text:
# Bounds on neutrino magnetic moment tensor from solar neutrinos

## Abstract

Solar neutrinos with non-zero magnetic moments will contribute to the electron scattering rates in the Super-Kamiokande experiment. The magnetic moment scattering events in Super-K can be accommodated in the standard VO or MSW solutions by a change of the parameter space of mass square difference and mixing angle-but the shifted neutrino parameters obtained from Super-K will (for some values of neutrino magnetic moments) become incompatible with the fits from SNO, Gallium and Chlorine experiments. We compute the upper bounds on the Dirac and Majorana magnetic moments of solar neutrinos by simultaneously fitting all the observed solar neutrino rates. The bounds the magnetic moment matrix elements are of the order of $`10^{10}\mu _B`$.

1. Introduction
Solar neutrino experiments with Chlorine , Gallium , and water cerenkov detectors ,, show that there is a deficit of $`\nu _e`$ at the Earth compared to the predictions  of the standard solar model (SSM). It is commonly accepted that vacuum oscillations (VO) or matter induced MSW conversions, with large mixing angle (LMA) or small mixing angle (SMA), can account for the deficit of solar neutrinos. The available experimental results allow not only a test of the neutrino oscillation hypothesis but also offer possibilities of constraining new physics, e.g. neutrino magnetic moment , neutrino decay , flavour changing neutral currents, etc.

Neutrinos with non-zero magnetic moments will contribute to the $`\nu e^{}`$ scattering rates at Super-K. The electron scattering rate at Super-K (defined as the ratio of average number of electron scatterings observed and the theoretical prediction of $`\nu _ee^{}`$ elastic scattering in SSM) is given by

$$R_{SK}=\frac{1}{\sigma _e}\left(\sigma _eP_{ee}+\sigma _{\mu ,\tau }(1P_{ee})+\sigma _{mag}\right)$$
(1)
Here the first two terms denote the standard $`\nu _ee^{}`$ and $`\nu _{\mu ,\tau }e^{}`$ scattering processes respectively , $`P_{ee}`$ being the $`\nu _e`$ survival probability. The last term in eq.(1) corresponds to the scattering events $`\nu _ie^{}\nu _je^{}`$ due to non-zero neutrino magnetic moments. Unlike, Super-K and SNO, the other solar detectors do not probe the neutral current interactions and are thus not sensitive to the magnetic moment scattering. The previous bounds on neutrino magnetic moment from solar neutrinos have made use of the only Super-K results  or have combined Super-K and SNO results  together. The other experiments however indirectly influence the bound on magnetic moment through a combined chi-square analysis. We use results from all experiments here concentrating mainly on rates to put bounds on elements of the magnetic moment tensor $`\mu _{ij}`$ defined in the neutrino mass basis.

The magnetic moment scatterings are helicity flipping processes and are more appropriately described in the mass basis unlike the non-flip weak interaction processes which are described in the flavor basis. The electron neutrinos produced at the Sun arrive as a linear combination of mass eigenstates at the detector. The probability amplitude of the $`\nu _i`$ mass eigenstate at the detector is denoted by $`𝒜_i(L)`$ and $`\nu _ie^{}\nu _je^{}`$ scattering amplitude is proportional to $`\mu _{ij}`$. It is assumed  that prior to scattering the neutrinos are a linear combination of different mass eigenstates, but after scattering the neutrino beam is a incoherent sum of different mass states. A field theoretic justification of this is given in . The probability amplitude of the $`\nu _i`$ mass eigenstate at the detector is denoted by $`𝒜_i(L)`$ and the $`\nu _ie^{}\nu _je^{}`$ scattering amplitude is proportional to $`\mu _{ij}`$. The magnetic moment differential scattering cross section at the detector is then given by

$$\frac{d\sigma _{mag}}{dT}=\mu _{eff}^2\times \frac{\pi \alpha ^2}{m_e^2}(\frac{1}{T}\frac{1}{E_\nu })$$
(2)
$`T`$ is the recoil energy of the electrons, $`E_\nu `$ the initial neutrino energy and the magnetic moments $`\mu _{ij}`$ are in units of Bohr magnetron. The effective magnetic moment $`\mu _{eff}`$ can be written in terms of the intrinsic neutrino magnetic moments $`\mu _{ij}`$ as

$$\mu _{eff}^2=\underset{j}{}|\underset{i}{}𝒜_{iL}\mu _{ij}|^2$$
(3)
The magnetic moment tensor $`\mu _{ij}`$ is antisymmetric if neutrinos are Majorana particles. For Dirac neutrinos, $`\mu _{ij}`$ are arbitrary complex numbers but in special case of CP conserving theory, they are real and symmetric . We shall assume this to be the case. The amplitude $`𝒜_{iL}`$ of the $`\nu _i`$ mass eigenstate at the detector depends upon the oscillation model which solves the solar neutrino problem.

We consider the case of vacuum oscillations, and matter induced MSW conversions in turn and derive bounds on $`\mu _{ij}`$ for each of these cases separately.
2. Vacuum Oscillations
Neutrinos are produced in the solar core as the $`\nu _e`$ flavor eigenstate, and the amplitude for detecting them at a distance $`L`$ as a mass eigenstate is given by

$$𝒜_i(L)=U_{ei}e^{iE_iL}.$$
(4)
The elements of mixing matrix $`U`$ are constrained by atmospheric neutrino and CHOOZ experiments to be of the following form:

$`\left(\begin{array}{c}\nu _e\\ \nu _\mu \\ \nu _\tau \end{array}\right)=\left(\begin{array}{ccc}c_1& s_1& 0\\ c_2s_1& c_2c_1& s_2\\ s_2s_1& s_2c_1& c_2\end{array}\right)\left(\begin{array}{c}\nu _1\\ \nu _2\\ \nu _3\end{array}\right).`$ (5)
We have approximated $`U_{e3}0`$ in order to account for the negative results obtained in $`\nu _e`$ disappearance experiment at CHOOZ . The small value of $`U_{e3}`$ (taken here as zero) also prevents the mixing of the third neutrino in vacuum. In addition to the above mixing one also needs $`\delta m_{12}^2=m_2^2m_1^210^410^{11}`$ eV2 and $`\delta m_{23}^2m_3^2m_2^210^3`$ eV2 to account for the solar and atmospheric  neutrino problems respectively. The required value of $`\delta m_{23}^2`$ is much larger than the value of the effective mass square $`2\sqrt{2}G_FEN_e`$ of the electron neutrino at the solar core. This suppresses mixing of the third neutrino in matter as well  which decouples from the rest in case of the MSW solution to the solar neutrino problem.

Using the mixing matrix (5) the $`\nu _e`$ survival probability in vacuum from Sun to Earth is given by the expressions

$`P_{ee}`$ $`=`$ $`c_1^4+s_1^4+2(c_1s_1)^2\mathrm{cos}({\displaystyle \frac{\delta m_{12}^2L}{2E_\nu }})`$ (6)
where $`L=1.5\times 10^{13}\mathrm{cm}=500.3`$ s is the Earth-Sun distance.

Using the mixing matrix elements from eq.(5), we find that the expression for $`\mu _{eff}^2`$ for VO is given by

$`(\mu _{eff}^2)_{VO}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{j}{}}\left(|{\displaystyle \underset{i}{}}U_{ei}e^{iE_iL}\mu _{ij}|^2\right)`$ (7)
$`=`$ $`c_1^2\left(\mu _{11}^2+\mu _{12}^2+\mu _{13}^2\right)+s_1^2\left(\mu _{21}^2+\mu _{22}^2+\mu _{23}^2\right)`$ (8)
$`+`$ $`2c_1s_1\left(\mu _{11}\mu _{21}+\mu _{12}\mu _{22}+\mu _{13}\mu _{23}\right)\mathrm{cos}({\displaystyle \frac{\delta m_{12}^2L}{2E_\nu }})`$ (9)
This is the three generation generalization of the expression for $`(\mu _{eff}^2)_{VO}`$ first derived by Beacom and Vogel . The $`\nu _3`$ state can be produced after the electron scattering by $`\nu _1`$ and $`\nu _2`$ in the solar neutrino beam, therefore the transition moments $`\mu _{13}`$ and $`\mu _{23}`$ appear in the expression above. However since the solar neutrino beam does not contain $`\nu _3`$, there is no $`\mu _{3i}`$ dependence in $`\mu _{eff}`$ and $`\mu _{33}`$ cannot be constrained by solar neutrino experiments.

Vacuum solution requires $`\delta m_{12}^210^{10}`$eV2. The oscillatory term in eq.(9) does not get averaged out in this case. This term by itself is not positive definite and prevents obtaining bounds on all the moments appearing in eq.(9). We thus need to make simplifying assumptions. For the case of Dirac neutrinos we assume (as in the Particle Data Book) that the dominant non-zero elements are diagonal $`\mu _{ij}=\delta _{ij}\mu _i`$. With this assumption, eq.(9) simplifies to the form

$$\mu _{eff}^2=c_1^2\mu _1^2+s_1^2\mu _2^2.$$
(10)
Since each term 10 is positive definite we can put upper bounds on $`\mu _1^2`$ and $`\mu _2^2`$ by taking them one at a time.

For the case of Majorana neutrinos the magnetic moment matrix $`\mu _{ij}`$ is anti-symmetric. We set $`\mu _{11}=\mu _{22}=0`$ and find that $`\mu _{eff}`$ can be given an upper and lower bounds

$$\mu _{12}^2+(c_1|\mu _{13}|s_1|\mu _{23}|)^2\mu _{eff}^2\mu _{12}^2+(c_1|\mu _{13}|+s_1|\mu _{23}|)^2.$$
(11)
From this we see that $`\mu _{eff}^2`$ can be written as a sum of two positive definite quantities and therefore one can take each term separately in order to put an upper bound on $`\mu _{12}`$. To put bounds on $`\mu _{13}`$ and $`\mu _{23}`$ we need to further assume that there is no cancellation between the two terms in the the expression $`(c_1|\mu _{13}|s_1|\mu _{23}|)^2`$ i.e either $`|\mu _{23}|`$ or $`|\mu _{13}|`$ is much larger than the other.
3. MSW conversion
If the flavor conversion of neutrinos in the Sun is by MSW mechanism then we have different expressions for $`\mu _{eff}`$. As discussed already, only two energy eigenstates $`\nu _1`$ and $`\nu _2`$ corresponding to the lighter neutrinos participate in the MSW conversion. In the core of the Sun $`E_1>E_2`$, there is a level crossing at the resonance point after which $`E_2>E_1`$ i.e. $`m_2>m_1`$ in vacuum. The probability of $`\nu _e\nu _1`$ just after level crossing is

$$P_1=P_Js_m^2+(1P_J)c_m^2$$
(12)
Here, the first term stands for $`\nu _e`$ going to $`\nu _2`$ by mixing with probability $`s_m^2`$ and then jumping to $`\nu _1`$ with probability $`P_J`$ at the level crossing. The second term means that $`\nu _e`$ goes to $`\nu _1`$ by mixing and then does not jump to $`\nu _2`$ with probability $`(1P_J)`$ at the level crossing. The probability of $`\nu _e\nu _2`$ just after level crossing is

$$P_2=(1P_1)=(1P_J)s_m^2+P_Jc_m^2.$$
(13)
In the formulas above, the Landau-Zener jump probability is given by

$`P_J`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{exp}(bs_1^2/E_\nu )\mathrm{exp}(b/E_\nu )}{1\mathrm{exp}(b/E_\nu )}}`$ (14)
$`b`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\pi }{4}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{\delta m^2}{|\dot{A}/A|_{res}}}\right)10^9\left({\displaystyle \frac{\delta m^2}{\mathrm{eV}^2}}\right)\mathrm{MeV}`$ (15)
and $`A=2\sqrt{2}E_\nu G_FN_e`$. The mixing angle in matter in the Sun is given in terms of the vacuum mixing angle by the expression

$`\mathrm{cos}2\theta _m`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{(1+\eta (12s_1^2))}{(12\eta (12s_1^2)+\eta ^2)^{1/2}}}`$ (16)
$`\eta `$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\delta m^2}{A}}=6.6\times 10^5{\displaystyle \frac{b}{E_\nu }}`$ (17)
We can now use the matrix eq.(5) to find the survival probability of $`\nu _e`$ at Earth,

$$P_{ee}=c_1^2P_1+s_1^2P_2$$
(18)
Unlike in the vacuum case, $`\frac{2E_\nu }{\delta m_{12}^2}`$ is much smaller than the Sun-Earth distance in case of the MSW conversion. Thus phases acquired in oscillations average out . We can thus drop the interference terms of the type $`𝒜_1(L)𝒜_2(L)^{}`$ in the expression for $`\mu _{eff}`$ in eq.(3). Substituting for $`|𝒜_1(L)|^2=P_1`$ and $`|𝒜_2(L)|^2=P_2`$ and we then get

$`(\mu _{eff}^2)_{MSW}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{j}{}}\left({\displaystyle \underset{i}{}}P_i\mu _{ij}^2\right)`$ (19)
$`=`$ $`P_1\left(\mu _{11}^2+\mu _{12}^2+\mu _{13}^2\right)+P_2\left(\mu _{21}^2+\mu _{22}^2+\mu _{23}^2\right)`$ (20)
$`=`$ $`\mu _{12}^2+P_1(\mu _{11}^2+\mu _{13}^2)+(1P_1)(\mu _{22}^2+\mu _{23}^2)`$ (21)
The expression for $`(\mu _{eff}^2)_{MSW}`$ was first derived for the two generations case in . Since, $`(\mu _{eff}^2)_{MSW}`$ contains a sum of positive definite terms we can put upper bounds on each term taken one at a time, using the expression eq.(12) for $`P_1`$. In this case, we are able to constrain all $`\mu _{ij}`$ except $`\mu _{33}`$.
4. Experimental rates and bounds on magnetic moments
The electron scattering reaction in Super-K can be written as

$`R_{\mathrm{SK}}={\displaystyle \frac{𝑑E_\nu \sigma _{\nu _e}\mathrm{\Phi }_\mathrm{B}P_{ee}+𝑑E_\nu \sigma _{\nu _\mu }\mathrm{\Phi }_\mathrm{B}(1P_{ee})+𝑑E_\nu \sigma _{mag}(E_\nu )\mathrm{\Phi }_\mathrm{B}}{𝑑E_\nu \sigma _{\nu _e}\mathrm{\Phi }_\mathrm{B}}}`$ (22)
The magnetic moment scattering cross section $`\sigma _{mag}(E_\nu )`$ is obtained by integrating (w.r.t the electron recoil energy $`T`$ )the differential cross section 2 folded with a detector response function taken from . The $`{}_{}{}^{8}B`$ $`\nu _e`$ flux is taken from  and is given below. Only the Super-K electron elastic scattering rate depends on the neutrino magnetic moments.

The charge-current deuterium dissociation reaction rate at SNO normalized to its SSM value is given by

$`R_{\mathrm{SNO}}^{\mathrm{CC}}={\displaystyle \frac{𝑑E_\nu \sigma _{\mathrm{CC}}\mathrm{\Phi }_\mathrm{B}P_{ee}}{𝑑E_\nu \sigma _{\mathrm{CC}}\mathrm{\Phi }_\mathrm{B}}}`$ (23)
The $`\nu _ee^{}`$ and $`\nu _{\mu ,\tau }e^{}`$ elastic scattering cross section after folding with the detector response function are tabulated in ref.. The deuterium dissociation cross section is taken from .

The rates of neutrino capture in the Chlorine and Gallium experiments can be written as

$$R_\alpha =\frac{{\displaystyle \underset{i=pp,\mathrm{Be},\mathrm{B}}{}}𝑑E_\nu \mathrm{\Phi }_i\sigma _\alpha P_{ee}}{{\displaystyle \underset{i=pp,\mathrm{Be},\mathrm{B}}{}}𝑑E_\nu \mathrm{\Phi }_i\sigma _\alpha }$$
(24)
where the subscript $`\alpha =`$ Ga, Cl denotes the experiment and $`i=pp`$, 7Be, 8B denotes the type of neutrino flux from the Sun. The spectra of the $`pp`$ and 8B neutrinos can be fitted with the analytical functions,

$`\mathrm{\Phi }_{pp}`$ $`=`$ $`(5.95\times 10^{10})[193.9(0.931E_\nu )((0.931E_\nu )^20.261)^{1/2}E_\nu ^2]`$ (25)
$`\mathrm{\Phi }_\mathrm{B}`$ $`=`$ $`(5.05\times 10^6)[8.52\times 10^6(15.1E_\nu )^{2.75}E_\nu ^2]`$ (26)
$`\mathrm{\Phi }_{\mathrm{Be}}`$ $`=`$ $`(4.77\times 10^9)[\delta (E_\nu 0.862)]`$ (27)
where the neutrino fluxes are in units of cm-2s-1 and $`E_\nu `$ is in MeV. The first brackets in (27) give the total flux of neutrinos from the $`pp`$,Be, and B reactions and are taken from BP2000 , and the square brackets give the spectral shape .

The Ga experiments can detect all three types of neutrino fluxes and the neutrino absorbtion cross section of $`Ga`$ is given in . The Chlorine experiment threshold is higher (0.8 MeV) and it detects only the Be and B neutrinos; we take the absorption cross section with the tables from ref..

Using the flux spectrum in equation (27) and the cross sections  we can calculate the theoretical rates for MSW or VO conversion probabilities as a function of the three unknown parameters: the magnetic moment matrix elements $`\mu _{ij}`$, $`\delta m_{12}^2`$ and the vacuum mixing angle $`\theta _1`$. The experimental rates $`R_\alpha ^{\mathrm{expt}}`$ with one-sigma combined (statistical and systematic) experimental errors $`\mathrm{\Delta }_\alpha `$ are as follows :

$`R_{\mathrm{Cl}}^{\mathrm{expt}}`$ $`=`$ $`0.335\pm 0.029`$ (28)
$`R_{\mathrm{Ga}}^{\mathrm{expt}}`$ $`=`$ $`0.584\pm 0.039`$ (29)
$`R_{\mathrm{SK}}^{\mathrm{expt}}`$ $`=`$ $`0.459\pm 0.017`$ (30)
$`R_{\mathrm{SNO}\mathrm{CC}}^{\mathrm{expt}}`$ $`=`$ $`0.347\pm 0.029`$ (31)
From the theoretical $`R_\alpha `$, and the experimental $`R_\alpha ^{\mathrm{expt}}`$, we compute the total $`\chi ^2`$ for all experiments, defined as

$$\chi ^2\underset{\alpha =\mathrm{Cl},\mathrm{Ga},\mathrm{SK},\mathrm{SNO}}{}\frac{(R_\alpha R_\alpha ^{\mathrm{expt}})^2}{\mathrm{\Delta }_\alpha ^2}.$$
(32)
Setting the parameter $`\mu _{eff}=0`$ we reproduce the standard contours of VO (Fig. 1.) and MSW (Fig. 2) solutions shown as continues curves. For $`\mu _{eff}=0`$ the global minimum of $`\chi ^2`$ occurs in the vacuum region with $`\chi _{min}^20.3`$. We then take a non-zero $`\mu _{eff}`$ and plot the regions (shown as dashed curves) in $`\delta m_{12}^2\mathrm{tan}^2\theta `$ plane corresponding to $`\chi _{min}^2+4.6`$ (90% CL) both for VO (Fig.1) and MSW ( Fig. 2) solutions. These figures correspond to a constant value for $`\mu _{eff}`$. It is found that the allowed regions shrinks as we increase the value of $`\mu _{eff}`$ and it disappears for some specific $`\mu _{eff}`$ which is taken to be the 90% CL bound on $`\mu _{eff}`$. We consider different cases following this procedure.

In case of VO and Dirac neutrino, we choose $`\mu _{eff}^2`$ equal to $`\mu _1^2c_1^2`$ and $`\mu _2^2s_1^2`$ (see eq.(10)) respectively. The bounds on $`\mu _{1,2}`$ obtained using the above procedure are given by (at $`90\%C.L.`$)

$`\mu _1`$ $`<`$ $`4.5\times 10^{10}\mu _B`$ (33)
$`\mu _2`$ $`<`$ $`7.1\times 10^{10}\mu _B`$ (34)
In case of the Majorana neutrinos we use eq.(9) and substitute $`\mu _{eff}^2`$ by $`\mu _{12}^2`$ , $`c_1^2|\mu _{13}|^2`$ or $`s_1^2|\mu _{23}|^2`$ leading to the 90% CL bounds

$`|\mu _{12}|`$ $`<`$ $`3.7\times 10^{10}\mu _B,`$ (35)
$`|\mu _{13}|`$ $`<`$ $`4.5\times 10^{10}\mu _B(if|\mu _{23}|<<|\mu _{13}|)`$ (36)
$`|\mu _{23}|`$ $`<`$ $`7.1\times 10^{10}\mu _B(if|\mu _{13}|<<|\mu _{23}|)`$ (37)
Next we take up the MSW solution. We find that the LMA and SMA allowed parameter space disappears for $`\mu _{eff}=3.7`$ which translates to the bound on $`\mu _{12}`$. Next we take $`\mu _{eff}=(1P_1)\mu ^2`$ and find that the parameter space vanishes when $`\mu _{eff}=4.3`$. This translates to the bounds on $`|\mu _{22}|,\mu _{23}|`$. Finally we take $`\mu _{eff}=P_1\mu ^2`$ and find that the SMA region disappears for $`\mu _{eff}=7.8`$ and the LMA region disappears at $`\mu _{eff}=20.5`$ which translates into the bounds on $`|\mu _{11}|,\mu _{13}|`$. These bounds are summarized below:

$`|\mu _{12}|`$ $`<`$ $`3.8\times 10^{10}\mu _B`$ (38)
$`|\mu _{22}|,|\mu _{23}|`$ $`<`$ $`4.3\times 10^{10}\mu _B`$ (39)
$`|\mu _{11}|,|\mu _{13}|`$ $`<`$ $`7.8\times 10^{10}\mu _B(SMA);20.5\times 10^{10}\mu _B(LMA))`$ (40)
In (40) , the bounds on the diagonal elements of $`\mu _{ij}`$ are relevant for Dirac neutrinos only and the bounds on the off-diagonal elements apply to both Dirac and Majorana neutrinos. The bound on $`|\mu _{11}|,|\mu _{13}|`$ obtained in case of the LMA solution is weakest of all bounds. This is due to the fact that these quantities are multiplied by $`P_1`$ in eq.(21) which is very small for adiabatic transition occurring in the LMA region.

While the neutrino magnetic moments affect the rates of only the Super-K experiment, a combined analysis of all experiments was essential in establishing the bounds given in eqs.(34-40). This can be seen explicitly in Fig. 3. and Fig. 4 for the VO case and in Fig. 5. and Fig. 6. for the MSW case. In Fig. 3. we plot the $`1.64\sigma `$ allowed regions for $`R_{SK}`$ (continuous line) and $`R_{SNO}`$ (dotted line) by setting $`\mu _{eff}=0`$. We see a large overlap between the SK and SNO allowed regions for $`\mu _{eff}=0`$. Next we repeat the same plots by taking $`\mu _{eff}=3.8`$. We see that the SK allowed parameter shifts so that there is no more any overlap with the SNO allowed region. Therefore a combination of SNO and SK result is crucial in disallowing $`\mu _{eff}>3.8`$.

Similarly in Fig. 5. and Fig. 6. we plot the $`1.64\sigma `$ allowed regions for $`\mu _{eff}=0`$ and $`\mu _{eff}=4.0`$ respectively. In Fig.5. we see overlap between SK allowed regions (between continuous curves), SNO (between dashed curves) and Gallium (between dotted curves) in the SMA and the LMA regions. In Fig. 6. we see that when $`\mu _{eff}=4.0`$ the SK allowed parameter space shifts so that there is no common allowed region for the three experiments thereby ruling out values of $`\mu _{eff}>4.0`$.

In summary, we have used solar neutrino rates to constrain possible magnetic moment coupling of neutrinos to photons. The bounds depend upon specific solution of the solar neutrino problem. If MSW mechanism is mainly responsible for the solar neutrino conversion then it is possible to constrain all elements of magnetic moment operator $`\mu _{ij}`$ except for $`\mu _{33}`$. For the VO solution one can obtain bounds (eq.(34)) on two of the diagonal moments assuming a diagonal $`\mu _{ij}`$ in case of the Dirac neutrinos. For Majorana neutrinos, we obtain bounds on $`\mu _{12}`$ , $`\mu _{13}`$ and $`\mu _{23}`$ given in eq.(37).


format: text

text:
# Revisit to Low Mass Scalar Mesons via Unitarized Chiral Perturbation Theory

## 1 Introduction

Recently, many papers have been appeared on the studies of the scalar mesons below 1 GeV, but it seems that we have still not reached any certain conclusion on their existence and nature as a whole.

The experimental feature of the $`(I,J)=(0,0)`$ channel is qualitatively stated as follows: The phase shift makes a plateau near $`60^{}80^{}`$, and reaches $`90^{}`$ at $`800900`$ MeV and then rapidly increases to exceed $`200^{}`$ near the $`K\overline{K}`$ threshold, and $`\pi \pi `$ scattering is almost pure elastic below the $`K\overline{K}`$ threshold. It is not clear, however, where are the resonant states involving the so-called $`\sigma `$ meson in the broad mass distribution from 400 to 1200 MeV denoted as $`f_0(4001200)`$ in the Particle Data Group Lists 2000. The complex pole searches in the $`\pi \pi `$ scattering amplitude, the attempts to fit the data by the Breit-Wigner formulae or the analyses by using the K-matrix are cited there, but the obtained values are widely spread and seem to depend strongly on the models adopted. On the contrary the $`f_0(980)`$ state hidden in the structure near the $`K\overline{K}`$ threshold has the mass converging to a common value near 980 MeV, while its width is spread a little.

In the $`(I,J)=(1,0)`$ channel a sharp peak is observed near the $`K\overline{K}`$ threshold, which is denoted as $`a_0(980)`$. But it is still not clear whether $`a_0(980)`$ is certainly a resonance or a cusp, since the $`\pi \eta `$ scattering data are scarce. About the $`(I,J)=(1/2,0)`$ channel, it is controversial whether the so-called $`\kappa (900)`$ really exists or not. The phase shift does not exceed $`90^{}`$ below 1GeV at all. This state is not yet cited in the PDG List.

The central issue in the $`(I,J)=(0,0)`$ channel below 1 GeV is to understand the mechanism to generate the mass distribution such as the broad peak and the dip or steep cliff near the $`K\overline{K}`$ threshold: Is the $`\sigma `$ state really hidden in the broad peak and how the $`f_0(980)`$ state is generated ? We are also interested in the following issues whether the $`a_0(980)`$ state is also a bound state resonance like a twin of $`f_0(980)`$, and whether the $`\pi K`$ broad mass peak should be interpreted as the the resonance called by $`\kappa (900)`$.

In this note we try to analyze the above issues by use of the multichannel Inverse Amplitude Method(IAM) of the Chiral Perturbation Theory. In the IAM of the ChPT a meson-meson scattering amplitude is given as the Padé  approximant applied to the perturbative amplitudes up to O($`p^4`$) in order to satisfy the $`s`$channel unitarity and be applied to the resonance region. The Lagrangian of the ChPT does not incorporate the $`\sigma `$ field nor other resonance fields as the independent degrees of freedom in advance, and then it offers a good theoretical framework to study the issues. Of course, this does not imply that the existence or nonexistence of a resonance can be completely predicted by the IAM, since the theory contains a set of the phenomenological parameters determined by the experimental data.

Despite the fact that the overall fits have already been given using the full $`T_4`$ amplitudes by Goméz Nicola and Pelàez, we revisit the issues around the scalar mesons with use of the IAM in order to understand the contents of the fits, that is, how the resonances are generated or not generated. For this purpose we adopt the Oller-Oset-Pelàez (OOP) version of the IAM, since the OOP version is much simple and describes rather well the qualitative behavior of the data. The OOP version picks up only the polynomial terms, $`T_4^P`$’s with the coefficients $`L_n`$’s and the s-channel loop terms out of the full O($`p^4`$) amplitudes, neglecting the left hand singularities. It may be said that the OOP version is like the K-matrix approximation to the full amplitude.

The conclusion on the scalar mesons viewed from the OOP version of the $`2\times 2`$ channel IAM is summarized as follows:

1. The nonet structure of the scalar mesons below 1 GeV does not hold.
2. The $`f_0(980)`$ state is a typical example of the bound state resonance: The $`K\overline{K}`$ scattering amplitude has a bound state pole on the real axis, if the channel coupling is switched off, and the channel coupling moves the pole into the second sheet and generates the resonant behavior near the $`K\overline{K}`$ threshold. But its explicit resonant form is hidden in the large $`\pi \pi `$ background.
3. If we take the parameter set adopted in this note, the $`a_0(980)`$ state appears as the strong cusp, not as the resonance. The origin of $`a_0(980)`$ is not the $`K\overline{K}`$ bound state pole but the channel coupling between the $`\pi \eta `$ and $`K\overline{K}`$ channels. This gives a sharp peak at the $`K\overline{K}`$ threshold, but the elastic $`\eta \pi `$ phase shift cannot exceed $`90^{}`$ below the $`K\overline{K}`$ threshold.
4. The broad peak of the isoscalar-scalar $`\pi \pi `$ mass distribution centered at 500 MeV need not be interpreted as the conventional resonance. It represents the attractive interaction between two pions with the vacuum quantum number corresponding to the vacuum fluctuation coming from the spontaneous symmetry breaking. The $`\kappa (900)`$ state is also not the conventional resonance similar to $`\sigma `$.

The mechanism to generate $`f_0(980)`$ and $`a_0(980)`$ is similar to the $`K\overline{K}`$ molecule model discussed by Weinstein and Isgur using the nonrelativistic quark model and Jülich group using the meson exchange models, though our theoretical framework is much different from theirs.

This paper is organized as follows: We briefly explain the Oller-Oset-Pelàez version in the next section. The scalar mesons are discussed in Sec.3 and the vector resonances in Sec. 4. Concluding remarks and discussion are given in the last section.

## 2 The amplitudes in the IAM

Since the derivation of the IAM applied to the ChPT has been given in Refs., here we summarize the amplitudes in the OOP version. In this note we take the two-channel model. The partial wave amplitudes in the two-channel IAM to O($`p^4`$) are written as

$$𝑻(w)=𝒕_2(w)[𝒕_2(w)𝒕_4(w)]^1𝒕_2(w),$$
(2.1)
where $`𝒕_2(𝒕_4)`$ is the partial wave amplitude with chiral order O($`p^2`$) (O($`p^4`$)) amplitude given by the symmetric $`2\times 2`$ matrix and $`w`$ is the total CM energy. Our T-matrix is related to S-matrix as

$`S_{ij}(w)`$ $`=`$ $`\delta _{ij}2i\rho _i^{1/2}(w)T_{ij}(w)\rho _j^{1/2}(w),`$ (2.2)
$`\rho _i(w)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{16\pi }}{\displaystyle \frac{2k_i}{w}}`$ (2.3)
where $`\rho _i`$ is the phase space factor with $`k_i`$ being the CM momentum in the i-th channel.

Instead of taking the full $`T_4(s,t,u)`$, which involves the left-hand cut coming from the $`t`$ and $`u`$channel loop diagrams, the OOP version picks up only the s-channel loop diagrams and the polynomial terms written as $`T_4^P(s,t,u)`$ with the phenomenological coefficients $`L_n`$’s left after the renormalization of the one-loop diagrams. All of our $`T_4^P(s,t,u)`$ are taken from the Ref. . Thus, the partial wave $`𝒕_4(w)`$ is given as

$$𝒕_4(w)=𝒕_4^P(w)+𝒕_2(w)𝑮(w)𝒕_2(w),$$
(2.4)
where $`𝒕_4^P(w)`$ is the partial waves coming from $`T_4^P(s,t,u)`$, and $`𝑮(w)`$ is the diagonal $`2\times 2`$ loop integral under the $`\overline{MS}1`$ regularization . $`G_i(w)`$ in the $`i`$th channel is written as

$`G_i(w)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{(4\pi )^2}}\left\{1+\mathrm{log}\left({\displaystyle \frac{m^2}{\mu ^2}}\right)+\sigma _i(w)\mathrm{log}\left({\displaystyle \frac{\sigma _i(w)+1}{\sigma _i(w)1}}\right)\right\},`$ (2.5)
$`\sigma _i(w)`$ $`=`$ $`\sqrt{14m^2/w^2}={\displaystyle \frac{2k_i}{w}}`$ (2.6)
for the channel with the equal mass $`m`$ in the $`i`$th channel, and $`k_i`$ is the CM momentum, and

$`G_i(w)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{(4\pi )^2}}\{1+\mathrm{log}\left({\displaystyle \frac{m_1m_2}{\mu ^2}}\right)+{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Delta }_{21}}{w^2}}\mathrm{log}\left({\displaystyle \frac{m_2}{m_1}}\right)`$ (2.7)
$`+`$ $`\lambda _i(w)\mathrm{log}\left({\displaystyle \frac{\sigma _{i+}(w)+\sigma _i(w)}{\sigma _{i+}(w)\sigma _i(w)}}\right)\},`$
$`\sigma _{i\pm }`$ $`=`$ $`\sqrt{1(m_1\pm m_2)^2/w^2},`$ (2.8)
$`\lambda _i(w)`$ $`=`$ $`\sigma _{i+}(w)\sigma _i(w)`$ (2.9)
for the channel with unequal masses $`m_1`$ and $`m_2`$ in the $`i`$th channel, and $`\mathrm{\Delta }_{21}=m_2^2m_1^2`$. The imaginary part of $`G_ii(w)`$ is given as

$$\mathrm{Im}G_i(w)=\frac{1}{16\pi }\frac{2k_ii}{w}\theta (ww_i)\rho _i(w)$$
(2.10)
with $`w_i`$ is the threshold energy of the $`i`$th channel.

Although the full amplitudes $`T_2`$ and $`T_4`$ satisfy the crossing symmetry, it is known that the unitarized amplitudes projected on the definite $`(I,J)`$ channel of the $`s`$channel break the crossing symmetry. The amplitudes of the OOP version could break it more largely, since the version discards the $`t`$ and $`u`$channel loop diagrams.

The OOP version of the multichannel IAM is just like the K-matrix formalism, which ignores the lefthand cut of the scattering amplitudes. Defining the K-matrix as

$$𝑲=𝒕_2[𝒕_2\mathrm{Re}(𝒕_4(w))]^1𝒕_2,$$
(2.11)
where $`𝒕_4`$ is the OOP version given by Eq.(2.4), we rewrite the OOP version of the IAM amplitude as

$$𝑻=𝑲[1+i𝝆𝑲]^1.$$
(2.12)
$`𝑲`$ in Eq.(2.11) is real analytic as the usual K-matrix.

Since the OOP $`𝒕_4`$ discards the contributions from the left hand cut, the results would be different from those obtained by using the full $`T_4`$ amplitudes under the same set of the coefficients $`L_n`$’s. Thus, we relax the values of $`L_n`$’s obtained in ref. in order to reproduce the characteristic features of the scattering amplitudes. We adopt the parameter set of $`\widehat{L}_n\times 10^3`$ shown in Table 1, which is compared with the set of ref. cited as GNP and the one-loop ChPT set obtained in 1995. Note that while the GNP and the ChPT sets are determined at $`\mu =M_\rho `$, we take $`\mu =1`$ GeV. This is because a little larger $`\mu `$ is easy to reproduce the qualitative behavior of the $`(I,J)=(0,0)`$ channel. The original OOP version took the momentum cutoff corresponding to $`\mu =1.2`$ GeV. For the vector meson channel much larger $`\mu `$ can give better results.

It should be stressed that our present set is not the best choice to fit the experimental data: Indeed, we fail to reproduce the isospinor $`\pi K`$ scattering amplitude below 770 MeV. It is interesting, however, that our set is not far from the GNP and ChPT sets.111Other sets of $`\widehat{L}_n`$’s in refs. are not quoted, because their amplitudes are different from those of ref..

Now, we summarize the notations used in the following sections. We divide $`D_{ij}=[𝒕_2𝒕_4]_{ij}`$ into the real and imaginary part as

$$D_{ij}(w)=a_{ij}+i(\rho _1b_{ij}^1+\rho _2b_{ij}^2),$$
(2.13)
where

$`a_{ij}`$ $`=`$ $`(𝒕_2)_{ij}(𝒕_4^P)_{ij}(𝒕_2𝒈(w)𝒕_2)_{ij},`$ (2.14)
$`b_{ij}^k`$ $`=`$ $`(𝒕_2)_{ik}(𝒕_2)_{kj}`$ (2.15)
with $`𝒈(w)=\mathrm{Re}𝑮(w)`$. Thus, $`T_{ii}(w)`$, the elastic scattering amplitude of the i-th channel, is written as

$$\rho _iT_{ii}(w)=\frac{B_i(w)+iC(w)}{A(w)+i[B_1(w)+B_2(w)]},$$
(2.16)
where

$`A(w)`$ $`=`$ $`a_{11}a_{22}a_{12}^2C(w),`$ (2.17)
$`B_1(w)`$ $`=`$ $`\rho _1[a_{11}b_{22}^1+a_{22}b_{11}^12a_{12}b_{12}^1],`$ (2.18)
$`B_2(w)`$ $`=`$ $`\rho _2[a_{11}b_{22}^2+a_{22}b_{11}^22a_{12}b_{12}^2],`$ (2.19)
$`C(w)`$ $`=`$ $`\rho _1\rho _2[b_{11}^1b_{22}^2+b_{22}^1b_{11}^2b_{12}^1b_{12}^2].`$ (2.20)
The $`i`$th channel amplitude $`\widehat{T}_{ii}`$ in the single channel problem is given as

$$\rho _i\widehat{T}_{ii}(w)=\frac{\rho _ib_{ii}^i}{a_{ii}+i\rho _ib_{ii}^i+i\rho _jb_{ii}^j},$$
(2.21)
where we note that $`a_{ii}`$ contains the meson loops not only of the $`i`$th channel but also of the other $`j`$th channel.

The S-matrix for the first channel with the lower threshold energy is written as

$$S_{11}=\frac{A+2Ci(B_1B_2)}{A+i(B_1+B_2)}=\eta (w)\mathrm{exp}[2i\delta _1(w)],$$
(2.22)
where the phase shift $`\delta _1(w)`$ and the inelasticity $`\eta (w)`$ are calculated through this definition.

## 3 Scalar mesons

We study how the scalar mesons are generated through the IAM applied to ChPT. Since we need qualitative behavior of the amplitudes, we do not cite any experimental data to compare the calculated results. The definitions of the amplitudes have been given in Eqs.(2.14), (2.15), (2.17), (2.20), (2.18),(2.19). We calculate up to 1.2 GeV within the OOP version of the two-channel IAM, but we should note that the $`\eta \eta `$ channel and higher resonances may affect the results even below 1.2 GeV.

### 3.1 The (I,J)=(0,0) channel: $`\pi \pi \times K\overline{K}`$

The characteristic behavior of this channel is that the phase shift $`\delta _{00}(w)`$ rises from the $`\pi \pi `$ threshold, forms a plateau of $`60^{}80^{}`$ from 500 to 800 MeV, crosses $`90^{}`$ in the region $`800900`$ MeV, and suddenly increases to exceed $`200^{}`$just below the $`K\overline{K}`$ threshold.

The behavior implies that $`A(w)`$ defined by Eq.(2.17), the real part of denominator of $`T_{11}(w)`$, should develop a zero at the point where $`\delta _{00}`$ goes across $`90^{}`$ and $`B_1(w)`$ of Eq.(2.18), the imaginary part, does so at very close to the $`K\overline{K}`$ threshold.

At first we observe from Fig.1(a) that $`a_{22}(w)`$ develops a zero. This zero stays below the $`K\overline{K}`$ threshold, if we eliminate the pion-loop contribution in $`a_{22}(w)`$. This means that there is the bound state pole in the isolated $`K\overline{K}`$ channel, which generates the bound state resonance in the $`\pi \pi `$ scattering amplitude with $`(I,J)=(0,0)`$ state. The bound state pole moves into the second complex sheet near the real axis as the channel coupling is switched on. The nearby pole appears as the zero of $`A(w)`$. The zero of $`B_1(w)`$ is also due to the zero of $`a_{22}b_{11}^1`$ primarily, but the remaining negative terms push the zero closer to the $`K\overline{K}`$ threshold. It is noted, however, that the negative terms are required to be not so large in order to maintain the zero in $`B_1`$. If $`B_1`$ does not develop the zero, the resultant phase shift cannot exceed $`180^{}`$. Thus, the sudden rise of the phase shift is not the simple result of the bound state pole in the $`K\overline{K}`$ channel. This mechanism to generate the bound state resonance below $`K\overline{K}`$ threshold is similar to the one discussed by Weinstein and Isgur and Jülich group, though the theoretical framework of the IAM is quite different from theirs.

We show the results on the Argand diagram, the phase shift $`\delta _{00}`$, the absorption rate $`[1\eta _{00}^2]/4`$ and the $`\pi \pi `$ cross section in Fig.2 (a), (b) and (c), respectively. Our calculation reproduces the characteristic features qualitatively, and gives the results very similar to those by the full amplitude calculation.

Now, in order to extract the $`f_0(980)`$ behavior explicitly we define the $`f_0`$ amplitude through the following formula;

$$T_{11}(w)=\widehat{T}_{11}(w)+f_0(w)\mathrm{exp}[2i\widehat{\delta }_{11}(w)],$$
(3.1)
which is the Dalitz-Tuan prescription widely used to unitarize the sum of the two scattering amplitude. Here $`\widehat{T}_{11}`$ is the single channel $`\pi \pi `$ amplitude with $`\widehat{S}_{11}=12i\widehat{T}_{11}`$ defined in Eq.(2.21). $`\widehat{T}_{11}`$ cannot draw a full circle in the energy range to 1.2 GeV and plays a role of the background to $`f_0(w)`$. We observe that a sharp peak of the $`f_0`$ state hidden in the $`\pi \pi `$ cross section appears like the typical Breit-Wigner resonance as shown in Fig.3 (a) and (c), and that the strong rise of the absorption rate $`(1\eta _{00}^2)/4`$ just above the $`K\overline{K}`$ threshold should be attributed to the resonant behavior of the $`f_0`$ amplitude as shown in Fig.3 (d). The $`f_0`$ amplitude could be approximated by the Breit-Wigner form,

$$f_0(w)=\frac{m_0\mathrm{\Gamma }_1}{m_0^2s+im_0(\mathrm{\Gamma }_1+\mathrm{\Gamma }_2)}\text{ with }\mathrm{\Gamma }_i=g_i^2w\rho _i,$$
(3.2)
where $`m_0`$ is the mass of $`f_0`$, $`g_1(g_2)`$ the scalar coupling constant to $`\pi \pi (K\overline{K})`$. In order to reproduce the sharp rise of the absorption rate just above the $`K\overline{K}`$ threshold, the ratio $`g_2^2/g_1^2`$ is required to be large as the mass $`m_0`$ leaves the $`K\overline{K}`$ threshold. We find that $`m_0985`$ MeV, $`g_1^20.5`$ and $`g_2^2/g_1^210`$ in our set of the parameters, but the detailed values of the mass and width are too model-dependent and cannot be trusted. At least it would be certain that $`f_0`$ behaves like the Breit-Wigner resonance with the large $`K\overline{K}`$ coupling constant.

The rising and plateau of the phase shift and the falling behavior of the kinematical limit of the cross section, $`4\pi /k^2`$, shape the $`\pi \pi `$ cross section into the broad peak from $`400800`$ MeV, peaked at 500 MeV, as shown in Fig.2 (d). We show also that the phase shift below 800 MeV is almost similar to that of the single channel $`\widehat{T}_{11}`$, and that $`\widehat{T}_{11}`$ cannot draw the full Argand circle up to 1.2 GeV. This behavior is generated essentially by chiral symmetry and unitarity, and we do not need any mechanism to hide a conventional resonance in the broad peak. Such a strong two-pion correlation may be called the $`\sigma `$ state, but it needs not be expressed by an unstable particle as in the linear $`\sigma `$ model, or by a Breit-Wigner formula.

### 3.2 The (I,J)=(1,0) channel: $`\pi \eta \times K\overline{K}`$

The $`a_{22}`$ amplitude has a zero similar to the (0,0) channel, but we note that there are large differences; the amplitude $`a_{11}`$ is weak repulsive, the $`\pi \eta (K\overline{K})_{I=1}`$ amplitude $`a_{12}`$ is large, and the zero has disappeared in the resultant amplitude $`A`$ contrary to the (0,0) channel. Where does the zero disappear ? In order to see the role of the channel coupling including the $`\pi \eta `$ loop in $`a_{22}`$ and $`K\overline{K}`$ loop in $`a_{11}`$, we introduce a scale factor $`\alpha `$ as $`\alpha (t_2)_{12}`$ and $`\alpha (t_4)_{12}`$. We observe that the zero of $`a_{22}(w)`$ does not develop at $`\alpha =0`$, that is, there is not a bound state pole. When increasing $`\alpha `$ gradually, the cusp behavior becomes remarkable and then the cusp changes to the resonance for a sufficiently large $`\alpha `$. Such a behavior was studied using a much simpler model in , where the complex pole pole starts from the boundary between the third and fourth sheets at $`\alpha =0`$, moves to the fourth sheet producing the cusp behavior as $`\alpha `$ increases, and then appears in the second sheet as the resonance pole. At $`\alpha =1`$ in our $`(1,0)`$ channel, the pole stays in the fourth sheet near the boundary of the second sheet , and then the strong cusp behavior is left. The real part of the complex pole is larger than $`2m_K`$. The cusp gives a sharp peak of the $`\pi \eta `$ cross section, the shape of which is not expressed by the Breit-Wigner form as shown in Fig. 5(d).

The large $`\pi \eta (K\overline{K})_{I=1}`$ amplitude drags $`T_{11}`$ toward the center in the Argand diagram above the $`K\overline{K}`$ threshold as shown in Fig.5 (a), and the phase shift increases to pass $`90^{}`$ above the $`K\overline{K}`$ threshold. The behavior of the phase shift above the $`K\overline{K}`$ threshold does not imply the existence of a resonance above the $`K\overline{K}`$ threshold, however. It is also noted that the form of the absorption rate $`(1\eta _{10}^2)/4`$ is quite different from the one of the resonant $`f_0(980)`$ state which shows the sharp rising just above the $`K\overline{K}`$ threshold. Although it is not clear that the full $`T_4`$ calculation reached the same cusp behavior because of the lack of the figure of the phase shift, we point out that the cross section behaves very similarly to our result.

It is interesting to note that our result resembles the Jülich model, where they state that the $`a_0`$ state is essentially generated by the channel coupling without any origin in the diagonal amplitudes, both $`\pi \eta `$ and $`K\overline{K}`$ channels. They seem to choose finally the parameters so that the pole is brought to the second sheet off the fourth sheet and then the round shaped $`\pi \eta `$ cross section is obtained.

### 3.3 $`(I,J,)=(1/2,0)`$ channel: $`\pi K\times \eta K`$

The experimental $`\pi K`$ phase shift increases smoothly up to the $`\eta K`$ threshold without any remarkable structure, but does not exceed $`90^{}`$. This behavior implies that there is not hidden any conventional resonant structure.

Due to the wrong sign of the $`\eta K`$ elastic amplitude $`r_{22}`$ at low energies below 760 MeV, both of the $`A`$ and $`B_1`$ have the wrong sign, but we can reproduce the above experimental behavior roughly above 770 MeV. The failure is directly due to the fact that the leading $`\eta K\eta K`$ amplitude $`(t_2)_{22}`$ behaves as if it has a bound state zero at a low energy and $`t_4`$ cannot remove the zero. This would be due to the OOP version with our set of parameters $`L_n`$’s, since the calculation by the full amplitudes gives the nice result. The Argand diagram shows that the amplitude stops in the second quadrant at $`\eta K`$ threshold, and the phase shift increases up to about $`80^{}`$, which is a little larger than the data, but does not exceed $`90^{}`$ below 1.2 GeV. The Argand diagram up to 1.2 GeV is similar to the result in Ref.. The phase shift by the single $`\pi K`$ amplitude is very similar to the multichannel one at higher energies as shown in Fig.7(b). This fact and the rather small absorption by the $`\eta K`$ channel indicate that the effects of the channel coupling seems to be small as contrasted with the $`f_0(980)`$ and $`a_0(980)`$ cases. The $`\pi K`$ cross section has the large broad peak centered at 850 MeV.

It is certain that both the calculation and experimental data in the (1/2,0) channel lead to the conclusion that that the so-called $`\kappa `$ represents the strong $`\pi K`$ correlation, but not the conventional resonance. The absence of this state is argued in Refs..

### 3.4 $`(I,J)=(2,0)`$ and $`(3/2,0)`$ exotic channels

The $`\pi \pi _{(2,0)}`$ channel is repulsive, and the phase shift goes down as shown in Fig.8(a). Similarly, the $`\pi K`$ channel gives the negative $`(3/2,0)`$ phase shift, which is shown in Fig.8(b). These behaviors are very similar to those of ref., and to the experimental data.

### 3.5 Scattering lengths

Here we summarize the scattering lengths of $`(I,J)=(0,0)`$, $`(2,0)`$, $`(1/2,0)`$ and $`(3/2,0)`$ channels in unit of $`1/m_\pi `$:

$`a_{(00)}=0.214,`$ $`a_{(10)}=0.029a_{(1/2,0)}=/,`$
$`a_{(2,0)}=0.040,`$ $`a_{(3/2,0)}=0.057.`$
While the value $`a_{(1/2,0)}`$ cannot be trusted by the situation stated in the previous subsection, the $`\pi K`$ single channel calculation gives a good value, $`a_{(1/2,0)}=0.219`$. The channel coupling also changes the scattering length given by the single $`\pi \eta `$ channel calculation in the $`(1,0)`$ channel. The scattering lengths by the one-loop ChPT to $`\pi \pi `$ scattering and $`\pi K`$ scattering under the condition $`f_\pi =f_K`$ are as follows:

$`a_{(00)}=0.201`$ $`a_{(2,0)}=0.041,`$
$`a_{(1/2,0)}=0.19`$ $`a_{(3/2,0)}=0.05,`$
which are close to our calculations, if we take the single channel result for $`a_{(1/2,0)}`$.

## 4 Vector mesons

We do not attempt to reproduce the resonance masses exactly, but we think that it is enough for our aim to reproduce them within the error of a few tens MeV .

We define the kinematical singularity free amplitudes $`t_{ij}(w)`$ as

$$T_{ij}(w)=k_it_{ij}(w)k_j,$$
(4.1)
where $`k_i`$ is the CM momentum in the $`i`$th channel. This replacement induces the extra momentum dependence on $`𝑮`$ as

$$𝑮_i(w)G_i^P(w)=k_i^2G_i(w).$$
(4.2)
Then, the phase space factor $`\rho `$ becomes

$$\rho _i^P(w)=k_i^2\rho _i(w).$$
(4.3)
At first, we observe that the vector meson resonances are realized even in the single channel formalism, and that the channel coupling do not affect the result so much, if the parameter set $`\widehat{L}_n`$’s is selected appropriately. We tabulate the results at $`\mu =1`$ GeV in Table 2.

As to the $`phi(1020)`$ meson Ref. gives 935 MeV by use of the full $`T_4`$, and they argue that this state is the SU(3) octet part of the $`\varphi `$ meson, because $`P`$wave $`K\overline{K}`$ state can couple only to the SU(3) octet state, the mass of which is given as 926.5 MeV by using the experimental masses of the vector mesons. If we take this value as the experimental mass of ”$`\varphi `$”, the deviation of our results from the experimental mass values of the vector meson remains within $`\pm 40`$ MeV. Since the value of the width depends almost linearly to the mass value, the calculated width is large by about 10% for the $`\rho `$ meson and small by 30% for the $`K^{}`$ meson compared to the experimental one, respectively. If we use the experimental mass values, the calculation gives the $`\rho `$ width 154.2 MeV and $`K^{}`$ 45.8 MeV, the both of which are reasonable.

In the vector meson channels both for the $`\rho `$ and $`K^{}`$, all of the $`a_{ij}(w)`$ amplitudes cross the zero at almost similar energy. Order of the positions of the zeros in the $`rho`$ channel is different from those in the $`K^{}`$ channel. This is the reason why the mass in the multichannel is so close to the one in the singlechannel for the $`\rho `$ channel, but large for the $`K^{}`$ channel. The subtle positions of the zeros depend on the parameter set $`\widehat{L}_n`$’s, but the developing of the zeros in all of $`a_{ij}`$ would be stable. The developing of the common zeros is the remarkable difference from the scalar channels.

## 5 Concluding remarks

We have calculated the two-meson scattering amplitudes, mainly in the scalar channel, within the OOP version of the IAM to the ChPT. We used the $`T_4^P`$ amplitudes calculated by Gomés Nicola and Pelàes with our set of the phenomenological constants $`\widehat{L}_n`$’s given in Table I.

We have arrived at the following conclusion on the low mass scalar meson spectroscopy.

1. The nonet structure of the scalar mesons below 1 GeV does not hold.
2. The $`f_0(980)`$ state is generated through the bound state appearing in the $`K\overline{K}`$ channel, and behaves as like as the Breit-Wigner resonance, if we extract the $`f_0`$ amplitude from the $`\pi \pi `$ background.
3. The $`a_0(890)`$ state is born through the channel coupling between the $`\pi \eta `$ and $`K\overline{K}`$ channels, and finally grows up to be the strong cusp.
4. The broad peak centered at 500 MeV, which may be called the $`\sigma `$ state, is interpreted as the $`\pi \pi `$ strong correlation coming from chiral symmetry and unitarity, and there is no conventional resonance below 900 MeV.
5. Unfortunately, we failed to reproduce the low energy behavior of the $`(I,J)=(1/2,0)`$ channel below 760 MeV, but the calculation with the full amplitudes and the experimental data strongly suggest the conclusion that the $`\kappa (900)`$ peak need not be the resonance.
6. The $`K\overline{K}`$ correlation is attractive and so strong as to generate the bound state by $`K\overline{K}`$ loop alone in the isoscalar channel.

It is impossible, however, to extract any information on the quark contents of the resonances from the analyses by the unitarized ChPT. Even if our conclusion on the mechanism of the generation of $`f_0(980)`$ and $`a_0(980)`$ is similar to Refs., we cannot say whether they are the $`qq\overline{q}\overline{q}`$ or the $`K\overline{K}`$ molecule. If the $`f_0(980)`$ appears the resonance but $`a_0(980)`$ the cusp by the hadronic dynamics, the $`q\overline{q}`$ scalar nonet should be attributed to the scalar resonances above 1 GeV.

Recently the complex pole search of the amplitudes on the unphysical sheets has been widely attempted in the study of the scalar meson spectroscopy. We have also discussed the movement of the complex poles of the $`f_0(980)`$ and $`a_0(980)`$ states . The complex pole is expected to be fundamental, parameterization- and process-independent, but the pole search is performed practically by use of a model amplitude, which is parameterized to fit the data on the real axis approximately, and then the pole position is the more model-dependent as it is the more distant from the real axis like the $`\sigma `$ and $`\kappa `$ cases.

For example, it is shown that the amplitude coming from the $`t`$ and $`u`$channel $`\rho `$ meson exchange in the (0,0) channel develops the complex pole distant from the real axis at $`(370356\mathrm{i})`$ MeV, for example, while the phase shift stays at $`5060^{}`$ at most. A similar distant complex pole would be found in the (1/2,0) channel, because the role of the $`\rho `$ and $`K^{}`$ exchange and the behavior of the phase shift are quite similar to the ones in the (0,0) channel. Another example is the unitarized current algebra result, which gives a pole at $`\sqrt{i16\pi }f_\pi =463i463`$ MeV. An inverse example is the linear $`\sigma `$ model unitarized by the Padé  approximation applied to the perturbation series up to the one-loop level. In this model the physical $`\sigma `$ mass at which the phase shift crosses $`90^{}`$ is set near the $`\rho `$ meson mass, but the complex poles in the unphysical sheet are found at near $`(500300\mathrm{i})`$ MeV. These values are close to the ones in the $`\rho `$ exchange model and the unitarized current algebra, but the physics on the real axis is quite different from each other. The origin of the $`\sigma `$ pole is quite different from the one of a pole near the real axis such as the $`\rho `$ meson pole. It would be misleading, therefore, if we easily attribute any distant complex pole to the existence of an unstable meson state.

There is an argument to relate the $`t`$channel $`\rho `$ meson exchange with the $`s`$channel $`\sigma `$ resonance through the concept of the duality between the Regge pole exchange and the direct channel resonance. This argument seems to be introduced so that the complex pole found in the $`\rho `$ exchange amplitude could be regarded as a root of $`\sigma `$ in the $`s`$channel. If the $`\pi ^+\pi ^{}\pi ^+\pi ^{}`$ amplitude is expressed by the single Veneziano amplitude $`V(s,t)`$ in the Veneziano model, the amplitude in the physical region near the pole at $`sM_\rho ^2M_\sigma ^2`$ is dominated not by the $`t`$channel exchange term, $`g^2(s+t)/(M_\rho ^2t)`$ but the $`s`$channel pole term, $`g^2(s+t)/(M_\rho ^2s)`$, and the both expressions cannot be added in order to avoid the double counting. Thus, it may be in trouble to add the $`\rho `$ meson exchange amplitude to the $`\sigma `$ pole term in the $`s`$channel. Rather,the  Padé approximant applied to the linear sigma model without the $`\rho `$ meson exchange or the meson exchange model without the $`s`$channel $`\sigma `$ pole would be consistent with the duality.

The duality would work severely for the models containing the explicit $`\sigma `$ field or the $`\sigma `$ pole besides the $`\rho `$ field in the theory. But the exchanged object in the above models is not any Regge pole but merely a simple pole, and it is doubtful whether the complex pole found in the $`\rho `$ exchange amplitude represents really the $`\sigma `$ meson in the $`s`$channel as discussed previously. If the model does not contain the $`\sigma `$ field as an independent degree of freedom, and if the mass enhancement peaked at 500 MeV, which may be called $`\sigma `$ state, comes from the two-pion correlation as the vacuum fluctuation owing to the spontaneous chiral symmetry breaking, it would need careful studies to understand the duality between the Regge pole exchange and the $`\sigma `$ enhancement.

We have argued the two-meson scattering processes within one of the unitarized chiral perturbation theories in this note and obtained rather unpopular conclusions on the scalar meson spectroscopy. There are many interesting phenomena such as the production and decay processes including the low mass scalar ”mesons” in order to reveal the nature of them. The confirmation of our conclusion and the consistency check with various processes should be pursued.


text:
# The Sun and the Newton Constant

## I Introduction

In the last ten years, our observational knowledge of the solar interior has progressed enormously. By means of helioseismic data it has become possible to derive the sound speed in the solar interior with accuracy of about one part per thousand . By the same method, it has been possible to deduce important properties of the convective envelope. The photospheric Helium fraction $`Y_{ph}`$ and depth of the convective envelope $`R_b`$ have been determined with accuracy of about one per cent and one per thousand respectively, following the pioneering papers by  and . The measurement of the neutrino flux from Boron decay, obtained by combining SNO and Super-Kamiokande data , has provided a determination of the temperature $`T_c`$ near the solar center with accuracy of about one per cent .

It is impressive that all the predictions of the Standard Solar Model (SSM) have been confirmed by these accurate tests, see e.g.  and the first rows of table I for a summary of the available information.

The SSM, like any stellar evolution calculation, depends on several parameters. In this respect the Newton constant $`G_N`$ plays an important role, since stellar evolution results from the equilibrium between gravitation and other interactions. The sensitivity of stellar evolution to modifications of $`G_N`$ was first stressed by Teller . By means of a homology argument he demonstrated that the stellar luminosity is $`L_{}G_N^7M_{}^5`$, so that even a ten per cent variation of $`G_N`$ from its standard value would imply that life on Earth cannot be sustained!

Among the “fundamental parameters” of nature , $`G_N`$ is the most difficult to measure. In fact, it is determined with relatively poor accuracy and the situation of the field can be summarized by observing that the CODATA-98  value, $`G_N=6.673(10)10^{11}`$ m3s-2Kg-1 includes a relative accuracy $`\mathrm{\Delta }G_N/G_N=\pm 1.510^3`$ which is a factor ten larger than that estimated in 1986 . Recent experiments  have claimed accuracy of about $`10^5`$ however the disagreement between individual results is at the level of $`10^3`$.

Since several solar properties are now observationally determined with an accuracy of order $`10^3`$, we shall address the following questions:

1) What is the uncertainty on SSM predictions induced by the uncertainty of $`G_N`$?

2) Can one exploit the available accurate observations of the solar interior, i.e. helioseismic data and Boron neutrino flux, for obtaining a determination of $`G_N`$ with accuracy comparable or better than that of laboratory measurements?

This last question, which is particularly interesting, was recently raised by Lopes and Silk .

We shall present solar models calculated for different value of $`G_N`$, deriving the predictions to be compared with helioseimic and neutrino data. We shall find that solar sound speeds and temperature are actually very weakly dependent on $`G_N`$ and we shall provide an explanation of this apparently puzzling result.

## II Solar models

We have built several solar models corresponding to different values of $`G_N`$, by using an up-to-date version of the evolutionary code FRANEC, which includes element diffusion, recent opacity tables and modern nuclear reaction rates .

For a given value of $`G_N`$ the three input parameters of the code - the mixing length $`\alpha `$, the initial Helium and metal abundances $`Y_{in}`$ and $`Z_{in}`$ are varied until one reproduces the observed values of the solar radius \[$`R_{}=(6.9598(1\pm 0.01\%)10^8`$ m \], luminosity \[$`L_{}=3.844(1\pm 0.4\%)10^{26}`$ W\] and photospheric composition \[$`Z/X=0.0245(1\pm 6\%)`$\] at the solar age \[$`t_{}=4.57(1\pm 0.4\%)`$ Gy\].

We remark that the calculated properties of the solar interior are sensitive to the values of these observables, particularly to $`L_{}`$. For this reason, in order to disentangle the effect of tiny changes of $`G_N`$ we require that $`L_{}`$ is fixed to the level of $`210^5`$, i.e. much better than the observational accuracy. This precaution is necessary, otherwise the calculated models will reflect the changes of $`L_{}`$ mixed to the changes of $`G_N`$.

We also remark that astronomical observations fix the product $`G_NM_{}`$ quite accurately :

$$G_NM_{}=(\mathrm{132\hspace{0.17em}712\hspace{0.17em}438}\pm 5)10^{12}m^3s^2.$$
(1)
Laboratory measurements of $`G_N`$ are thus measurements of $`M_{}`$. If $`G_N`$ is changed $`M_{}`$ has to be varied so that eq.(1) is satisfied. This is an important point for the present discusssion.

In Figs. 1,2,3 and in table I we present the effect of varying $`G_N`$ by $`\pm 1\%`$ with respect to the “standard” CODATA-98 value. The following points are to be remarked:

i) the changes of pressure and density are of the same order of $`\delta G_N/G_N`$, as expected, see Fig. 1.

ii) On the other hand the induced variation of the (squared isothermal) sound speed $`u=P/\rho `$ is much smaller. For $`\delta G_N/G_N=1\%`$ one has at most $`\delta u/u=210^3`$, a value comparable to the present observational accuracy, see Fig. 2.

iii) Also the variation of temperature is much suppressed, see Fig. 3: the change of the central temperature is about 0.3%, and that of the Boron flux is about 5%, see Table I, in both cases a factor three below the present observational uncertainty.

iv) The depth of the convective zone is altered just by a factor $`410^4`$ and the photospheric helium abundance by less than 1%, well below the present observational uncertainties, see again Table I.

More generally, we can express the sensitivity of the observable $`O_i`$ to the change of $`G_N`$ by using scaling parameters

$$\beta _i=\frac{d\mathrm{log}O_i}{d\mathrm{log}G_N}.$$
(2)
The calculated $`\beta _i`$ values are also presented in Table I. Changes in $`G_N`$ at the level of present uncertainty ($`1.510^3`$) induce changes of helioseismic observables and neutrino fluxes which are negligible in comparison with the respective observational uncertainty, see last row of Table I.

Our results do not support the claim of ref.  that observational solar data can be used to determine the value of $`G_N`$ with accuracy of few parts in $`10^4`$. Variations of $`G_N`$ at this level induce changes which are much too small in comparison with observational accuracy.

In summary, present data are sensitive to changes of $`G_N`$ provided that these are of the order of $`10^2`$.

## III Interpretation

A puzzling situation has emerged. $`G_N`$ is clearly an important parameter, and its variation induces a comparable change on physically relevant quantities such as $`P`$ and $`\rho `$. On the other hand the change of $`u`$ and $`T`$ are definitely suppressed.

The reason for the cancellation is in the constancy of $`G_NM_{}`$, as can be easily demonstrated.

Actually the typical scales of solar pressure and density are given by:

$`P`$ $`=`$ $`G_NM_{}^2/R_{}^2`$ (3)
$`\rho `$ $`=`$ $`M_{}/R_{}^3`$ (4)
For a change of $`G_N`$ which keeps constant the product of $`G_NM_{}`$ these vary as :

$$\delta P/P=\delta \rho /\rho =\delta G_N/G_N.$$
(5)
In fact, this is the pattern shown in Fig. 1.

In this approximation, when considering $`u=P/\rho `$ the effects of changing $`G_N`$ cancel, in other words $`u`$ is unaffected by changes of $`G_N`$, which explains the much weaker sensitivity emerging from the numerical calculations presented in the previous sections.

From the perfect gas law, which describes to a good approximation most of the solar core, one has $`P/\rho =kT/\mu `$ , so that also $`T/\mu `$ is weakly sensitive to changes of $`G_N`$. The present value of the mean molecular weight $`\mu `$ is mainly determined from the initial conditions ($`Y_{in}`$) and the solar history and not from $`G_N`$. It follows that also $`T`$ is very weakly sensitive to $`G_N`$.

We remark that the constancy of $`G_NM_{}`$ is essential for the cancellation. If one computes stellar structures with fixed $`M_{}`$ and different $`G_N`$ one finds fractional changes of $`u`$ and $`T`$ that are proportional to $`\delta G_N/G_N`$, however these cannot be interpreted as solar models.

## IV Future prospects

One expects that, in the future, the sound speed $`u`$ will be measured with a higher accuracy, possibly to the level of $`10^4`$. Even in this case, however, it will be difficult to get significant improvements on $`G_N`$, unless one achieves the same level of accuracy in several other physical inputs which affect $`u`$. For instance, let us consider the effect of variations of the nuclear reaction cross sections and of the opacity, $`\kappa `$, We remind that these quantities are affected by uncertainties of few percent (at least), see .

As we have already remarked, the product $`G_NM_{}`$ is quite accurately fixed, so that if $`G_N`$ increases, the solar mass must decrease according to $`\delta M_{}/M_{}=\delta G_N/G_N`$. A smaller $`M_{}`$, being the radius of the sun fixed by observational data, implies a reduction of number densities $`n_i`$ of the various particles present in the sun.

This implies, a reduction of the nuclear reaction rates (which are proportional to $`n_in_j`$) and, at the same time, an increase of the photon mean free path (which, in the core of the sun, is inversely proportional to electron number density). This suggests that suitable changes of nuclear energy production rate $`ϵ`$ and of opacity can mimic changes of $`G_N`$.

Actually, one expects that a combined variation $`\delta ϵ/ϵ=2\delta G_N/G_N`$ and $`\delta \kappa /\kappa =\delta G_N/G_N`$ should affect the sound speed in the same way as a variation of $`G_N`$. This is supported by the numerical results shown in Fig. 4. We have built a solar model with energy production rate decreased by 2% and with opacity decreased by 1%, and we have obtained a sound speed profile which is similar (at the level 0.1% or less) to that obtained by increasing $`G_N`$ by 1%.

Similar considerations hold for a possible determination of $`G_N`$ by means of $`\mathrm{\Phi }_\mathrm{B}`$ measurements. By using the $`\beta `$ coefficient shown in Tab. I, one sees that a variation $`\delta G_N/G_N=10^3`$ corresponds to change of the $`{}_{}{}^{8}\mathrm{B}`$ neutrino flux $`\delta \mathrm{\Phi }_\mathrm{B}/\mathrm{\Phi }_\mathrm{B}=510^3`$ A “global” accuracy (i.e. both theorethical and experimental) of the order $`510^3`$ is thus needed in order to distinguish among values of $`G_N`$ which differ by $`10^3`$. We remind that the present experimental and theoretical determinations of the $`{}_{}{}^{8}\mathrm{B}`$ neutrino flux have uncertainties of the order of 15-20% per cent.ns hold for a possible determination of $`G_N`$ by means of $`\mathrm{\Phi }_\mathrm{B}`$ measurements. By using the $`\beta `$ coefficient shown in Tab. I, one sees that a variation $`\delta G_N/G_N=10^3`$ corresponds to change of the $`{}_{}{}^{8}\mathrm{B}`$ neutrino flux $`\delta \mathrm{\Phi }_\mathrm{B}/\mathrm{\Phi }_\mathrm{B}=510^3`$ A “global” accuracy (i.e. both theorethical and experimental) of the order $`510^3`$ is thus needed in order to distinguish among values of $`G_N`$ which differ by $`10^3`$. We remind that the present experimental and theoretical determinations of the $`{}_{}{}^{8}\mathrm{B}`$ neutrino flux have uncertainties of the order of 15-20% per cent.

## V Concluding Remarks

We have found that:

* The present uncertainty on the gravitational constant, $`\mathrm{\Delta }G_N/G_N=\pm 1.510^3`$ has significant effects on the profile of density and pressure.
* On the other hand, it has negligible influence on the solar properties which can be measured by means of helioseismology and $`{}_{}{}^{8}\mathrm{B}`$ neutrinos: sound speed profile, central temperature, depth and helium content of the convective envelope.
* Our result do not support recent claims  that observational solar data can be used to determine the value of $`G_N`$ with an accuracy of few part in $`10^4`$. Present data cannot constrain $`G_N`$ to much better than $`10^2`$. Furthermore, even if the sound speed measurments will become much more accurate, it will be difficult to get significant improvements on $`G_N`$ due to the approximate degeneracy with variations of other physical inputs, e.g. nuclear cross sections and opacity, which are presently known at the per cent level or worse.

###### Acknowledgements.

We are grateful to G. Fiorentini for useful comments and suggestions.