm{\Gamma }_A`$ and our semiclassical approximation for the nuclear motion would break down .

In conclusion, it is a remarkable effect that the outcome of a collision encounter between two cold atoms can be so deeply affected when it takes place in the presence of a quantized cavity mode. The slowness of the collision makes possible the exchange of excitation between the colliding pair of atoms and the cavity field. Depending on how long the interaction is effective, the potential energy of the collision can simply be “turned off” as the quasimolecule leaves the excitation within the cavity; in contrast, the quasimolecule may be taken closer to the radiative escape condition if this same excitation is returned back to it. In this process, several quasimolecules get quantum mechanically entangled to each other. The trap-loss probability as a function of the detuning can thus show a Rabi-like collective oscillation.

We acknowledge financial support from the Brazilian agencies FAPESP and CNPq and thank R. B. B. Santos for stimulating discussions.