text:
# Radio Lobe Dynamics and the Environment of Microquasars

## 1 Introduction

From the time of discovery of relativistic jets in Galactic X-ray binary sources their morphological and physical similarity with AGN jets has been stressed in the literature (see Mirabel & Rodríguez 1999, for a review on the subject). This similarity has inspired comparison of Galactic and extragalactic jets on a qualitative level.

Such comparisons are a powerful tool to study the dependence of jets on the input conditions, knowledge of which is crucial for understanding the process of jet formation. While the central black holes in AGNs span a range of 3 orders of magnitude in central mass $`M`$, with measurements of $`M`$ often hampered by the lack of accurate indicators, Galactic compact objects fall into a relatively narrow range in $`M`$, while extending the mass scale to a range of over 9 orders of magnitude.

So far, the comparison has focused mainly on the emission from the inner jet, while large scale (lobe) emission has traditionally been difficult to observe in Galactic jets and has thus not been considered much in the literature. This letter presents arguments for the scaling expected on large scales. Section 2, reviews the scaling relations of jet parameters. In Sect. 3 we argue that, typically, microquasar jets are located in low density environments compared to AGN jets, derive simple scaling relations for radio lobes and put limits on the ISM density surrounding GRS 1915+105 and GRO J1655$``$40. Section 4 summarizes.

## 2 Scaling of jet sources

The conditions in the inner disk around black holes are essentially determined by three parameters: black hole mass $`M`$, spin $`a`$, and accretion rate $`\dot{m}=\dot{M}/\dot{M}_{\mathrm{Edd}}`$ ($`\dot{M}_{\mathrm{Edd}}`$ is the Eddington rate). Jet formation seems to be strongly dependent on $`\dot{m}`$, with jet activity associated with a given range in $`\dot{m}`$, while the influence of $`a`$ is still unclear. As we are interested in powerful jets, we assume that $`a`$ and $`\dot{m}`$ take on their optimal value for jet formation and consider only variations in $`M`$. Then, the kinetic jet luminosity $`L`$ follows $`LM\psi (\dot{m},a)`$, with some unknown function $`\psi `$.

We can write the scaling of physical quantities in the inner, radiation pressure dominated disk as follows: all size and time scales relate linearly to the fundamental length scale, the gravitational radius $`r_\mathrm{g}`$ of the black hole: $`r\tau r_\mathrm{g}M`$. It is convenient to define natural units $`\varpi r/r_\mathrm{g}`$ and $`Tct/r_\mathrm{g}`$. It follows from simple dimensional arguments, or from standard accretion disk theory (Shakura & Sunyaev 1976), that density and pressure scale inversely with $`M`$: $`n_{\mathrm{disk}}p_{\mathrm{disk}}M^1`$. The magnetic pressure generated or transported by the disk will be some fraction $`\phi `$ of the gas pressure: $`p_\mathrm{B}=\phi p_{\mathrm{gas}}M^1`$, thus $`BM^{1/2}`$; $`\phi `$ is arbitrary but should not depend on $`M`$. Since jets originate in the inner disk, conditions in the inner jet should assume the same scaling: The jet cross section $`R_0`$ at injection scales with $`M`$, $`R_0M`$, density and pressure scale like $`M^1`$, and the jet power in a Poynting flux dominated jet follows $`L_{\mathrm{kin}}R^2B^2M`$.

While this simple scaling might suggest that all aspects of relativistic jets should assume a simple $`M`$-dependence, this is not so. This can be seen from the observed non-linear scaling of the radio flux of the inner jet with $`M`$ that has been explained successfully using only the above scaling relations and simple assumptions about jet geometry (Falcke & Biermann 1996).

In this letter we consider the large scale structure of jets, where interaction with the environment is important. The scaling based only on conditions in the inner disk will not hold, since parameters independent from conditions in the disk enter: external density $`\rho _\mathrm{x}`$ and pressure $`p_\mathrm{x}`$. Since ISM densities are typically larger than IGM densities (with the canonical ISM value of $`n_{\mathrm{ISM}}1\mathrm{cm}^3`$), one might think that, compared to AGN jets, Galactic jets are situated in high density environments. In the following section, we will argue that this is a misconception and that the self-similarity in $`M`$, which seems to be describing the inner jet rather well, is broken on large scales.

## 3 Large scale evolution of radio sources

### 3.1 Radio lobe dynamics

The large scale dynamics of an active source (i.e., still driven by active jets) are governed by the dimensionless ratio $`\eta _\rho (/R^2c^3\rho _\mathrm{x})`$, where $`R`$ is the characteristic size scale (i.e., cross section) of the jet, and $``$ is the mean kinetic luminosity111The evolution time scales for AGN lobes are of order $`\tau 10^710^8\mathrm{yrs}`$. Variation in $`L_{\mathrm{kin}}`$ on much shorter time scales will average out, making the large scale evolution dependent only on the mean kinetic power $`L_{\mathrm{kin}}`$. Though the relation between $``$ and $`M`$ is not known (possibly depending on details like binary accretion) the giant flare duration of order days observed in microquasars is only one or two orders of magnitudes shorter than the estimated life times of extragalactic jets when scaled by mass (of order $`10^610^8\mathrm{yrs}`$) and we will assume that the duty cycles and typical time scales of jet activity scale roughly linearly with $`M`$, and thus $`M`$.. Since typical dimensions of the jet are set by the inner disk and should follow $`RM`$ (see Sect. 2), and since $`M`$, the problem becomes scale invariant (i.e., the value of $`\eta _\rho `$ independent of $`M`$) if $`\rho _\mathrm{x}M^1`$.

IGM densities fall into the range $`10^5\mathrm{cm}^3<n_{\mathrm{IGM}}<10^2\mathrm{cm}^3`$, while Galactic ISM densities span the range of $`\mathrm{few}\times 10^3\mathrm{cm}^3<n_{\mathrm{ISM}}<10^4\mathrm{cm}^4`$ (the small value is valid for the hot ISM phase and the halo, the upper limit for densities in molecular clouds). Thus, the similarity condition $`\rho _\mathrm{x}M^1`$ could only be satisfied for microquasars situated in molecular clouds. Most Galactic jets are, however, located in much lower ISM densities. Thus, compared to radio galaxies, microquasars are situated in low density environments in a dynamical sense.

Similarly, one can argue that microquasars are located in low pressure environments: The terminal size $`\varpi _\mathrm{t}`$ of an inactive radio lobe, when it has reached pressure equilibrium with its environment, measured in natural units, will follow $`\varpi _\mathrm{t}(Mp_\mathrm{x})^{1/3}`$. The dynamical time in natural units will be $`T\varpi _\mathrm{t}/c_{\mathrm{s}\mathrm{x}}(M^2\rho _\mathrm{x}p_\mathrm{x})^{1/2}`$, where $`c_{\mathrm{s},\mathrm{x}}`$ is the external sound speed. Scale invariance in $`M`$ (i.e., quantities expressed in natural units are independent of $`M`$) would require $`p_\mathrm{x}M^1`$. Since IGM and ISM pressures are comparable, microquasars are, in effect, located in low pressure environments, relative to AGN jets, and the equilibrium size and dynamical time scales are much larger than in AGNs when expressed in natural units.

Based on this premise, the dynamics of microquasar lobes might be qualitatively different from AGN lobes. Because observations of microquasar radio lobes are only just beginning to appear (partly due to their low brightness), it is unclear how to describe the dynamics of these sources. Numerical simulations and more radio observations are therefore necessary. Meanwhile, we can use the existing framework of AGN radio lobes for simple estimates. In turn, observations of microquasars can be used to study the lobe evolution in low density environments.

Once it has passed through the terminal shock, the spent jet fuel is deposited in the vicinity of the jet head, inflating the radio lobes. During the early (i.e., active) stage, the lobes expand supersonically into the environment. Later they come into pressure equilibrium. For a supersonic bubble expanding into a medium with a radial powerlaw density profile $`\rho _\mathrm{x}\rho _{\mathrm{x},0}(r/r_x)^\zeta `$, there exists a well known self-similar solution (Castor et al. 1975; Falle 1991) for the cocoon radius $`r_\mathrm{c}`$:

$$r_\mathrm{c}=A\left(\frac{t^3}{\rho _\mathrm{x}(r)}\right)^{1/5}=A\left(\frac{t^3}{\rho _{\mathrm{x},0}r_\mathrm{x}^\zeta }\right)^{1/(5\zeta )}$$
(1)
with $`A[(5\zeta )^3[36\pi (8\zeta )^{\frac{1+\zeta }{3}}(11\zeta )^{\frac{2\zeta }{3}})]^1]^{\frac{1}{5\zeta }}`$ of order unity. This scaling is still appropriate if the cocoon is not spherical and entirely sufficient for our purpose.

The solution in eq. (1) is Rayleigh-Taylor unstable for $`\zeta 2`$. However, the environments of AGNs and microquasars are benign: microquasars are typically located in homogeneous media ($`\zeta 0`$), while AGNs are typically located in stratified atmospheres with roughly uniform densities close in and steeper decline further out ($`\zeta 1.5`$).

If the nuclear source turns off before the lobes reach pressure equilibrium with their surroundings, a Sedov phase similar to a regular blast wave will follow, though the lobe gas will be relativistic, thus expansion will only be supersonic with respect to the external gas. If the source sits in a stratified atmosphere the lobes will rise buoyantly and cool adiabatically, once the expansion becomes sub-sonic (i.e., in pressure equilibrium with the environment).

### 3.2 Scaling relations for emission from radio lobes

Using eq. (1) one can estimate the emission from the radio lobes. For a powerlaw distribution $`f(\gamma )=C\gamma ^s`$ with spectral index $`s2`$ this gives (e.g., Jarvis et al. 2001):

$`L_\nu `$ $``$ $`\rho _\mathrm{x}^{\frac{3+3s}{4(5\zeta )}}r_\mathrm{x}^{\frac{\zeta (3+3s)}{4(5\zeta )}}^{\frac{12+(5+s)(2\zeta )}{4(5\zeta )}}t^{\frac{36(5+s)(4+\zeta )}{4(5\zeta )}}.`$ (2)
Using eq. (2) we can determine the scaling of radio luminosity with the fundamental source parameters. For active sources with the same absolute age $`t`$, the radio flux will scale like $`F_\nu ^{1.3}\rho _\mathrm{x}(r)^{0.45}t^{0.4}M^{1.3}\rho _\mathrm{x}(r)^{0.45}`$. Typically, however, one would expect the jet activity time scale to be proportional to the disk time scales, i.e., proportional to $`M`$. Comparing sources of the same scaled age $`t/M`$ gives $`F_\nu ^{1.3}\rho _\mathrm{x}^{0.45}M^{0.4}\tau ^{0.4}M^{1.7}\rho _\mathrm{x}(r)^{0.45}`$.

Thus, for sources located in uniform environments, the scaling index $`\xi d\mathrm{ln}F_\nu /d\mathrm{ln}M`$ will fall into the range $`1.3\xi 1.7`$, interestingly close to the scaling measured in AGNs (e.g., Lacy et al. 2001). This limit should be valid for Galactic sources and for extragalactic sources which are still confined to the core of the cluster potential (where $`\zeta 0`$). In stratified atmospheres (i.e., for large AGN jets), the dependence of $`F_\nu `$ on $`\rho _\mathrm{x}`$ can lead to a much weaker $`M`$ dependence: for the canonical value of $`\zeta 1.5`$, found in typical isothermal cluster atmospheres, Jarvis et al. (2001) find $`\xi 1.1`$ for sources of the same age $`t`$, and for sources of the same scaled age $`\xi 0.9`$. Finally, a useful (since measurable) comparison is for sources of the same absolute size $`r_\mathrm{c}`$, where $`\xi =(5+s)/6`$, independent of $`\zeta `$.

### 3.3 Microquasar radio lobes

Strictly speaking, eq. (1) is valid only for lobes expanding at sub-relativistic speeds. Since, as argued in this paper, microquasars are located in under-dense environments, their expansion stays relativistic much longer, measured in natural units $`Tt/M`$, which complicates the dynamics significantly, partly because the lobes are no longer in causal contact \[which was the tacit assumption in deriving eq. (1)\]. An analytic treatment of the evolution of relativistic lobes is beyond the scope of this letter. Instead, we simply note that the following discussion applies only to microquasar lobes old enough to have become sub-relativistic. For the moderate Lorentz factors of $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\mathrm{jet}}5`$ involved, relativistic corrections should, in any case, stay within an order of magnitude, sufficient for the purpose of the rough estimates presented here.

We can then use eq. (2), taking a fiducial kinetic jet luminosity of $`10^{39}_{39}\mathrm{ergs}\mathrm{s}^1`$ (a reasonable estimate during powerful flares like those observed in GRS 1915+105 or GRO J1655$``$40) and a constant external density with $`\zeta =0`$ to arrive at an estimate of the absolute flux from a microquasar at distance $`D=10D_{10}\mathrm{kpc}`$ of

$$F_\nu 40\mathrm{mJy}n_{\mathrm{ISM}}^{0.45}_{39}^{1.3}t^{0.4}\frac{\phi ^{3/4}}{1+\phi }D_{10}^2\nu _5^{1/2},$$
(3)
where $`\nu _5`$ is the observing frequency in units of 5 GHz.

Since the lobe expansion will be supersonic for much longer than the expected lifetime of the nuclear jet, a Sedov phase will follow the active expansion phase, during which the lobe radius will roughly follow $`Rt^{2/5}`$ and the luminosity will follow $`L_\nu t^{0.9}`$. This phase will begin after the source switches off, at $`t_\mathrm{s}=10^5\mathrm{s}E_{44}/_{39}1\mathrm{day}`$, and it will last until the source reaches pressure equilibrium with the surrounding medium at $`t_\mathrm{p}`$.

Since the luminosity during the Sedov phase is declining, the source flux reaches a maximum at the beginning of the Sedov phase and will then follow

$$F_\nu 4\mathrm{Jy}\frac{n_{\mathrm{ISM}}^{0.45}_{39}^{0.3}E_{44}^{0.4}}{D_{10}^2}\frac{\phi ^{3/4}}{1+\phi }\left(\frac{t}{t_\mathrm{s}}\right)^{0.9}\nu _5^{1/2}$$
(4)
with a timescale of $`t_\mathrm{s}1\mathrm{day}`$. For ISM densities appropriate for the hot phase, the flux should be rather dim to begin with and fade quickly beyond detectability.

For an external pressure of $`p_\mathrm{x}10^{12}\mathrm{ergs}\mathrm{cm}^3p_{12}`$, the lobe reaches pressure equilibrium with the ISM when it has reached an equilibrium size of $`r_\mathrm{e}1\mathrm{pc}E_{44}^{1/3}p_{12}^{1/3}`$ on a timescale of order $`\tau _\mathrm{e}2\times \mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}10}^4\mathrm{yrs}E_{44}^{1/3}n_\mathrm{x}^{1/2}p_{12}^{5/6}`$. The radio flux is then $`F_\nu <3\times 10^6\mathrm{Jy}E_{44}p_{12}^{7/4}D_{10}^2\nu _5^{1/2}`$ (the upper limit is set by equipartition), with surface brightness $`I_\nu <10^5\mathrm{Jy}\mathrm{arcmin}^2E_{44}^{1/3}p_{12}^{17/12}\nu _5^{1/2}`$, corresponding to a brightness temperature of $`T_\mathrm{B}<2\times 10^4\mathrm{K}p_{12}^{17/12}E_{44}^{1/3}\nu _5^{5/2}`$.

Multiple ejection events will lead to the accumulation of a faint radio halo around the source, with the value for $`E_{44}`$ now reflecting the total accumulated energy in the halo in the expressions for $`F_\nu `$ and $`I_\nu `$. Strong radiative losses in the early Sedov phase (during which no further injection of relativistic particles by the jet occurs) would limit the detectability of this halo to very low frequencies.

The lack of strong radio emission from lobes following the powerful outbursts from microquasars like GRS 1915+105 and GRO J1655$``$40 indicates that the surrounding density should be lower than the canonical value of $`1\mathrm{cm}^3`$ \[see eq. (4) and Sect. 3.4\]. The detection of lobe emission from the neutron star Sco X-1 (at a distance of $`3.2\mathrm{kpc}`$) at the $`10\mathrm{mJy}`$ level and on timescales of order days (Fomalont et al. 2001) is also roughly consistent with originating from the early Sedov phase. Persistent radio structures on pc scales have been found in the sources 1E 1740.7$``$2942 (Mirabel & Rodríguez 1999) and GRS 1758$``$258 (Martí et al. 1998). The lack of current jet activity, compared to the relatively strong emission from the extended structure on $`0.11\mathrm{mJy}`$ levels would argue for an epoch of powerful jet activity in the recent past. The flux and surface brightness of these sources indicate that they are either located in regions of large pressure (which would be compatible with their position close to the Galactic center) and/or that the emitting plasma has not yet reached pressure equilibrium with the ISM.

### 3.4 The environment of GRS 1915 and GRO J1655

We shall now demonstrate that the best studied microquasars, GRS 1915+105 and GRO J1655$``$40, are indeed locate in low density gas. For the sake of simplicity we assume that the bright knots in the jet of GRS 1915+105 are discrete ejections. Kaiser et al. (2000) have demonstrated how the physics of the jet changes if the knots are internal shocks rather than blobs. However, as long as we consider only the total energy $`E`$ contained in the outflow, the internal jet structure is irrelevant for this argument.

VLBI and MERLIN observations of the 1994 and 1997 events (Mirabel & Rodríguez 1994; Fender et al. 1999) show that the knots traveled out to a distance of at least $`0.04\mathrm{pc}`$ (set by the detection limit, i.e., the knots might well have traveled further). The observed velocity of the components is constant out to at least this distance.

The length of the jet is already an indication that the interaction with the ISM must be much less efficient in this jet than it is in extragalactic objects: When scaled by central mass, the length of $`l>0.04\mathrm{pc}`$ observed in GRS 1915+105 would translate to a jet length of $`l>4\mathrm{Mpc}`$ for a jet with a supermassive black hole at its center, like M87 or Cyg A. This is longer than any observed AGN jets - even in giant radio galaxies like NGC 315 (Bridle et al. 1976), and this is only a lower limit to the jet length!

Based on equipartition arguments, the kinetic energy in the ejection is roughly $`E_{\mathrm{kin}}10^{44}E_{44}\mathrm{ergs}`$ (Fender et al. 1999; Rodríguez & Mirabel 1999). As it travels downstream, we assume that the knot expands conically with an opening angle $`\theta 5^{}\theta _5`$ (i.e, a half-opening angle of $`2.5^{}`$), and sweeps up (or pushes aside) the ambient matter in its way (e.g., Heinz & Begelman 1999). The ejection will have been slowed down by the interaction with the external matter once it has swept up a fraction of $`1/\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ of its own mass. Thus, for an external particle density of $`n_\mathrm{x}`$, the ejection will slow down at a distance

$$d_{\mathrm{slow}}10^{16}\mathrm{cm}(E_{44}/\mathrm{\Gamma }_5^2n_\mathrm{x}\theta _5^2)^{1/3},$$
(5)
where $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_5\mathrm{\Gamma }/5`$ is the Lorentz factor of the jet.

Comparing this with the observed distance of the ejections, $`d_{\mathrm{obs}}>1.3\times 10^{17}\mathrm{cm}D_{11}\mathrm{sin}(66^{})/\mathrm{sin}(\vartheta _{\mathrm{LOS}})`$ (where $`D_{11}`$ is the distance to GRS 1915+105 in units of $`11\mathrm{kpc}`$ and $`\vartheta _{\mathrm{LOS}}`$ the viewing angle of the jet), we arrive at the following upper limit on the external density:

$$n_\mathrm{x}<10^3\mathrm{cm}^3\frac{E_{44}\mathrm{sin}(\vartheta _{\mathrm{LOS}})^3}{\mathrm{\Gamma }_5^2\theta _{5}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}D_{11}^3\mathrm{sin}(66^{})^3}.$$
(6)
A similar analysis can be made for the GRO J1655$``$40 jet, which has also been observed out to a distance of $`0.04\mathrm{pc}`$ (Hjellming & Rupen 1995), giving the same limit. Thus, these jets must be located in environments much less dense than the canonical $`n_{\mathrm{ISM}}1\mathrm{cm}^3`$, unless they are very narrow ($`\theta <0.15^{}`$) or very energetic, ($`E>10^{47}\mathrm{ergs}`$).

The simplest interpretation of this result is either (a) that GRS 1915+105 and GRO J1655$``$40 are located in a region occupied by the hot ISM phase, or (b) that previous activity of the jets has created an evacuated bubble around them (i.e, the plasma halo mentioned in Sect. 3.3), filled with relativistic plasma (in GRO J1655$``$40, which is a HMXB, the companion could also produce such a bubble via an outflow, while in the LMXB GRS 1915+105, a stellar origin of such a bubble would have to be attributed to the stellar wind or SN explosion of the progenitor). Since the energy requirements on such a bubble would only be of order $`10^{41}\mathrm{ergs}p_{12}`$, this is energetically easily possible.

The limit set in eq. (6) can only be avoided if the jet were traveling down an evacuated channel, pre-existing to the outburst. The stability of such a channel (without strong jet activity keeping it open, which would be observable) inside a medium much more dense than the above limits is questionable, given that there should be precession and significant proper motion between outbursts.

A very narrow opening angle would imply that the jet material is very cold or very well confined. However, the pressure of the synchrotron emitting electrons alone is already much larger than typical ISM pressures, and an external confinement is therefore excluded. Thus, a very narrow opening angle would imply that the jet material is cold. This, in turn, would increase the energy requirements on the jet (Fender et al. 1999). Energies much larger than $`10^{44}\mathrm{ergs}`$, on the other hand, would require the kinetic luminosity of the central engine to severely exceed the Eddington limit $`L_{\mathrm{Edd}}10^{39}\mathrm{ergs}\mathrm{s}^1`$.

However, even if we allow for conservative lower limits on $`\theta _5`$ and generous energy estimates, eq. (6) still shows that the density of the environment around the two best studies jets, GRS 1915+105 and GRO J1655$``$40, is much smaller than typical molecular cloud densities, which would be needed for scale invariance with typical extragalactic objects. These estimates show that measurements of the external density and the stopping distance of the jets could be used to constrain important parameters of the jet, such as the energy and the opening angle.

## 4 Conclusions

We have demonstrated that microquasars are typically located in much less dense environments than extragalactic in a dynamical sense. This results in a reduction of the expected emission from extended radio lobes, consistent with the rarity of such structures in powerful Galactic jet sources. It also explains the observed length of the jets in GRS 1915+105 and GRO J1655$``$40, $`l>0.04\mathrm{pc}`$, which would correspond to a jet length of $`4\mathrm{Mpc}`$ when scaled by $`M`$ to AGN conditions. Estimates of the environmental density of these sources based on these length measurements indicate that these sources are located in environments much less dense than the canonical $`1\mathrm{cm}^1`$, unless the jets are very narrow or extremely energetic.

###### Acknowledgements.

I would like to thank E. Churazov, T. Enßlin, R. Sunyaev, and the referee M. Lacy for their comments.


format: text

text:
# References

The extraction of the CP violation phases $`\alpha `$, $`\beta `$ and $`\gamma `$ has stimulated many studies during last decade ((see e.g. ). Among them the phase $`\gamma `$ is most difficult to constrain. Numerous proposals were aimed to determine its size (see e.g. ). The partial width asymmetry in charmless three-body decays offers a chance to get more information on $`\mathrm{sin}\gamma `$  \- .

The basic idea was that the nonzero asymmetry results from the interference of the nonresonant three-body decay amplitude and the resonant $`B^{}\chi _{c0}\pi ^{}\pi ^+\pi ^{}\pi ^{}`$ decay amplitude . All these approaches were based on a theoretical prediction  for the decay rate of $`B^{}\chi _{c0}\pi ^{}`$ which is difficult to obtain in the factorization model. Instead of relying on this prediction for this decay rate, we can now use the recent Belle collaboration measurement of the decay rate

$`\mathrm{BR}(B^{}\chi _{c0}K^{})=(6.0_{1.8}^{+2.1})\times 10^4.`$ (1)
which is surprisingly large, comparable to the $`B^{}J/\psi K^{}`$ decay rate. In addition, the Belle collaboration has anounced the measurement of the decay rates

$`\mathrm{BR}(B^{}K^+K^{}K^{})=(37.0\pm 3.9\pm 4.4)\times 10^6,`$ (2)
and

$`\mathrm{BR}(B^{}\pi ^+\pi ^{}K^{})=(58.5\pm 7.1\pm 8.8)\times 10^6.`$ (3)
Although these measurements do not distinguish yet the contributions to the branching ratios of the nonresonant decays, they constrain their magnitudes. On the other hand, the charmless two-body decays of B mesons are stimulating many research projects. The factorization approximation is usually used and recently great improvement has been made in the understanding of $`B\pi \pi `$ and $`B\pi K`$ decay modes (e.g. ). The decay mechanism of the nonleptonic charmless three-body B decays is much less understoood. The intermediate resonance states might be simpler to understand due to better knowledge of the two-body B decays. Due to the lack of understanding of the three-body nonresonant decay modes of B mesons, we will adopt the existing approaches . The first is the use of the factorization approach. Then we reduce the problem to the calculation of the matrix elements of currents (or density operators). In the evaluation of these matrix elements, the main contribution to the nonresonant $`B^\pm M\overline{M}K^\pm `$, $`M=K^+,\pi ^+`$, amplitude comes from the product $`<M\overline{M}|(\overline{u}b)_{VA}|B^{}>`$ $`<K^{}|(\overline{s}u)_{VA}|0>`$ where $`(\overline{q}_1q_2)_{VA}`$ denotes $`\overline{q}_1\gamma _\mu (1\gamma _5)q_2`$, or from $`_q<M\overline{M}|(\overline{q}(1\gamma _5)b|B^{}>`$ $`<K^{}|(\overline{s}(1+\gamma _5)q)|0>`$. For the calculation of the matrix element $`<M\overline{M}|(\overline{u}b)_{VA}|B^{}>`$ we extend the results obtained in , where the nonresonant $`D^+K^{}\pi ^+l\nu `$ decay was analyzed. In this analysis the experimental result for the branching ratio of the nonresonant $`D^+K^{}\pi ^+l\nu `$ decay was successfully reproduced within a hybrid framework which combines the heavy quark effective theory (HQET) and the chiral Lagrangian (CHPT) approach.

The combination of heavy quark symmetry and chiral symmetry has been quite successful in the analysis of D meson semileptonic decays  \- . Heavy quark symmetry is expected to be even better for the heavier B mesons . However, CHPT could be worse in B decays due to the large energies of light mesons in the final state . In order to adjust the model to be applicable in the whole kinematic region we retain the usual HQET Feynman rules for the vertices near and outside the zero-recoil region, as in , but we include the complete propagators instead of using the usual HQET propagator .

In the following we systematically use this model  to calculate the nonresonant $`B^\pm M\overline{M}K^\pm `$, $`M=K^+,\pi ^+`$, decay amplitude. We find that contrary to the previous cases  penguin contributions are very important.

First we discuss the contributions to the nonresonant decay amlitude and then we discuss the partial width asymmetry.

The effective weak Hamiltonian for the nonleptonic Cabibbo-suppressed $`B`$ meson decays is given by  \-

$`_{eff}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{G_F}{\sqrt{2}}}[V_{us}^{}V_{ub}(c_1O_{1u}+c_2O_{2u})+V_{cs}^{}V_{cb}(c_1O_{1c}+c_2O_{2c})]`$ (4)
$``$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{i=3}{\overset{10}{}}}([V_{ub}V_{ud}^{}c_i^u+V_{cb}V_{cs}^{}c_i^c+V_{tb}V_{ts}^{}c_i^t)O_i]+h.c.`$
where the superscripts $`u`$, $`c`$, $`t`$ denote the internal quark. The tree-level operators are defined as

$$O_{1q}=\overline{q}\gamma _\mu (1\gamma _5)b\overline{s}\gamma ^\mu (1\gamma _5)q,$$
(5)
with $`q=u,c`$ and

$$O_{2q}=\overline{q}\gamma _\mu (1\gamma _5)q\overline{s}\gamma ^\mu (1\gamma _5)b.$$
(6)
We rewrite $`O_3`$ $``$ $`O_6`$, using the Fierz transformations, as follows:

$$O_3=\underset{q=u,d,s,c,b}{}\overline{s}\gamma _\mu (1\gamma _5)b\overline{q}\gamma ^\mu (1\gamma _5)q,$$
(7)
$$O_4=\underset{q=u,d,s,c,b}{}\overline{s}\gamma _\mu (1\gamma _5)q\overline{q}\gamma ^\mu (1\gamma _5)b,$$
(8)
$$O_5=\underset{q=u,d,s,c,b}{}\overline{s}\gamma _\mu (1\gamma _5)b\overline{q}\gamma ^\mu (1+\gamma _5)q,$$
(9)
$$O_6=2\underset{q=u,d,s,c,b}{}\overline{s}(1+\gamma _5)q\overline{q}(1\gamma _5)b,$$
(10)
The operators $`O_7`$,…,$`O_{10}`$ denote the electroweak penguin operators. Due to the smallness of their Wilson coefficients we do not include them in our analysis .

The factorization approximation is obtained by neglecting in the Lagrangian terms which are the product of two color-octet operators after Fierz reordering of the quark fields. The effective Lagrangian for non-leptonic decays are then given by (4) with $`c_i`$ replaced by $`a_i`$. In our calculations we use next-to-leading Wilson coefficents (e.g.  ). In  it was found that $`a_3`$ and $`a_5`$ are one order of magnitude smaller than $`a_4`$ and $`a_6`$ and therefore we can safely neglect the contributions from $`O_3`$ and $`O_5`$ operators. For $`N_c=3`$, $`m_b=5\mathrm{GeV}`$, we use  :

$$\begin{array}{cccc}\hfill a_1=& 1.05,\hfill & \hfill a_2=& 0.07,\hfill \\ \hfill a_4=& 0.0430.016i,\hfill & & \\ \hfill a_6=& 0.0540.016i.\hfill & & \end{array}$$
(11)
It is important to notice that the imaginary parts of the Wilson coefficients for the penguin operators are due to the internal charm- and up-quark loop exchanges. They introduce additional strong phases, affecting the CP asymmetries.

The use of factorization gives for the matrix element of $`O_1`$ operator for the nonresonant $`B^{}\pi ^+\pi ^{}K^{}`$ decay, following the results of

$`<\pi ^+(p_1)\pi ^{}(p_2)K(p_3)|O_1|B^{}(p_B)>_{nr}`$ $`=`$
$`<K^{}(p_3)|(\overline{s}u)_{VA}|0><\pi ^{}(p_2)\pi ^+(p_1)|(\overline{u}b)_{VA}|B^{}(p_B)>_{nr}.`$ (12)
To evaluate the matrix element $`<\pi ^{}(p_1)\pi ^+(p_2)|(\overline{u}b)_{VA}|B^{}(p_B)>_{nr}`$ we will also use the results obtained previously in the analysis of the nonresonant $`D^+\pi ^+K^{}l\nu _l`$ decay width . We write the matrix element $`<\pi ^{}(p_1)\pi ^+(p_2)|(\overline{u}b)_{VA}|B^{}(p_B)>`$ in the general form

$`<\pi ^{}(p_1)\pi ^+(p_2)|(\overline{u}b)_{VA}|B^{}(p_B)>`$ $`=`$ $`ir(p_Bp_2p_1)_\mu `$
$`+iw_+(p_2+p_1)_\mu +iw_{}(p_2p_1)_\mu `$ $``$ $`2hϵ_{\mu \alpha \beta \gamma }p_B^\alpha p_2^\beta p_1^\gamma .`$ (13)
The form factors $`w_\pm ^{nr}`$ and $`r^{nr}`$ for the nonresonant decay are given in  together with a detailed description of our hybrid model. Using the following set of Mandelstam’s variables: $`s=(p_Bp_3)^2`$, $`t=(p_Bp_1)^2`$ and $`u=(p_Bp_2)^2`$ the formfactors can be written as

$`w_+^{nr}(s,t)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{g}{f_1f_2}}{\displaystyle \frac{f_Bm_B^{3/2}m_B^{1/2}}{(tm_B^2}}[1{\displaystyle \frac{(m_B^2m_1^2t)}{2m_B^2}}]`$ (14)
$`+`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{f_B}{2f_1f_2}}{\displaystyle \frac{\sqrt{m}_B\alpha _2}{f_1f_2}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2m_B^2}}(2t+sm_B^2m_3^22m_1^2),`$
$`w_{}^{nr}(s,t)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{g}{f_1f_2}}{\displaystyle \frac{f_Bm_B^{3/2}m_B^{1/2}}{tm_B^2}}[1+{\displaystyle \frac{(m_B^2m_1^2t)}{2m_B^2}}]`$ (15)
$`+`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\sqrt{m}_B\alpha _1}{f_1f_2}}.`$
$`r^{nr}(s,t)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1+\stackrel{~}{\beta }}{f_1f_2}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}(2t+sm_B^2m_3^22m_1^2)\sqrt{{\displaystyle \frac{m_B^{}}{m_B}}}{\displaystyle \frac{f_B^{}}{m_3^2m_B^{}^2}}`$ (16)
$``$ $`\sqrt{{\displaystyle \frac{m_B}{m_{B\mathrm{"}}}}}{\displaystyle \frac{4g^2f_{B^{\prime \prime }}m_B^{}^{}m_{B^{\prime \prime }}}{f_1f_2}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{m_3^2m_{B^{\prime \prime }}^2}}`$
$`\times `$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{[\frac{1}{2}(sm_1^2m_2^2)\frac{1}{4m_B^{}^2}(t+m_2^2m_3^2)(m_B^2m_1^2t)]}{tm_B^{}^2}}`$
$`+`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{g}{f_1f_2}}\sqrt{{\displaystyle \frac{m_B}{m_B^{}}}}{\displaystyle \frac{f_B^{}}{tm_B^{}^2}}(m_B^2m_1^2t)`$
$`+`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{f_B}{2f_1f_2}}+{\displaystyle \frac{\sqrt{m}_B\alpha _2}{f_1f_2}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2m_B^2}}(2t+sm_B^2m_3^22m_1^2)`$
With the use of these results we write down

$`<K^{}(p_3)\pi ^+(p_1)\pi ^{}(p_2)|O_1|B(p_B)>_{nr}=`$
$`[f_3m_3^2r^{nr}+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}f_3(m_B^2m_3^2s)w_+^{nr}`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}f_3(s+2tm_B^22m_1^2m_3^2)w_{}^{nr}]`$ (17)
The parameters $`\alpha _{1,2}`$ are defined in , $`g`$ is the $`B^{}B\pi `$ strong coupling, discussed in . Here $`B^{}`$, $`B^{{}_{}{}^{}}`$, $`B^{\prime \prime }`$ denote the relevant $`B`$ meson poles, and $`f_{1,2}`$ denotes the pseudoscalar meson decay constants. The coupling $`\stackrel{~}{\beta }`$ has been analyzed in  and found to be close to zero and therefore will be neglected.

The operator $`O_4`$ has the same kind of decomposition as $`O_1`$, while the operator $`O_6`$ can be rewritten as the product of density operators. The evaluation of the matrix elements like $`<K|\overline{q}(1+\gamma _5)b|B>`$ and $`<\pi \pi |\overline{q}(1\gamma _5)b|B>`$ can then be reduced to the evaluation of the matrix elements of the weak currents $`<\pi \pi |\overline{q}\gamma _\mu \gamma _5b|B>`$ and $`<K|\overline{q}\gamma _\mu b|B>`$ following the procedure described in detail in . For the $`\overline{s}(1+\gamma _5)q`$ scalar and pseudoscalar quark density operator we use the CHPT result  and obtain

$$\overline{s}(1+\gamma _5)q=\frac{f_\pi ^2}{2}U_{qs}^{}$$
(18)
where $``$ is a real constant expressed in terms of quark and meson masses; e.g., to lowest order $`m_{K^0}^2=(m_s+m_d)`$ and $`U=exp(i2\mathrm{\Pi }/f)`$ where $`\mathrm{\Pi }`$ is a pseudoscalar meson matrix . We use the value $`m_s=150`$ $`\mathrm{MeV}`$ for the s quark mass at the scale $`m_B`$ mass , giving $`=1.6`$ $`\mathrm{GeV}`$. For the calculation of the density operator $`\overline{q}(1\gamma _5)b`$ we use the relations

$$\overline{q}\gamma _5b=\frac{i}{m_b}_\alpha (\overline{q}\gamma ^\alpha \gamma _5b),$$
(19)
and

$$\overline{q}b=\frac{i}{m_b}_\alpha (\overline{q}\gamma ^\alpha b),$$
(20)
where $`m_q`$ has been dropped since $`m_q<<m_b`$.

The factorization assumption in the case of the $`O_6`$ operator results in:

$`<K^{}(p_3)\pi ^+(p_1)\pi ^{}(p_2)|O_6|B(p_B)>`$ $`=`$
$`2{\displaystyle \underset{u,d,s,c,b}{}}<K|\overline{s}(1+\gamma _5)u|0><\pi \pi |\overline{u}(1\gamma _5)b|B>.`$ (21)
Since the density operator in $`<\pi K|\overline{s}(1+\gamma _5)d|0>`$ can be related to the matrix element of the corresponding current, and the form factors describing the matrix element of the current operator are dominated by light vector meson resonances, contributions from terms of the type $`<\pi K|\overline{s}(1+\gamma _5)d|0>`$ $`<\pi |\overline{d}(1\gamma _5)b|B>`$ is suppressed in the high energy region for the nonresonant amplitude, and is neglected here for our purpose. There is also the contribution $`<K\pi \pi |\overline{s}(1+\gamma _5)u|0>`$ $`<0|\overline{u}(1\gamma _5)b|B>`$ and the pole contribution of the type $`<K\pi \pi |_s|K(p_B)>`$ $`(m_B^2m_K^2)^1`$ $`<K|\overline{s}(1+\gamma _5)u|0>`$ $`<0|\overline{u}(1\gamma _5)b|B>`$. Here $`_s`$ is the chiral Lagrangian for the light pseudoscalar mesons. These two terms give negligible contribution to the branching ratio as expected from annihilation graphs in . The contribution $`<K\pi \pi |\overline{s}(1\gamma _5)b|B^{}>`$ $`<0|\overline{s}(1+\gamma _5)s|0>`$ does not contribute due to the momentum conservation.

Using the $`s`$ and $`t`$ variables we derive:

$`<K^{}(p_3)\pi ^+(p_1)\pi ^{}(p_2)|O_6|B(p_B)>_{nr}=`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{}{m_B}}\{2{\displaystyle \frac{f_1f_2}{f_3}}m_3^2r^{nr}{\displaystyle \frac{f_1f_2}{f_3}}(m_B^2m_3^2s)w_+^{nr}`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{f_1f_2}{f_3}}(s+2tm_B^22m_1^2m_3^2)w_{}^{nr}\}.`$ (22)
The dominant contributions to the amplitude for $`B^{}K^{}\pi ^+\pi ^{}`$ decays are then

$`_{nr}={\displaystyle \frac{G}{\sqrt{2}}}[V_{ub}V_{us}^{}a_1<K\pi \pi |O_1|B>_{nr}V_{tb}V_{ts}^{}(a_4<K\pi \pi |O_4|B>_{nr}+`$
$`a_6<K\pi \pi |O_6|B>_{nr})].`$ (23)
The decay width of the nonresonant $`B^{}\pi ^{}\pi ^+K^{}`$ can be found with the help of

$$\mathrm{\Gamma }_{nr}(B^{}\pi ^{}\pi ^+K^{})=\frac{1}{(2\pi )^3}\frac{1}{32m_B^3}|_{nr}|^2𝑑s𝑑t.$$
(24)
In the case of $`B^{}K^{}K^+K^{}`$ one has to take into account the two identical mesons in the final state (factor $`1/2`$ in the branching ratio) and to include in the amplitude the additional contribution obtained by the replacement $`st`$.

The lower and the upper bounds are given by $`s_{min}=(m_1+m_2)^2`$, $`s_{max}=(m_Bm_3)^2`$, while for $`t`$ they are given by

$`t_{min,max}(s)`$ $`=`$ $`m_2^2+m_3^2{\displaystyle \frac{1}{s}}[(sm_B^2+m_3^2)(s+m_2^2m_1^2)`$ (25)
$``$ $`\lambda ^{\frac{1}{2}}(s,m_B^2,m_3^2)\lambda ^{\frac{1}{2}}(s,m_2^2,m_1^2)],`$
where $`\lambda (a,b,c)=a^2+b^2+c^22(ab+ac+ab)`$.

The Wolfenstein parametrization of the CKM matrix  gives $`V_{ub}=A\lambda ^3(\overline{\rho }i\overline{\eta })`$, $`V_{us}=\lambda `$, $`V_{cs}=1\lambda ^2/2`$, $`V_{cb}=A\lambda ^2`$, $`V_{ts}=A\lambda ^2`$ and $`V_{tb}=1`$. The values $`A=0.82`$, $`\lambda =0.224`$, are well known, while for $`\overline{\rho }`$ and $`\overline{\eta }`$ there are bounds given in . This parametrization indicates $`V_{ub}`$ contains the phase, while the combination of $`V_{ts}^{}V_{tb}`$ has none. We denote $`V_{ub}=|V_{ub}|e^{i\gamma }`$ following . In our numerical calculation we use the recent value $`f_B=175`$ $`\mathrm{MeV}`$ (see e.g. ). The strong coupling $`g`$ is determined by the CLEO experimental results on the $`D^{}`$ decay width . The value $`g=0.57`$ reproduces this decay width. Heavy quark symmetry requires that this parameter be the same for B mesons. However, it has been pointed out that the off- mass-shell effects are very important in view of the higher B meson energy scale  and therefore we will use the lower value of $`g=0.23`$ . This smaller value of g correctly reproduces the form factor for the $`B\pi `$ transition at zero momentum transfer, calculated in this model,  in agreement with results obtained in other approaches (e.g. ). We fix the parameters $`\alpha _{1,2}`$ to repropduce the value $`|A_{1,2}^{DK}(0)|`$ in . These results are obtained by assuming a pole behaviour of form factors. We follow this procedure and by using the values of these form factors at $`Q_{max}^2`$, we obtain $`\alpha _1^{DK}=0.16`$$`[\mathrm{GeV}^{1/2}]`$ and $`\alpha _2^{DK}=0.05`$$`[\mathrm{GeV}^{1/2}]`$, which after soft scaling described in  give for the B mesons $`\alpha _1^{DK}=\alpha _1^{B\rho }`$ and $`\alpha _2^{DK}/m_D=\alpha _2^{B\rho }/m_B`$ resulting in the values $`\alpha _1=0.16`$ $`[\mathrm{GeV}^{1/2}]`$, $`\alpha _2=0.15`$ $`[\mathrm{GeV}^{1/2}]`$ which we will use here. These values give $`A_{1,2}(0)`$ for the $`B\rho `$ transiton in agreement with the values used in . The branching ratio can be written as a sum of tree level contribution $`T`$ (in which the operator $`O_1`$ contributes), the penguin contributions $`P`$ (operators $`O_4`$ and $`O_6`$) and there are two interference terms proportional to $`\mathrm{cos}\gamma `$ (denoted by $`I_1`$) and $`\mathrm{sin}\gamma `$ (denoted by $`I_2`$):

$$\mathrm{BR}(B^{}K^{}\pi ^+\pi ^{})_{nr}=T+P+I_1\mathrm{cos}\gamma +I_2\mathrm{sin}\gamma .$$
(26)
After performing the numerical integrations using the parameters described above, we obtain $`T=7.0\times 10^6`$, $`P=7.5\times 10^5`$, $`I_1=4.3\times 10^5`$ and $`I_2=1.5\times 10^5`$.

In the case of $`B^{}K^{}K^+K^{}`$ decay we find for $`T=3.4\times 10^6`$, $`P=3.7\times 10^5`$, $`I_1=2.1\times 10^5`$ and $`I_2=7.4\times 10^6`$. Taking a larger value $`g0.4`$, as some of typical smaller value of $`g`$ as mentioned in , we find moderate increase of all values $`T`$, $`P`$, $`I_{1,2}`$ by about factor $`20\%`$. Note that while the penguin contributions dominate in these decays, the size of $`\gamma `$ is very important for the magnitude of the branching ratio.

The results obtained by Belle collaboration  are $`\mathrm{BR}(B^{}K^{}\pi ^+\pi ^{})_{exp}`$ $`=(55.6\pm 5.8\pm 7.7)\times 10^6`$ and $`\mathrm{BR}(B^{}K^{}K^+K^{})_{exp}`$ $`=(35.3\pm 3.7\pm 4.3)\times 10^6`$. Comparing our results with these data we conclude that larger values of $`g`$ (e.g. $`g0.4`$) should be discounted in these cases; they give rates for nonresonant decays larger than the experimental results.

Due to the strong phases in $`a_4`$ and $`a_6`$ one can generate the CP violating asymmetry as

$`A={\displaystyle \frac{|\mathrm{\Gamma }(B^{}\pi ^+\pi ^{}K^{})\mathrm{\Gamma }(B^+\pi ^+\pi ^{}K^+)|}{|\mathrm{\Gamma }(B^{}\pi ^+\pi ^{}K^{})+\mathrm{\Gamma }(B^+\pi ^+\pi ^{}K^+)|}},`$ (27)
which can be written in the form

$`A={\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{sin}\gamma N_1}{N_2+\mathrm{cos}\gamma N_3}},`$ (28)
where

$`N_1=2G^2|V_{us}^{}||V_{ub}||V_{ts}^{}||V_{tb}|{\displaystyle }(dPS)a_1<O_1>[\mathrm{Im}(a_4)<O_4>+`$
$`\mathrm{Im}(a_6)<O_6>],`$ (29)
$`N_2=G^2|V_{us}^{}|^2|V_{ub}|^2{\displaystyle }(dPS)\{a_1|<O_1>|^2+|V_{ts}^{}|^2|V_{tb}|^2[|a_4|^2<O_4>+`$
$`|a_6|^2<O_6>]\},`$ (30)
$`N_3=2G^2|V_{us}^{}||V_{ub}||V_{ts}^{}||V_{tb}|{\displaystyle }(dPS)a_1<O_1>[\mathrm{Re}(a_4)<O_4>+`$
$`\mathrm{Re}(a_6)<O_6>].`$ (31)
The numerical calculation gives for the $`B^{}\pi ^+\pi ^{}K^{}`$ decay $`N_1=3.0\times 10^5`$, $`N_2=16,4\times 10^5`$ and $`N_3=8.6\times 10^5`$. For the $`B^{}K^+K^{}K^{}`$decay it becomes $`N_1=1.5\times 10^5`$, $`N_2=8.2\times 10^5`$ and $`N_3=4.2\times 10^5`$. One might think that the nonresonant decay amplitude might have more complicated structure than what we found within this model and then the CP violating asymmetry will be changed. However, in the factorization model, which we use in the above calculation, the CP violating asymmetry in the nonresonant partial or integrated decay rates, is essentially model independent, since the matrix elements of $`O_4`$ and $`O_6`$ are practically proportional to that of $`O_1`$, as can be seen from Eqs (17) and (22). Even in the presence of low-energy resonances contribution in the nonresonant amplitude, the CP asymmetry, for the total decay rates integrated over the whole phase space, or for the differential decay rates measured as a function of the two-pion or two-kaon invariant mass, can be computed in terms of the Wilson coefficients $`a_4`$ and $`a_6`$, and are independent of the form factors. The CP violating asymmetry Eq.(27) depends on the strong phase generated by the absorptive part of the Wilson coefficients.

On the other hand, the partial widths asymmetry at the charmonium resonance discussed in  seems to be more reliable for a further constraint of the CP violating phase $`\gamma `$.

In order to obtain the partial width CP asymmetry, one also needs to calculate the resonant decay amplitude $`B^{}`$ $`\chi _{c0}K^{}`$ $`\pi ^+\pi ^{}K^{}`$. This amplitude can be easily determined using the narrow width approximation, as in :

$`_r(B^{}\chi _{c0}K^{}\pi ^+\pi ^{}K^{})`$ $`=`$
$`(B^{}\chi _{c0}K^{}){\displaystyle \frac{1}{sm_{\chi _{c0}}^2+i\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\chi _{c0}}m_{\chi _{c0}}}}(\chi _{c0}\pi ^+\pi ^{}).`$ (32)
In our numerical calculations we will use the recent Belle measurement of the branching ratio  $`\mathrm{BR}(B^\pm `$ $`\chi _{c0}`$ $`K^\pm )`$ $`=(6.0\pm 1.1)\times 10^4`$. The amplitude is then $`(B^{}\chi _{c0}K^{})=3.37\times 10^7`$ $`\mathrm{GeV}`$. The $`\chi _{c0}`$ decay data  then fix the decay amplitudes for $`|(\chi _{c0}\pi ^{}\pi ^+)|=0.113`$ $`\mathrm{GeV}`$ and $`|(\chi _{c0}K^{}K^+)|=0.126`$ $`\mathrm{GeV}`$.

The partial decay width $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_p`$ for $`B^{}M\overline{M}K^{}`$, $`M=\pi ^+`$, $`K^+`$, which contains both the nonresonant and resonant contributions, is obtained then by integration from $`s_{min}=(m_{\chi _{c0}}2\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\chi _{c0}})^2`$ to $`s_{max}=(m_{\chi _{c0}}+2\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\chi _{c0}})^2`$, where $`m_{\chi _{c0}}=3.415\mathrm{GeV}`$ and $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\chi _{c0}}=0.0149_{0.0023}^{+0.0026}\mathrm{GeV}`$ is the width of the $`\chi _{c0}`$:

$$\mathrm{\Gamma }_p=\frac{1}{(2\pi )^3}\frac{1}{32m_B^3}_{s_{min}}^{s_{max}}𝑑s_{t_{min}(s)}^{t_{max}(s)}𝑑t|_{nr}+_r|^2.$$
(33)
Similarly, $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\overline{p}}`$, the partial decay width for $`B^+M\overline{M}K^+`$, $`M=\pi ^+`$, $`K^+`$ also contains both the nonresonant and resonant contributions. The CP nonconserving asymmetry is defined by

$$A_p=\frac{|\mathrm{\Gamma }_p\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\overline{p}}|}{|\mathrm{\Gamma }_p+\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\overline{p}}|}.$$
(34)
In calculation of the $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_p\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\overline{p}}`$ we derive, asumming that $`V_{ub}=|V_{ub}|e^{i\gamma }`$ :

$`\mathrm{\Gamma }_p\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\overline{p}}=\mathrm{sin}\gamma {\displaystyle \frac{4m_{\chi _{c0}}\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\chi _{c0}}}{(2\pi )^332m_B^3}}`$
$`\times {\displaystyle _{s_{min}}^{s_{max}}}ds{\displaystyle _{t_{min}(s)}^{t_{max}(s)}}dt{\displaystyle \frac{G}{\sqrt{2}}}|V_{ub}||V_{us}^{}|a_1<K\pi \pi |O_1|B>_{nr}`$
$`\times |(B^{}\chi _{c0}K^{})|{\displaystyle \frac{1}{(sm_{\chi _{c0}}^2)^2+(m_{\chi _{c0}}\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\chi _{c0}})^2}}|(\chi _{c0}\pi ^{}\pi ^+)|.`$
(35)
The denominator is given by

$`\mathrm{\Gamma }_p+\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\overline{p}}=2{\displaystyle \frac{1}{(2\pi )^332m_B^3}}{\displaystyle _{s_{min}}^{s_{max}}}𝑑s{\displaystyle _{t_{min}(s)}^{t_{max}(s)}}𝑑t`$
$`\times \{|_{nr}|^2+|(B^{}\chi _{c0}K^{}){\displaystyle \frac{1}{sm_{\chi _{c0}}^2+im_{\chi _{c0}}\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\chi _{c0}}}}(\chi _{c0}\pi ^{}\pi ^+)|^2\}.`$
(36)
Then we can write

$`A_p={\displaystyle \frac{A_1\mathrm{sin}\gamma }{A_2+A_3\mathrm{cos}\gamma }},`$ (37)
where $`A_1`$ is determined by (35), while $`A_2`$ contains the sum of the resonant decay amplitude as well as $`\gamma `$-independent part of (36), corresponding to $`N_2`$ with the integration over the $`\chi _{c0}`$ resonance region, $`s_{min}=(m_{\chi _{c0}}2\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\chi _{c0}})^2`$, $`s_{max}=(m_{\chi _{c0}}+2\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\chi _{c0}})^2`$). The part which is $`\gamma `$ dependent is given in $`A_3`$ (corresponding to $`N_3`$ with the integration over the $`\chi _{c0}`$ resonance region). Note that the term proportional to $`\mathrm{cos}\gamma `$ arising from the interference with the resonance in the denominator does not contribute. Namely, in the integration region of $`s`$ in (36), the real part of the resonance amplitude, being antisymmetric in $`s`$ gives no contribution to the integrated decay rates over the $`\chi _{c0}`$ resonance.

In Fig.1 and Fig.2 we present the distribution $`d\mathrm{\Gamma }_p/ds`$ in the region$`[s_{min},s_{max}]`$. It is clear from these figures that the nonresonant contribution is approximately constant over this region. For the given set parameters, with $`g=0.23`$, the CP violating asymmetries are

$`A_p(B^\pm K^\pm \pi ^+\pi ^{})={\displaystyle \frac{7.9\mathrm{sin}\gamma }{731.2\mathrm{cos}\gamma }},`$ (38)
and

$`A_p(B^\pm K^\pm K^+K)={\displaystyle \frac{7.2\mathrm{sin}\gamma }{415.6\mathrm{cos}\gamma }}`$ (39)
Following recently given bound for the phase $`\gamma =(58\pm 24)^o`$  we find that the partial widths asymmetry for the $`B^\pm K^\pm \pi ^+\pi ^{}`$ decay is reaching $`10\%`$ and $`16\%`$ for the $`B^\pm K^\pm K^+K`$.

The uncertainties due to the errors in the remaining input parameters have not been included here, but we can roughly estimate that the error in the asymmetry can be as large as $`40\%`$.

In summary, we can compare the previously considered cases $`B^\pm M\overline{M}\pi ^\pm `$, $`M=\pi ^+,K^+`$  with the present cases $`B^\pm M\overline{M}K^\pm `$, $`M=\pi ^+,K^+`$. Due to the different CKM matrix elements the penguin contributions dominate in the nonresonant $`B^\pm M\overline{M}K^\pm `$, $`M=\pi ^+,K^+`$ decay rate. Moreover, the phase $`\gamma `$ crucially influences their magnitudes. The appearence of the strong phases in the $`a_4`$ and $`a_6`$ Wilson coefficients of the penguin operators can generate the CP violating asymmetry in the nonresonant decay modes $`B^\pm M\overline{M}K^\pm `$, $`M=\pi ^+,K^+`$.

The CP violating partial widths asymmetry is smaller in the cases $`B^\pm M\overline{M}K^\pm `$, $`M=\pi ^+,K^+`$ than $`B^\pm M\overline{M}\pi ^\pm `$, $`M=\pi ^+,K^+`$. One might expect that, since now the CP violating partial widths asymmetry comes from the interference of the resonant amplitude and the tree-level nonresonant amplitude, which is given by $`V_{ub}V_{us}^{}`$ which is CKM suppressed, relative to $`V_{ub}V_{ud}^{}`$ for the decays $`B^\pm M\overline{M}\pi ^\pm `$, $`M=\pi ^+,K^+`$. One could also measure the differential decay rates and CP asymmetry as a function of the two-pion and two-kaon invariant mass squared as shown in Fig.1 and Fig.2 to obtain more informations on the CP asymmetry as well as possible determination of the nonresonant amplitudes at the $`\chi _{c0}`$ mass region.

The determination of these partial width asymmetries provides useful guidance for experimental searches of CP violating effects and further constraints on the phase $`\gamma `$.

This work was supported in part by the Ministry of Education, Science and Sport of the Republic of Slovenia (S.F), and by the U.S. Department of Energy, Division of High Energy Physics under grant No. DE-FG02-91-ER4086 (R.J.O.). S.F. thanks the Centre de Physique Theorique, Ecole Polytechnique, for the warm hospitality during her stay there where part of this work was done.


text:
# 1 Introduction

## 1 Introduction

As is well known, in high energy collisions the hadronization of partons, being a soft process, can not be analyzed using perturbative QCD (pQCD). Therefore, phenomenological analysis has to be applied to study the properties of the final state hadronic system, in order to get information which would lead to a better understanding of the dynamics of strong interaction. Investigating the dynamical fluctuations inside jets produced by the fragmentation of partons is an effective way to explore the dynamics in high energy collisions.

In a 2-jet event in e+e- collisions, the two produced jets are expected to be back to back and the thrust (or sphericity) axis coincides with the jet axes. Furthermore, the two jets being produced from a quark and an antiquark respectively are expected to have similar property. Under these assumptions the study of the dynamical fluctuations inside a single jet could be performed through the investigation of the fluctuations in a 2-jet event. Recently, this kind of investigation has been carried out both theoretically  and experimentally .

In view of the importance of this problem, it is worthwhile studying the dynamical fluctuations inside a single jet directly . The aim of this paper is to carry on this study for quark and antiquark jets separately using Monte Carlo method. Through this study, the influence of the above mentioned two assumptions are gotten rid of and the dynamical fluctuation properties in the hadronization process of quark and antiquark can be directly obtained.

## 2 Selection of quark and antiquark jets

Event samples of e+e- collision at c.m. energy $`\sqrt{s}=91.2`$ GeV are produced using LUND JETSET7.4 Monte Carlo code. Only charged particles are used in the calculation.

Two-jet events are selected using the Durham jet algorithm. In this scheme, a jet resolution variable $`y_{\mathrm{cut}}`$ is defined for every pair of particles (or jets) $`i`$ and $`j`$ in an event by:

$$y_{ij}=\frac{2\mathrm{min}(E_i^2,E_j^2)}{s}(1\mathrm{cos}\theta _{ij})$$
(1)
where $`E_i`$ and $`E_j`$ are the energies of the two particles (or jets), $`\theta _{ij}`$ is the angle between them and $`s`$ is the square of c.m. energy of the event. Jets or particles with $`y_{ij}y_{\mathrm{cut}}`$ are combined into a single jet. This procedure is repeated untill all pairs $`i`$ and $`j`$ satisfy $`y_{ij}>y_{\mathrm{cut}}`$. The 2-jet events remained at the end of this process consist the 2-jet sample corresponding to the cut parameter $`y_{\mathrm{cut}}`$.

Since we are using Monte Carlo method, it is possible to study the 2-jet events both at parton level and at hadron level. Quark jet and antiquark jet can then be identified through matching the jets in these two levels using the following technique .

Firstly, identify the type of a single jet at parton level by checking every parton involved in this jet and giving a weight +1 to quark, -1 to antiquark and 0 to gluon. The sum of the weights is expected to yield +1 for quark jet and -1 for antiquark jet. The cases where the sum of weights in a jet is neither +1 nor -1, or the weights in the two jets of one event are both +1 or both -1 are neglected. This cut condition throw away about 1% of the total events.

Secondly, consider the configuration of the 2-jet event at parton and hadron levels. The directions of hadron jets might not be exactly that of the corresponding parton ones, since the effects of hadronization may change their directions.

The type of a hadron jet can be determined by checking the parton jet closest to it. The hadron jet closest to the parton level quark jet is considered as the quark jet and that closest to the parton level antiquark jet is identified as the antiquark jet. In this way, the quark jet subsample and the antiquark jet subsample are obtained.

## 3 Single-jet coordinate system

In the 2-jet events, the thrust (or sphericity) axis is supposed to be the direction in which the quark-antiquark move back to back with high momenta. Therefore, it is chosen as the longitudinal direction in the physics analysis. While when the single quark or antiquark jet is considered separately, the thrust axis is no longer appropriate to be considered as the longitudinal direction. The direction of the total momentum of the particles inside the jet should be taken as the longitudinal axis instead. Thus a jet coordinate system with the third axis pointing along the direction of jet momentum should be built up. The transformation from the lab system to the jet system is acomplished through the following two steps. First, rotate the lab frame $`o`$-$`xyz`$ an angle $`\phi `$ around the $`z`$ axis to form the $`o`$-$`x^{}y^{}z^{}`$ frame and then turn the latter an angle $`\theta `$ around $`y^{}`$ axis to get the single-jet coordinate system $`o`$-$`x^{\prime \prime }y^{\prime \prime }z^{\prime \prime }`$, cf. Fig.1. This transformation can be expressed as:

$$\left(\begin{array}{c}x^{\prime \prime }\\ y^{\prime \prime }\\ z^{\prime \prime }\end{array}\right)=\left(\begin{array}{ccc}\mathrm{cos}\theta \mathrm{cos}\phi & \mathrm{cos}\theta \mathrm{sin}\phi & \mathrm{sin}\theta \\ \mathrm{sin}\phi & \mathrm{cos}\phi & 0\\ \mathrm{sin}\theta \mathrm{cos}\phi & \mathrm{sin}\theta \mathrm{sin}\phi & \mathrm{cos}\theta \end{array}\right)\left(\begin{array}{c}x\\ y\\ z\end{array}\right)$$
(2)
Fig.1 The transition from laboratory frame to quark (antiquark) jet frame

Fig.2 The distribution of the angle between the quark (antiquark) jet axis and the thrust axis. (a) quark jet (b) antiquark jet

The distribution of the angular difference between the direction of the quark (antiquark) jet axis and the thrust axis is shown in Fig.2. It can be seen from the figure that the jet axis is very close to the thrust axis.

## 4 Dynamical fluctuations

The dynamical fluctuations are characterized by the anomalous scaling of normalized factorial moments (NFM)

$$F_q(M)=\frac{1}{M}\underset{m=1}{\overset{M}{}}\frac{n_m(n_m1)\mathrm{}(n_mq+1)}{n_m^q}M^{\varphi _q}M\mathrm{},$$
(3)
where a region $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ in one-, two-, or three-dimensional phase space is divided into $`M`$ cells, $`n_m`$ is the multiplicity in the $`m`$th cell, and $`\mathrm{}`$ indicates vertically averaging over the event sample, consisting of quark or antiquark jets.

As Ochs pointed out, the dynamical fluctuations occured in higher-dimentional (2D or 3D) phase space have the projection effect on the fluctuations in lower-dimentional space causing the second-order 1D NFM goes to saturation by the rule :

$$F_2^{(a)}(M_a)=A_aB_aM_a^{\gamma _a},a=y,p_\mathrm{t},\phi $$
(4)
where the exponent $`\gamma _a`$ describes the rate of going to saturation of the NFM in the direction $`a`$ and is the most important characteristic for the higher-dimensional dynamical fluctuations. If the values of $`\gamma `$ in two directions are equal, $`\gamma _a=\gamma _b`$, the fluctuations are isotropic in the $`a,b`$ plane; while when $`\gamma _a\gamma _b`$ the fluctuations are anisotropic in this plane . The nature of the dynamical fluctuations (or that of the fractal) can be expressed in terms of the Hurst exponent $`H_{ab}`$, which can be obtained from the values of $`\gamma _a`$ and $`\gamma _b`$ as

$$H_{ab}=\frac{1+\gamma _b}{1+\gamma _a}$$
(5)
The dynamical fluctuations are isotropic (self-similar fractal) when $`H_{ab}=1`$, and anisotropic (self-affine fractal) when $`H_{ab}1`$ .

In our Monte Carlo simulation a total number of 2000000 events of e+e- collisions at 91.2 GeV are produced by JETSET 7.4 generator. Different $`y_{\mathrm{cut}}`$ are used to select the 2-jet events in the phase spase region $`[0<y<5]`$, $`[0.1<p_\mathrm{t}<3.0]`$, $`[0<\phi <2\pi ]`$ and the second order 1D factorial moments $`F_2(y)`$, $`F_2(p_\mathrm{t})`$, $`F_2(\phi )`$ are calculated respectively for both quark and antiquark jets. In order to avoid the influence of a non-flat distribution of the variables $`y,p_\mathrm{t}`$ and $`\phi `$ on the investigation of the dynamical fluctuations, all variables are transformed into their corresponding cumulant forms .

$$x(y)=\frac{_{y_a}^y\rho (y)𝑑y}{_{y_a}^{y_b}\rho (y)𝑑y},x(p_\mathrm{t})=\frac{_{p_{\mathrm{ta}}}^{p_\mathrm{t}}\rho (p_\mathrm{t})dp_\mathrm{t}}{_{p_{\mathrm{ta}}}^{p_{\mathrm{tb}}}\rho (p_\mathrm{t})dp_\mathrm{t}},x(\phi )=\frac{_{\phi _a}^\phi \rho (\phi )𝑑\phi }{_{\phi _a}^{\phi _b}\rho (\phi )𝑑\phi }.$$
(6)
Then the fitting to the saturated curves for these second order NFM’s vs. the partition number $`M=1,2,\mathrm{},40`$ in 1D phase space is carried out and the corresponding parameters $`\gamma _y,\gamma _{p_\mathrm{t}}`$ and $`\gamma _\phi `$ are obtained. In order to eliminate the influence of the momentum conservation, the first (for $`F_2(\phi )`$ the first three) point(s) are omitted when fitting the data to Eq.(4).

($`a`$) ($`b`$)

Fig.3 The parameter $`\gamma `$ as function of $`y_{\mathrm{cut}}`$. ($`a`$) quark jets ($`b`$) antiquark jets

## 5. Results and discusion

The variation of the three $`\gamma _a`$ ($`a=y,p_\mathrm{t},\phi `$) with $`y_{\mathrm{cut}}`$ are shown In Fig.3. From the figure some properties of the dynamical fluctuations inside the quark and antiquark jets can be extracted.

The most striking feature in Fig.3 is the variation of $`\gamma _\phi `$ with the parameter $`y_{\mathrm{cut}}`$. At small values of $`y_{\mathrm{cut}}`$, $`\gamma _\phi `$ lies at the bottom. When $`y_{\mathrm{cut}}`$ increases $`\gamma _\phi `$ increases rapidly and at a certain point $`\gamma _\phi `$ crosses over $`\gamma _{p_\mathrm{t}}`$, turning from $`\gamma _\phi <\gamma _{p_\mathrm{t}}`$ to $`\gamma _\phi >\gamma _{p_\mathrm{t}}`$. A distinct point called transition point , where $`\gamma _\phi =\gamma _{p_\mathrm{t}}`$, exists in both quark- (Fig.3$`a`$) and antiquark (Fig.3$`b`$) jets with only slightly different values of $`y_{\mathrm{cut}}`$ — 0.0047 for quark jets and 0.0050 for antiquark jets.

At the transition point, the Hurst exponents are

$$H_{yp_\mathrm{t}}=\frac{1+\gamma _{p_\mathrm{t}}}{1+\gamma _y}=0.70\pm 0.03;0.74\pm 0.03$$

$$H_{y\phi }=\frac{1+\gamma _\phi }{1+\gamma _y}=0.70\pm 0.06;0.75\pm 0.04$$

$$H_{p_\mathrm{t}\phi }=\frac{1+\gamma _\phi }{1+\gamma _{p_\mathrm{t}}}=1.00\pm 0.10;1.01\pm 0.06$$

The first values are for quark jets and the second ones for antiquark jets. These results indicate that at the transition point the dynamical fluctuations inside quark (antiquark) jet are anisotropic in the longitudinal-transverse planes, ($`y,p_\mathrm{t})`$ and ($`y,\phi `$), and isotropic in the transverse plane ($`p_\mathrm{t},\phi `$). This means that the quark and antiquark jets are circular in the transverse plane with respect to the dynamical fluctuations at the transition point and therefore they are called circular jets . For these jets $`H_{yp_\mathrm{t}}1`$, $`H_{y\phi }1`$ showing that the quark (antiquark) jet system is self-affine fractal

In the Durham algorithm used in our calculation the relative transverse momentum $`k_\mathrm{t}`$ is related to $`y_{\mathrm{cut}}`$ as

$$k_\mathrm{t}=\sqrt{y_{\mathrm{cut}}}\sqrt{s}$$
(7)
The value of $`k_\mathrm{t}`$ corresponding to the transition point is approximately 6.25 GeV for quark jet and 6.46 GeV for antiquark jet. The values of various parameters for both quark and antiquark jets at the transition point are listed in Table I

Table I Parameters $`\gamma `$, Hurst exponent $`H`$, cut-parameter $`y_{\mathrm{cut}}`$ and relative transverse momentum $`k_\mathrm{t}`$ at the transition point

| subsample | $`y_{\mathrm{cut}}`$ | $`\gamma _y`$ | $`\gamma _{p_\mathrm{t}}`$ | $`\gamma _\phi `$ | $`H_{ypt}`$ | $`H_{y\phi }`$ | $`H_{p_\mathrm{t}\phi }`$ | $`k_\mathrm{t}`$ (GeV) |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| quark | $`0.0047`$ | $`1.464`$ | $`0.730`$ | $`0.735`$ | $`0.70`$ | $`0.70`$ | $`1.00`$ | $`6.25`$ |
| jet | $`\pm 0.0003`$ | $`\pm 0.036`$ | $`\pm 0.041`$ | $`\pm 0.123`$ | $`\pm 0.03`$ | $`\pm 0.06`$ | $`\pm 0.10`$ | $`\pm 0.17`$ |
| antiquark | $`0.0050`$ | $`1.409`$ | $`0.791`$ | $`0.803`$ | $`0.74`$ | $`0.75`$ | $`1.01`$ | $`6.46`$ |
| jet | $`\pm 0.0009`$ | $`\pm 0.033`$ | $`\pm 0.039`$ | $`\pm 0.059`$ | $`\pm 0.03`$ | $`\pm 0.04`$ | $`\pm 0.06`$ | $`\pm 0.58`$ |

Having analyzed the dynamical fluctuations inside quark (antiquark) jets, it is interesting to discuss the following question. In high energy experiments some algorithm, e.g. the Durham algorithm, is used to select jets. In doing so, the jet sample obtained strongly depends on the cut parameter $`y_{\mathrm{cut}}`$. When the value of $`y_{\mathrm{cut}}`$ is chosen appropriately, the selected jet will be directly observable in the experiments as a bunch of particles. These directly observable jets are refered to as visible jets . The question is: Is the circular jets determined by the properties of the dynamical fluctuations at the transition point consistent with the visible jets in experiments?

In order to see the relation between the circular jets determined by the transition point and the visible jets observed in experiments, let us notice the fact that it was in the energy region 17–30 GeV that a third jet (the gluon jet) was historically first observed in e+e- collisions . In Fig.4’s are shown the ratios $`R_3`$ of 3-jet events as function of the relative transverse momentum $`k_\mathrm{t}`$ at 5 different energies ranging from 11 to 91.2 GeV. The dashed vertical lines correspond to the transition point $`k_\mathrm{t}`$=6.25 GeV and $`k_\mathrm{t}`$= 6.46 GeV, respectively.

Fig.4 The ratio of $`R_3`$ as function of the relative transverse momentum $`k_\mathrm{t}`$

It can be seen from the figure that for the circular jets defined by the transition point $`k_\mathrm{t}=6.256.46`$ GeV (dashed lines in the figure), 3-jet events become noticeable just at $`\sqrt{s}17`$ GeV. This means that the third (gluon) jet first observed at $`\sqrt{s}=17`$ GeV is consistent with being the circular jet.

## 4. Conclusion

In this paper we identify the hadronic quark- and antiquark-jets through matching them with the parton-level jets. Then we study the dynamical fluctuations inside the quark jets and the antiquark jets respectively using Monte Carlo simulation.

The second order 1D factorial Moments of the three variables $`y,p_\mathrm{t},\phi `$ are calculated. By fitting the results to the projection formula Eq.(4) the variation of the saturation exponents $`\gamma _y,\gamma _{p_\mathrm{t}}`$ and $`\gamma _\phi `$ with $`y_{\mathrm{cut}}`$ is obtained. A transition point exists in both the quark and the antiquark jets. At the transition point the dynamical fluctuations inside the quark jets and the antiquark jets, being similar to each other, are anisotropic in the longitudinal-transverse planes and isotropic in the transverse plane. These jets are refered to as circular jets.

The percentage $`R_3`$ of 3-jet events for the jets of different $`k_\mathrm{t}`$ have been calculated. It turns out that for the circular jets defined by the transition point $`k_\mathrm{t}=6.256.46`$ GeV, the percentage $`R_3`$ of 3-jet events becomes noticeable just at $`\sqrt{s}17`$ GeV, where the 3-jet event was historically first observed. Therefore, the circular jets defined by the $`k_\mathrm{t}`$ at transition point is consistent to be the visible jets, which are directly observable in experiments.

### Acknowledgement

The authors thank Yu Meiling for valuable discussions.