text:
# Study of the Decay ϕ→𝜂𝜋⁰𝛾 with the KLOE Detector

## Abstract

In a sample of $`\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{5.3}\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{\times }\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{10}^\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{7}`$ $`\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{\varphi }`$-decays observed with the KLOE detector at the Frascati $`\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{\varphi }`$-factory DAΦNE we find 605 $`\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{\eta }`$$`\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{\pi }^\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{0}`$$`\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{\gamma }`$ events with $`\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{\eta }\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{}\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{\gamma }\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{\gamma }`$ and 197 $`\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{\eta }`$$`\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{\pi }^\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{0}`$$`\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{\gamma }`$ events with $`\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{\eta }\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{}\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{\pi }^\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{+}\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{\pi }^{\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{}}\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{\pi }^\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{0}`$. The decay $`\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{\eta }`$$`\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{\pi }^\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{0}`$$`\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{\gamma }`$ is dominated by the process $`\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{\varphi }`$$`\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{}`$$`\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{a}_\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{0}`$$`\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{\gamma }`$. From a fit to the $`\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{\eta }`$$`\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{\pi }^\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{0}`$ mass spectrum we find BR($`\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{\varphi }`$$`\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{}`$$`\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{a}_\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{0}`$(980)$`\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{\gamma }`$)= $`\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{(}\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{7.4}\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{\pm }\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{0.7}\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{)}\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{\times }\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{10}^\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{}\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{5}`$.

, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

There is no clear understanding of the $`\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{a}_\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{0}`$(980) and $`\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{f}_\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{0}`$(980) mesons in the quark model. It has been argued that these mesons might not in fact be $`\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{q}\overline{\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{q}}`$ states but rather 4-quark states ($`\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{q}\overline{\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{q}}\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{q}\overline{\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{q}}`$)  or $`\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{K}\overline{\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{K}}`$ molecules . The amplitude for the E1 transition $`\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{\varphi }`$$`\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{}`$$`\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{a}_\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{0}`$$`\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{\gamma }`$ to a state $`\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{a}_\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{0}`$ with $`\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{J}^\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{P}\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{(}\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{a}_\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{0}\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{)}\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{=}\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{0}^\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{+}`$ is proportional to $`\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{k}\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{\times }\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{f}\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{(}\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{m}^\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{2}\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{)}`$, with $`\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{k}`$ the momentum and $`\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{m}`$ the mass of the $`\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{a}_\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{0}`$. The differential decay width $`\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{\mathrm{d}}\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{\mathrm{\Gamma }}\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{/}\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{\mathrm{d}}\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{m}`$ for $`\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{\varphi }`$$`\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{}`$$`\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{a}_\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{0}`$$`\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{\gamma }`$ has the form $`\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{k}^\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{2}\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{\times }\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{F}\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{(}\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{m}^\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{2}\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{)}`$, where $`\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{F}`$ is a Lorentzian for the $`\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{a}_\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{0}`$ times a damping factor depending on the $`\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{\varphi }`$ and $`\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{a}_\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{0}`$ wave functions. The shape of the $`\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{a}_\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{0}`$ signal in $`\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{\varphi }`$ decay is therefore grossly distorted, acquiring a large tail at low $`\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{m}`$.

According to different interpretations the $`\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{\varphi }\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{}\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{a}_\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{0}\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{\gamma }`$ branching ratio can range from 10-5 for $`\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{q}\overline{\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{q}}`$ and $`\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{K}\overline{\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{K}}`$ to 10-4 for $`\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{q}\overline{\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{q}}\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{q}\overline{\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{q}}`$ . The ratio BR($`\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{\varphi }`$$`\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{}`$$`\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{f}_\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{0}`$$`\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{\gamma }`$)/BR($`\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{\varphi }`$$`\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{}`$$`\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{a}_\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{0}`$$`\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{\gamma }`$) also depends on the structure of the scalars . Chiral perturbation theory also attempts to estimate the amplitude and the distortion of the $`\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{a}_\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{0}`$ line shape observed in $`\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{\varphi }`$ meson decays . Production of the $`\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{a}_\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{0}`$ meson, followed by $`\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{a}_\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{0}`$$`\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{}`$$`\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{\eta }`$$`\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{\pi }^\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{0}`$ dominates the final state $`\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{\eta }`$$`\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{\pi }^\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{0}`$$`\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{\gamma }`$ in $`\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{\varphi }`$-decays. A small contribution is due to $`\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{\varphi }`$$`\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{}`$$`\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{\rho }^\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{0}`$$`\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{\pi }^\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{0}`$, $`\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{\rho }^\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{0}`$$`\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{}`$$`\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{\eta }`$$`\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{\gamma }`$.

We present in the following a study of the decay $`\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{\varphi }`$$`\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{}`$$`\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{\eta }`$$`\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{\pi }^\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{0}`$$`\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{\gamma }`$ performed with the KLOE detector  at the Frascati $`\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{\varphi }`$-factory  DAΦNE. DAΦNE delivered about 16 pb-1 during the year 2000, operating at a total energy of 1020 MeV. About $`\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{5.3}\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{\times }\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{10}^\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{7}`$ $`\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{\varphi }`$ mesons were produced and collected by KLOE. We searched for two types of events. Type 1 events have five photons from $`\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{\varphi }`$$`\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{}`$$`\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{\eta }`$$`\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{\pi }^\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{0}`$$`\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{\gamma }`$ with $`\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{\eta }`$$`\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{}`$$`\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{\gamma }`$$`\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{\gamma }`$. Type 2 events have five photons plus two charged tracks corresponding to the same initial decay but with $`\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{\eta }`$$`\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{}`$$`\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{\pi }^\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{+}\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{\pi }^{\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{}}`$$`\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{\pi }^\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{0}`$. Observation of type 1 events has been reported by SND  and CMD-2  experiments at Novosibirsk. In this work we report the first observation of type 2 events. While the yield for type 2 events is lower, there is no physical background.

The KLOE detector consists of a large cylindrical drift chamber surrounded by a lead-scintillating fiber electromagnetic calorimeter. A superconducting coil provides a 0.52 T field. The drift chamber , 4 m in diameter and 3.3 m long, has 12,582 all-stereo tungsten sense wires and 37,746 aluminum field wires. The chamber shell is made of carbon fiber-epoxy composite and the gas used is a 90% helium, 10% isobutane mixture. These features maximize transparency to photons and reduce $`\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{K}_\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{L}\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{}\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{K}_\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{S}`$ regeneration and multiple scattering. The position resolutions are $`\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{}\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{150}\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{\mu }\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{\mathrm{m}}`$ in the coordinate transverse to the wire direction and $`\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{}\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{2}\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{\mathrm{mm}}`$ in the longitudinal one. The momentum resolution is $`\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{\sigma }\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{(}\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{p}_{\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{}}\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{)}\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{/}\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{p}_{\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{}}\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{}\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{0.4}\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{\%}`$. Vertices are reconstructed with a spatial resolution of $`\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{}\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{3}\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{\mathrm{mm}}`$. The calorimeter  is divided into a barrel and two end-caps, for a total of 88 modules, and covers 98% of the solid angle. The modules are read out at both ends by photomultipliers; the readout granularity is $`\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{}`$4.4$`\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{\times }`$4.4 $`\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{c}\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{m}^\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{2}`$, for a total of 2,440 “cells.” The arrival times of particles and the positions in three dimensions of the energy deposits are determined from the signals at the two ends. Cells close in time and space are grouped into a calorimeter cluster. The cluster energy $`\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{E}_{\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{\mathrm{CL}}}`$ is the sum of the cell energies. The cluster time $`\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{t}_{\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{\mathrm{CL}}}`$ and position $`\stackrel{\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{}}{\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{r}}_{\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{\mathrm{CL}}}`$ are energy weighed averages. Time and energy resolutions are $`\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{\sigma }_\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{E}\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{/}\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{E}\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{=}\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{5.7}\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{\%}\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{/}\sqrt{\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{E}\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{(}\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{\mathrm{GeV}}\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{)}}`$ and $`\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{\sigma }_\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{t}\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{=}\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{57}\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{\mathrm{ps}}\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{/}\sqrt{\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{E}\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{(}\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{\mathrm{GeV}}\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{)}}\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{}\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{50}\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{\mathrm{ps}}`$, respectively; space resolution is $`\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{}\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{1}\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{c}\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{m}`$ in all the three coordinates. The detector trigger  uses calorimeter and chamber information.

We first consider the case of $`\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{\varphi }\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{}\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{\eta }\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{\pi }^\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{0}\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{\gamma }`$ decays in which $`\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{\eta }\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{}\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{\gamma }\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{\gamma }`$. These events are characterized by five prompt photons. A photon is detected as a calorimeter cluster with $`\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{E}_{\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{\mathrm{CL}}}\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{>}`$ 3 MeV, with no track pointing to it, and satisfying $`\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{|}\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{t}_{\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{\mathrm{CL}}}\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{}\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{|}\stackrel{\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{}}{\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{r}}_{\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{\mathrm{CL}}}\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{|}\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{/}\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{c}\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{|}\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{<}\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{5}\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{\sigma }_\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{t}\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{(}\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{E}_{\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{\mathrm{CL}}}\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{)}`$. Photons with $`\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{|}`$cos$`\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{\theta }\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{|}\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{>}\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{0.93}`$ are rejected to avoid machine background. Exactly five prompt photons are required. The main background processes are:

1. $`\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{\varphi }\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{}\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{\pi }^\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{0}\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{\pi }^\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{0}\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{\gamma }`$ dominated by $`\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{\varphi }`$$`\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{}`$$`\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{f}_\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{0}`$$`\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{\gamma }`$;
2. $`\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{e}^\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{+}\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{e}^{\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{}}\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{}\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{\omega }\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{\pi }^\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{0}`$ with $`\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{\omega }\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{}\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{\pi }^\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{0}\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{\gamma }`$
3. $`\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{\varphi }`$$`\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{}`$$`\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{\eta }`$$`\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{\gamma }`$ with $`\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{\eta }`$$`\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{}`$$`\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{\gamma }`$$`\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{\gamma }`$
4. $`\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{\varphi }`$$`\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{}`$$`\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{\eta }`$$`\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{\gamma }`$ with $`\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{\eta }\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{}\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{\pi }^\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{0}\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{\pi }^\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{0}\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{\pi }^\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{0}`$

Process (3) can mimic five photon events due to energy cluster splitting or accidental background while in process (4) photons can escape detection. Background from $`\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{\varphi }`$$`\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{}`$$`\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{K}_\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{S}`$$`\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{K}_\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{L}`$ with $`\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{K}_\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{S}`$$`\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{}`$$`\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{\pi }^\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{0}\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{\pi }^\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{0}`$ and $`\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{K}_\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{L}`$ interacting in the calorimeter is negligible after requiring the sum of the energy of the five prompt photons to be greater than 700 MeV. About 1.5$`\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{\times }\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{10}^\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{4}`$ events survive cuts. A first kinematic fit, in which 4-momentum conservation and $`\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{t}\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{}\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{|}\stackrel{\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{}}{\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{r}}\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{|}\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{/}\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{c}\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{=}\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{0}`$ for each prompt photon are required, is performed. Background from processes (3) and (4) is reduced by requiring $`\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{\chi }^\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{2}`$/ndf$`\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{<}`$3. Events with a $`\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{\gamma }\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{\gamma }`$ pair having an invariant mass close to the $`\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{\eta }`$ mass within 30 MeV are retained. Then events with one of the three remaining photons having energy greater than 340 MeV are rejected to reduce background (3); $`\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{2.5}\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{\times }\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{10}^\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{3}`$ events remain after cuts.

The best photon pairing is found by matching the invariant masses of the $`\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{\gamma }\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{\gamma }`$ pairs to the intermediate particles masses, either (i) $`\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{\eta }`$ and $`\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{\pi }^\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{0}`$ or (ii) 2 $`\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{\pi }^\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{0}`$. A second kinematic fit is then performed, with constraints on the masses of the intermediate particles, in both hypotheses. For hypothesis (i) we retain events with $`\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{\chi }^\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{2}`$/ndf$`\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{<}`$3. The sample is still dominated by $`\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{\pi }^\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{0}\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{\pi }^\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{0}\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{\gamma }`$ events from processes (1) and (2). These two contributions can be discriminated from the signal by exploiting the result of the fit with hypothesis (ii). For each of the two $`\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{\pi }^\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{0}\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{\gamma }`$ combinations, an invariant mass $`\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{M}_{\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{\pi }\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{\gamma }}`$ is obtained; in Fig. 1 the absolute value of their difference $`\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{\mathrm{\Delta }}\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{M}_{\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{\pi }\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{\gamma }}`$ is plotted versus the $`\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{\pi }^\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{0}\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{\pi }^\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{0}`$ invariant mass $`\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{M}_{\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{\pi }\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{\pi }}`$, both for data and Montecarlo (MC) events. The $`\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{\omega }\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{\pi }^\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{0}`$ contribution is represented by the curved band, while $`\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{\varphi }\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{}\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{\pi }^\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{0}\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{\pi }^\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{0}\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{\gamma }`$ events are mainly located at high values of $`\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{M}_{\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{\pi }\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{\pi }}`$. In order to select a clean $`\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{\varphi }\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{}\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{\eta }\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{\pi }^\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{0}\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{\gamma }`$ sample, the region below the solid curve of Fig. 1 and with $`\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{M}_{\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{\pi }\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{\pi }}\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{<}\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{760}\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{M}\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{e}\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{V}`$ is retained.

The final sample consists of 916 events. The spectrum of the $`\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{\eta }\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{\pi }^\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{0}`$ invariant mass $`\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{M}_{\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{\eta }\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{\pi }}`$ is shown in Fig. 2 together with the expected distribution for the background. In Fig. 2 the distribution of cos$`\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{\theta }_\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{\gamma }`$ of the unassociated photon is also shown, exhibiting the expected 1+cos$`{}_{}{}^{\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{2}}\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{\theta }_{\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{\gamma }}^{}`$ behaviour. The efficiency for the identification of signal events is evaluated by applying the whole analysis chain to a sample of simulated $`\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{\varphi }\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{}\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{\eta }\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{\pi }^\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{0}\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{\gamma }`$ events generated with a uniform $`\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{M}_{\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{\eta }\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{\pi }}`$ distribution. The selection efficiency as a function of $`\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{M}_{\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{\eta }\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{\pi }}`$ is shown in Fig. 3. The average over the whole mass spectrum is 32.4%.

The background rejection factors and the expected number of events, as obtained by MC simulation, are given in Tab. 1. The total number is 309$`\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{\pm }`$20 background events.

We next consider the case of $`\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{\eta }\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{\pi }^\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{0}\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{\gamma }`$ in which $`\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{\eta }\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{}\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{\pi }^\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{+}\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{\pi }^{\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{}}\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{\pi }^\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{0}`$. This decay chain gives a final state with 2 charged pions and 5 prompt photons. This signature is unique among the possible final states so that the main background sources come from final states with similar topologies and much larger branching ratios. The most significant backgrounds are:

* $`\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{\varphi }\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{}\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{\eta }\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{\gamma }`$ with $`\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{\eta }\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{}\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{\pi }^\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{+}\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{\pi }^{\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{}}\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{\pi }^\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{0}`$ (2 tracks and 3 photons);
* $`\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{e}^\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{+}\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{e}^{\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{}}\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{}\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{\omega }\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{\pi }^\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{0}`$ with $`\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{\omega }\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{}\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{\pi }^\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{+}\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{\pi }^{\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{}}\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{\pi }^\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{0}`$ (2 tracks and 4 photons);
* $`\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{\varphi }\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{}\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{K}_\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{S}\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{K}_\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{L}`$ with a prompt $`\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{K}_\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{L}`$ decay and a combination of $`\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{K}_\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{S}\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{}\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{\pi }^\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{+}\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{\pi }^{\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{}}`$ and $`\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{K}_\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{L}\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{}\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{\pi }^\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{0}\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{\pi }^\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{0}\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{\pi }^\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{0}`$ or $`\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{K}_\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{S}\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{}\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{\pi }^\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{0}\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{\pi }^\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{0}`$ and $`\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{K}_\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{L}\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{}\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{\pi }\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{l}\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{\nu }`$ or $`\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{K}_\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{L}\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{}\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{\pi }^\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{+}\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{\pi }^{\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{}}\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{\pi }^\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{0}`$ resulting in 2 tracks and 4 or 6 photons.

The signal events are selected by requiring a vertex close to the interaction region with two tracks of opposite charge, and five prompt photons with $`\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{E}_\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{\gamma }\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{>}`$10 MeV and $`\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{|}`$cos$`\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{\theta }\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{|}\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{<}\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{0.93}`$. The surviving events ($`\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{7.1}\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{\times }\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{10}^\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{3}`$ ) enter a two-step kinematic fit procedure: a first fit (fit1) with energy/momentum conservation at the vertex, and a second fit (fit2) with $`\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{\pi }^\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{0}`$ and $`\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{\eta }`$ mass constraints, where the combination resulting in the higher $`\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{\chi }^\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{2}`$ probability is selected. The invariant mass distributions for all $`\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{\gamma }\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{\gamma }`$ and $`\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{\pi }^\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{+}\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{\pi }^{\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{}}\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{\gamma }\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{\gamma }`$ combinations are shown in Fig. 4(a) and (b) for the events surviving fit1. A clear $`\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{\eta }`$ signal already emerges at this stage over a large combinatorial background due to residual $`\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{\omega }\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{\pi }^\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{0}`$ and $`\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{K}_\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{S}\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{K}_\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{L}`$ events (see the peak close to the $`\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{\omega }`$ mass in Fig. 4(b)).

After fit2 the residual background is reduced to 4$`\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{\pm }`$4 events from $`\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{\omega }\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{\pi }^\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{0}`$ and less than 8 events from the other possible background modes. Fig. 4(c) and (d) shows the $`\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{\gamma }\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{\gamma }`$ and $`\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{\pi }^\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{+}\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{\pi }^{\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{}}\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{\gamma }\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{\gamma }`$ invariant mass distributions at this stage compared with the MC distributions for the signal normalized to the same number of events. The comparison shows good agreement. The distribution of $`\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{M}_{\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{\eta }\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{\pi }}`$ for the 197 events found is shown in Fig. 5(a). The angular distribution of the radiated photon, Fig. 5(b), agrees with (1+cos$`{}_{}{}^{\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{2}}\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{\theta }_{\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{\gamma }}^{}`$).

The efficiency (see Fig. 3) as a function of $`\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{M}_{\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{\eta }\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{\pi }}`$ is found by using MC simulation. Both photon and track efficiencies are corrected using data control samples. ($`\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{K}_\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{S}\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{}\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{\pi }^\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{+}\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{\pi }^{\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{}}`$ for tracking and $`\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{e}^\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{+}\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{e}^{\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{}}\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{\gamma }`$ for $`\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{\gamma }`$’s). The overall efficiency, on average 19%, is dominated by the probability for at least one of the seven particles to go out of acceptance. The resolution in $`\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{M}_{\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{\eta }\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{\pi }}`$ is 4 MeV over the entire mass range. A non Gaussian tail of about 10% is present, due to incorrect photon pairings.

The $`\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{\varphi }\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{}\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{\eta }\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{\pi }^\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{0}\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{\gamma }`$ branching ratio is obtained independently for each sample, normalizing the number of events after background subtraction, $`\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{N}\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{}\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{B}`$, to the $`\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{\varphi }`$ cross section $`\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{\sigma }_\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{\varphi }`$, to the selection efficiency $`\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{ϵ}`$, and to the integrated luminosity $`\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{L}`$:

$$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{\mathrm{BR}}\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{(}\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{\varphi }\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{}\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{\eta }\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{\pi }^\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{0}\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{\gamma }\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{)}\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{=}\frac{\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{N}\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{}\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{B}}{\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{ϵ}\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{\times }\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{\mathrm{BR}}\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{(}\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{\eta }\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{}\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{i}\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{)}}\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{\times }\frac{\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{1}}{\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{\sigma }_\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{\varphi }\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{\times }\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{L}}\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{.}$$
(1)
where $`\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{i}`$ = $`\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{\gamma }`$$`\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{\gamma }`$, $`\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{\pi }^\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{+}\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{\pi }^{\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{}}`$$`\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{\pi }^\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{0}`$ and BR($`\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{\eta }`$$`\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{}`$$`\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{i}`$) is from ref. . The luminosity is measured using large angle Bhabha scattering events. The $`\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{\sigma }_\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{\varphi }`$ measurement is obtained using the $`\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{\varphi }\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{}\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{\eta }\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{\gamma }\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{}\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{\gamma }\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{\gamma }\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{\gamma }`$ decay .

We obtain for the sample in which $`\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{\eta }\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{}\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{\gamma }\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{\gamma }`$

| $`\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{\mathrm{BR}}\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{(}\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{\varphi }\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{}\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{\eta }\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{\pi }^\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{0}\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{\gamma }\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{)}`$ | $`\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{=}\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{(}\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{8.51}\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{\pm }\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{0.51}_{\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{\mathrm{stat}}}\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{\pm }\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{0.57}_{\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{\mathrm{syst}}}\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{)}\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{\times }\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{10}^\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{}\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{5}`$ |
| --- | --- |

and for the sample in which $`\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{\eta }\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{}\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{\pi }^\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{+}\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{\pi }^{\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{}}\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{\pi }^\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{0}`$

| $`\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{\mathrm{BR}}\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{(}\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{\varphi }\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{}\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{\eta }\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{\pi }^\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{0}\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{\gamma }\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{)}`$ | $`\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{=}\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{(}\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{7.96}\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{\pm }\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{0.60}_{\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{\mathrm{stat}}}\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{\pm }\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{0.40}_{\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{\mathrm{syst}}}\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{)}\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{\times }\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{10}^\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{}\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{5}`$ |
| --- | --- |

The two values are in agreement. Our results also agree with those from SND $`\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{(}\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{8.8}\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{\pm }\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{1.4}\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{\pm }\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{0.9}\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{)}\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{\times }\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{10}^\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{}\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{5}`$  and CMD-2 $`\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{(}\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{9.0}\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{\pm }\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{2.4}\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{\pm }\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{1.0}\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{)}\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{\times }\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{10}^\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{}\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{5}`$. Contributions to the uncertainties are listed in Tab. 2.

We estimate the contribution of $`\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{\varphi }`$$`\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{}`$$`\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{a}_\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{0}`$$`\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{\gamma }`$ from a simultaneous fit of the two $`\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{M}_{\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{\eta }\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{\pi }}`$ spectra. Two contributions are considered in the fit: (a) $`\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{\varphi }`$$`\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{}`$$`\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{\rho }^\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{0}`$$`\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{\pi }^\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{0}`$, $`\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{\rho }^\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{0}`$$`\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{}`$$`\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{\eta }`$$`\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{\gamma }`$ and (b) $`\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{\varphi }`$$`\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{}`$$`\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{a}_\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{0}`$$`\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{\gamma }`$, $`\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{a}_\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{0}`$$`\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{}`$$`\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{\eta }`$$`\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{\pi }^\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{0}`$. The contribution from the continuum process $`\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{e}^\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{+}\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{e}^{\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{}}\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{}\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{\omega }\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{\pi }^\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{0}`$, $`\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{\omega }\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{}\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{\eta }\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{\gamma }`$ is negligible due to the low cross section. The $`\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{M}_{\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{\eta }\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{\pi }}`$ spectrum for (a) is taken from VMD calculations . For (b) we use the formulation of ref. based on $`\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{\varphi }`$ coupling to a charged kaon loop:

$$\frac{\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{\mathrm{d}}\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{\mathrm{\Gamma }}\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{(}\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{\varphi }\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{}\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{a}_\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{0}\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{\gamma }\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{}\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{\eta }\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{\pi }^\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{0}\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{\gamma }\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{)}}{\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{\mathrm{d}}\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{M}_{\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{\eta }\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{\pi }}}\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{=}\frac{\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{2}\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{M}_{\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{\eta }\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{\pi }}^\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{2}}{\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{\pi }}\frac{\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{\mathrm{\Gamma }}_{\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{\varphi }\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{a}_\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{0}\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{\gamma }}\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{\mathrm{\Gamma }}_{\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{a}_\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{0}\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{\eta }\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{\pi }^\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{0}}}{\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{|}\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{D}_{\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{a}_\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{0}}\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{|}^\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{2}}$$
(2)
where $`\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{\mathrm{\Gamma }}_{\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{\varphi }\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{a}_\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{0}\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{\gamma }}`$ is related to the coupling $`\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{g}_{\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{a}_\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{0}\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{K}^\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{+}\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{K}^{\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{}}}^\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{2}\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{/}\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{4}\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{\pi }`$, $`\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{\mathrm{\Gamma }}_{\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{a}_\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{0}\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{\eta }\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{\pi }^\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{0}}`$ to the coupling $`\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{g}_{\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{a}_\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{0}\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{\eta }\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{\pi }^\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{0}}^\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{2}\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{/}\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{4}\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{\pi }`$, and $`\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{D}_{\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{a}_\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{0}}`$ is the inverse $`\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{a}_\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{0}`$ propagator including finite width corrections. The model assumes point-like couplings.

The efficiency and resolution functions, including distortions from incorrect photon pairings are folded into the theoretical distribution. The experimental spectra after background subtraction (Fig.6) are simultaneously fitted, setting $`\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{M}_{\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{a}_\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{0}}`$=984.8 MeV, from ref . The free parameters of the fit are the branching ratio for contribution (a) and the two coupling constants above. We find BR($`\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{\varphi }`$$`\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{}`$$`\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{\rho }^\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{0}`$$`\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{\pi }^\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{0}`$, $`\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{\rho }^\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{0}`$$`\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{}`$$`\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{\eta }`$$`\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{\gamma }`$)=$`\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{(}\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{0.5}\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{\pm }\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{0.5}\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{)}\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{\times }\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{10}^\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{}\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{5}`$, $`\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{g}_{\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{a}_\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{0}\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{K}^\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{+}\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{K}^{\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{}}}^\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{2}\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{/}\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{4}\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{\pi }\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{=}\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{(}\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{0.40}\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{\pm }\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{0.04}\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{)}`$ GeV<sup>2</sup>, and $`\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{g}_{\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{a}_\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{0}\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{\eta }\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{\pi }}\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{/}\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{g}_{\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{a}_\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{0}\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{K}^\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{+}\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{K}^{\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{}}}\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{=}\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{1.35}\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{\pm }\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{0.09}`$. The contribution from $`\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{\varphi }`$$`\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{}`$$`\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{a}_\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{0}`$$`\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{\gamma }`$ is dominant and that from $`\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{\rho }^\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{0}`$$`\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{\pi }^\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{0}`$ is consistent with zero, in agreement with VMD calculations . By integration we find:

$$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{B}\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{R}\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{(}\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{\varphi }\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{}\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{a}_\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{0}\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{\gamma }\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{,}\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{a}_\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{0}\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{}\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{\eta }\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{\pi }^\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{0}\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{)}\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{=}\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{(}\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{7.4}\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{\pm }\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{0.7}\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{)}\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{\times }\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{10}^\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{}\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{5}$$
(3)
The fit is good, with $`\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{\chi }^\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{2}`$/ndf=27.2/25. Fig. 6 shows the fit and the $`\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{a}_\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{0}`$ contribution. Interference between (a) and (b) has been considered  giving no significant effect in the fit results.

The result for $`\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{g}_{\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{a}_\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{0}\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{\eta }\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{\pi }}\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{/}\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{g}_{\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{a}_\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{0}\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{K}^\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{+}\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{K}^{\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{}}}`$ can be compared with the value $`\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{1.05}\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{\pm }\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{0.06}`$ given by experiment BNL852  and with the Crystal Barrel results (1.07 or 0.93 depending on the analysis ). It can also be compared with expectations based on the standard $`\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{q}\overline{\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{q}}`$ model (1.51 according to ) and on the $`\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{q}\overline{\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{q}}\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{q}\overline{\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{q}}`$ model (0.93 according to ).

Finally, the results are combined with those obtained in the analysis of $`\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{\varphi }\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{}\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{\pi }^\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{0}\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{\pi }^\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{0}\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{\gamma }`$  done on the same data sample:

* $`\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{B}\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{R}\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{(}\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{\varphi }\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{}\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{f}_\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{0}\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{\gamma }\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{}\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{\pi }^\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{0}\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{\pi }^\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{0}\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{\gamma }\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{)}\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{=}\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{(}\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{1.49}\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{\pm }\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{0.07}\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{)}\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{\times }\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{10}^\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{}\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{4}`$;
* $`\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{g}_{\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{f}_\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{0}\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{K}^\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{+}\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{K}^{\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{}}}^\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{2}\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{/}\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{4}\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{\pi }\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{=}\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{2.79}\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{\pm }\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{0.12}`$ GeV2.

Multiplying the branching ratio above by a factor of 3 to account for $`\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{f}_\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{0}\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{}\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{\pi }^\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{+}\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{\pi }^{\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{}}`$ decays BR($`\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{\varphi }`$$`\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{}`$$`\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{f}_\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{0}`$$`\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{\gamma }`$) is then $`\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{(}\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{4.47}\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{\pm }\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{0.21}\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{)}\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{\times }\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{10}^\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{}\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{4}`$, and the ratio of the two branching ratios is
$$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{R}_{\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{B}\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{R}}\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{=}\frac{\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{\mathrm{BR}}\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{(}\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{\varphi }\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{}\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{f}_\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{0}\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{\gamma }\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{)}}{\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{\mathrm{BR}}\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{(}\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{\varphi }\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{}\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{a}_\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{0}\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{\gamma }\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{)}}\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{=}\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{6.1}\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{\pm }\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{0.6}$$
(4)
The ratio of the two couplings to the $`\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{K}\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{K}`$ system is

$$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{R}_{\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{g}^\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{2}}\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{=}\frac{\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{g}_{\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{f}_\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{0}\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{K}\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{K}}^\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{2}}{\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{g}_{\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{a}_\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{0}\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{K}\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{K}}^\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{2}}\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{=}\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{7.0}\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{\pm }\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{0.7}$$
(5)
These ratios are useful for shedding light on the possible sizes and mixing or other structure questions regarding these mesons .

We thank the DA$`\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{\mathrm{\Phi }}`$NE team for their efforts in maintaining low background running conditions and their collaboration during all data-taking. We also thank F. Fortugno for his efforts in ensuring good operations of the KLOE computing facilities. This work was supported in part by DOE grant DE-FG-02-97ER41027; by EURODAPHNE, contract FMRX-CT98-0169; by the German Federal Ministry of Education and Research (BMBF) contract 06-KA-957; by Graduiertenkolleg ’H.E. Phys.and Part. Astrophys.’ of Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft, Contract No. GK 742; by INTAS, contracts 96-624, 99-37; and by TARI, contract HPRI-CT-1999-00088.


format: text

text:
# Off-diagonal long-range order in a harmonically confined two-dimensional Bose gas

## I Introduction

Recent advances in the controlled fabrication and manipulation of ultra-low temperature trapped Bose gases gorlitz ; bloch  has finally made it possible to experimentally investigate the existence of off-diagonal long-range order (ODLRO), i.e., Bose-Einstein condensation (BEC), in dimensions lower than three. This remarkable experimental achievment has rekindled an interest in the classic theoretical problem concerning the existence of BEC in two-dimensions (2D). Although it is well known that finite-temperature BEC can never occur in a homogeneous 2D Bose gas hohenberg , the ideal trapped Bose gas can undergo BEC below some critical temperature $`T_c^{(0)}`$. In the case of a 2D isotropic harmonic trap with confining frequency $`\omega _0`$ (unless stated otherwise, we always implicitly assume this confinement geometry), Bagnato and Kleppner have shown that $`1/\beta _c^{(0)}=\mathrm{}\omega _0\sqrt{6N/\pi ^2}`$ bagnato , where $`\beta =1/(k_BT)`$; Shevchenko later extened this result to include more general power law potentials shevchenko1 . In the thermodnyamic limit, viz., $`N\mathrm{}`$, $`\omega _00`$, such that $`N^{1/2}\omega _0=\mathrm{constant}`$, BEC is also known to theoretically occur with the critical temperature remaining unchanged. Note that this is not the usual thermodynamic limit, which in 2D would demand that $`N\omega _0=\mathrm{constant}`$, resulting in no BEC (see also Ref. lieb  for an alternative thermodynamic limit in the case of an interacting Bose gas).

If repulsive interactions between bosons are included, (we only consider repulsive interactions in this paper), then a definitive answer to the question of BEC in the trapped 2D gas is not so clear. In fact, there is no a priori reason for the existence of BEC in a confined two or three-dimensional system—BEC is a purely kinematical phenomenon in the sense that even the ideal Bose gas can undergo the phase transition. In contrast, a transition to the superfluid state is wholey dynamical and cannot occur without interactions. Therefore, one could sensibly assume that interactions prevent the spatial redistribution of atoms required to achieve Bose gas degeneracy, and therefore destroy the BEC phase transition altogether.

It is only recently that a rigorous proof has been given to show that there is no finite temperature BEC in the interacting trapped 2D Bose gas in the thermodynamic limit mullin1 . Of course, in actual experiments, the theormodyamic limit is never fully realized, and it becomes necessary to consider systems consisting of a finite number of atoms confined in a trap. In this regard, Lieb and Seiringer lieb  have proved that the finite, interacting trapped Bose gas does have 100% BEC at $`T=0`$. To date however, no irrefutable case has been made (experimentally or theoretically) in support of finite temperature BEC in an interacting finite 2D system.

In a recent paper, Petrov et al. petrov  have suggested that that there are in fact two BEC regimes for finite, trapped, (quasi)-2D systems. The general argument supporting their claim hinges on an approximate analytical calculation of the one-particle density martix from which information about the phase correlations of the condensate can be obtained. For large particle number and sufficiently low temperatures, Petrov et al. deduce that the phase fluctuations are governed by $`T\mathrm{ln}(N)`$ petrov . Thus, at temperatures well below $`T_c`$, fluctuations in the phase are supressed and one has a “true condensate” whereas for $`T<T_c`$, the phase fluctuations are enhanced and one has a “quasi-condensate”. Similar results have recently been obtained by Bogliubov et al., in strictly two-dimenions bogliubov .

However, Bhaduri et al. bhaduri  have suggested that there is no BEC phase transition in a finite, interacting 2D Bose gas (see also Refs. shevchenko2 ; vanzyl ; mullin2  for similar conclusions). In their investigation, a semiclassical approximation to the Hartree-Fock-Bogliubov (HFB) mean-field theory was used to investigate the thermodynamics of the trapped 2D Bose gas. Although the semiclassical HFB approach could not shed any light on the question of phase fluctuations, it was shown that the HFB equations could be solved self-consistently all the way down to $`T=0`$ provided one does not invoke the presence of a condensate. This finding seems to indicate that that if no a priori assumption of a condensate is made (as it should be), the system remains in the same uncondensed phase at all temperatures. (Note that applying the same HFB approach in 3D requires a condensate in order to obtain self-consistent solutions below $`T_c^{(0)}`$.) In spite of the absence of a condensate order-parameter however, the density distribution for the uncondensed phase was found to clearly exhibit a large spatial accumulation of atoms near the center of the trap for $`T<T_c^{(0)}`$, similar to what is found in systems with a condensate. This suggests that there may be some sort of “revival” of ODLRO in the system, even though it does not lead to the formation of a condensate. Since the off-diagonal one-particle density matrix can provide information about phase correlations and ODLRO in the system, an investigation of the off-diagonal density martix within the HFB approximation needs to be performed. This is indeed the central motivation for the present work.

The rest of our paper is organized as follows. In Sec. II we investigte the noninteracting 2D gas in a harmonic trap where an exact expression for the finite temperature correlation function can be obtained. In Sec. III, we calculate the correlation function for the interacting system within the semiclassical HFB approximation and investigate its temperature dependence both above and below $`T_c^{(0)}`$. Finally, in Sec. IV, we present our concluding remarks.

## II Noninteracting gas

In this section, we wish to pay special attention to the off-diagonal, one-particle density matrix $`\rho ^{(0)}(𝐫,𝐫^{};\beta )`$ of the noninteracting, confined 2D Bose gas. Our motivation lies in the fact that ODLRO in the one-particle density matrix and BEC are interrelated penrose  (see below for details). For the isotropic HO, $`\rho ^{(0)}(𝐫,𝐫^{};\beta )`$ can be calculated analytically, and we have an exact result from which we can quantitatively test the validity of the semiclassical approximation. We will be particularly interested how well the seimclassical approximation describes the phase correlations of the gas below the BEC critical temperature $`T_c^{(0)}`$. To the best of our knowledge, this is the first such study in two-dimensions.

By definition, the off-diagonal one-particle density matrix is given by fetter

$$\rho ^{(0)}(𝐫,𝐫^{};\beta )=\underset{j}{}\psi _j^{(0)}(𝐫)\psi _j^{(0)}(𝐫^{})^{}n_j^{(0)},$$
(1)
where $`\psi _j^{(0)}(𝐫)`$ are exact eigenfunctions of the $`d`$-dimensional harmonic oscillator (HO) and $`n_j^{(0)}`$ is the Bose distribution function. It is most convenient to evaluate (1) for the 1D case, and then use the separability of the HO potential to obtain the general result. Explicitly, we have

$$\rho ^{(0)}(x,x^{};\beta )=\frac{1}{\sqrt{\pi }}\underset{n=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}e^{\frac{1}{2}(x^2+x^2)}\frac{H_n(x)H_n(x^{})}{2^nn!}\frac{1}{e^{\beta (\epsilon _n\mu )}1},$$
(2)
where $`\epsilon _n`$ are the energy levels of the HO, $`\mu `$ is the chemical potential, and we have scaled all energies and lengths by $`\mathrm{}\omega _0`$ and $`\mathrm{}_0=\sqrt{\mathrm{}/m\omega _0}`$, respectively. We now set the zero of energy to correspond to the lowest trap level, viz., $`n=0`$, and obtain from (2)

$$\rho ^{(0)}(x,x^{};\beta )=\frac{1}{\sqrt{\pi }}\underset{j=1}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}e^{j\beta \mu }\underset{n=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}e^{\frac{1}{2}(x^2+x^2)}\frac{H_n(x)H_n(x^{})}{2^nn!}e^{j\beta n},$$
(3)
where we have used ketterle

$$\underset{j=1}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}e^{j\beta \mu }e^{j\beta n}=\frac{1}{e^{\beta (\epsilon _n\mu )}1}.$$
(4)
The summation over trap levels can be perfomed exactly morse , and we finally obtain in any dimension

$$\rho ^{(0)}(𝐫,𝐫^{};\beta )=\underset{j=1}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}\frac{e^{j\beta \mu }}{[\pi (1e^{2j\beta })]^{d/2}}e^{1/4[|𝐫+𝐫^{}|^2\mathrm{tanh}(j\beta /2)+|𝐫𝐫^{}|^2\mathrm{coth}(j\beta /2)]}.$$
(5)
Putting $`d=3`$ in the above equation reproduces the result obtained by Barnett et al., barnett . The chemical potential is obtained by enforcing that the total particle number $`N`$, remain fixed, viz.,

$$N=\underset{j=1}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}\frac{e^{j\beta \mu }}{(1e^{j\beta })^d}.$$
(6)
The diagonal part of the one-particle density matrix yields the exact quantum-mechanical finite temperature density, $`\rho ^{(0)}(𝐫)`$, of the trapped gas. The densities for various temperatures are shown in Fig. 1 for $`d=2`$ and $`N=10^4`$ atoms. Figure 1 illustrates that even though we are not in the thermodynamic limit, the single-particle density distribution exhibits an enormous accumulation of atoms near the center of the trap for $`T<T_c^{(0)}`$. This type of behaviour is consistent with the confined gas having undergone a phase transition to the BEC state. The usual approach for confirming that this phase transition is indeed BEC is to examine the temperature dependence of the fractional occupancy of the lowest oscillator level, $`N_0/N`$. The inset to Fig. 1 shows that below $`T/T_c^{(0)}1`$, the ground state of the system becomes macroscopically occupied, with already $`50\%`$ of the atoms in the lowest level at $`T/T_c^{(0)}0.7`$. Remarkably, even at $`N=10^4`$ atoms, the fractional occupancy closely follows the quadratic temperature dependence obtained strictly in the thermodynamic limit (dashed line in figure inset), viz.,

$$\frac{N_0}{N}=1\left(\frac{T}{T_c^{(0)}}\right)^2.$$
(7)
Although $`N_0/N`$ gives us a strong indication that the finite system has a BEC transition at $`T/T_c^{(0)}1`$, it does not provide us with a definitive test for the presence of ODLRO in the system.

It is well known since the early work of Penrose and Onsager penrose  that for a homogeneous system, the phenomenon of BEC is intimately related to the presence of ODLRO in the off-diagonal one-particle density matrix, namely,

$$\underset{|𝐫𝐫^{}|\mathrm{}}{lim}\rho ^{(0)}(𝐫,𝐫^{};\beta )0.$$
(8)
In fact, the low temperature behaviour of $`\rho ^{(0)}(𝐫,𝐫^{})`$ is directly related to the phase fluctuations of the condensate penrose  and the non-zero limiting value of Eq. (8) yields the value of the order parameter (i.e., condensate fraction) in the system. For finite inhomogeneous systems however, the above criterion has to be modified to account for the fact that ODLRO cannot extend beyond the physical size of the system. This is accomplished by defining a normalized correlation function (sometimes called the first-order coherence function) by

$$g^{(0)}(𝐫,𝐫^{};\beta )=\frac{\rho ^{(0)}(𝐫,𝐫^{};\beta )}{\sqrt{\rho ^{(0)}(𝐫,𝐫;\beta )}\sqrt{\rho ^{(0)}(𝐫^{},𝐫^{};\beta )}},$$
(9)
such that

$$\underset{|𝐫𝐫^{}|\xi }{lim}g^{(0)}(𝐫,𝐫^{};\beta )0.$$
(10)
The above correlation function describes a local measure of coherence in the system. For example, the ability of two BEC’s, intially separated by $`|𝐫𝐫^{}|`$, to form an interference pattern is quantified by $`g^{(0)}(𝐫,𝐫^{})`$ hecht . In this sense, the correlation function also characterizes local fluctuations of the phase of the condensate order-parameter. The quantity $`\xi `$ is the large-distance length-scale over which the ODLRO of the finite system is manifested. At zero temperature, $`\xi =\mathrm{}_0`$, whereas for $`T0`$, $`\xi `$ is taken to be the spatial extent of the single-particle density $`\rho ^{(0)}(𝐫)`$. To simplify our calculations, we fix one of the coordinate, $`𝐫^{}`$ to be at the center of the trap. Note that in Eq. (9), dividing the off-diagonal density matrix by the square root of the single-particle densities removes any effects of the local-density of particles on the correlation function, and gives $`g^{(0)}(𝐫,𝐫;\beta )=1`$ in the case of perfect coherence.

The solid curves in Fig. 2 depict the correlation function $`g^{(0)}(𝐫,0)`$ for $`d=2`$ and $`N=10^4`$ at various temperatures. From left to right, we have $`T/T_c^{(0)}=1.0,0.9,0.8,0.6,\mathrm{0.4.0.2},0.01`$. Above the critical temperature, the atoms remain in the uncondensed phase and the system shows no ODLRO. However, as the gas is cooled below the transition temperature, we see an abrupt jump in the large-distance decay of the spatial correlations. A direct application of Eq. (10) yields condensate fractions of $`N_0/N=0.02,0.47,0.71,0.84,0.93`$, for temperatures $`T/T_c^{(0)}=1.0,0.8,0.6,0.4,0.2`$, respectively. Thus, below $`T_c^{(0)}`$, the finite noninteracting 2D Bose gas contains a non-zero order-parameter (i.e., a BEC).

It also proves very useful to compare the spatial extent of the single-particle density, $`\rho ^{(0)}(𝐫)`$, to the spatial decay of the correlation function $`g^{(0)}(𝐫,0)`$. This information is also presented in Fig. 2 where the exact quantum mechanical densities are represented by dashed lines. These densities have been scaled by their value at $`𝐫=0`$ to allow for a comparison of the length scales between $`\rho ^{(0)}(𝐫)`$ and $`g^{(0)}(𝐫,0)`$. From right to left, the dashed lines correspond to densities at $`T/T_c^{(0)}=1.0,0.9,0.8,0.6`$. Densities at lower temperatures are almost indistinguishable on the scale of the figure. We note that at low temperatures, the correlation function is practically a constant $`g^{(0)}(𝐫,0)=1`$ over the entire region for which the density (i.e., physical size of the system) of the gas is nonzero. This means that phase fluctuations are very small, and the density distribution corresponds to that of a “true condensate”. At higher temperatures (i.e., $`0.9<T/T_c^{(0)}<1.0`$) the single-paricle density can become comparable to that of $`g^{(0)}(𝐫,0)`$, and the gas can be said to be a “quasi-condensate” in the sense that the phase correlations do not extend to all of the atoms in the trap. For $`T/T_c^{(0)}>1.0`$, the spatial extent of the single-particle density greatly exceeds characteristic length of the correlations, and system is in the normal state.

Having obtained the exact expression for $`\rho ^{(0)}(𝐫,𝐫^{};\beta )`$, we now wish to examine its semiclassical approximation, namely, its behaviour when $`k_BT\mathrm{}\omega _0`$. It is easy to show that Eq (5) reduces to

$`\rho ^{(0)}(𝐫,𝐫^{})`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{(2\pi \beta )^{d/2}}}{\displaystyle \underset{j=1}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{e^{j\beta \mu }}{j^{d/2}}}\mathrm{exp}[\beta [V(𝐫)+V(𝐫^{})]/2]^j\mathrm{exp}[|𝐫𝐫^{}|^2)/2\beta ]^{1/j}`$ (11)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{(2\pi \beta )^{d/2}}}g_{d/2}(\mathrm{exp}\left[\beta (\mu [V(𝐫)+V(𝐫^{})]/2)\right],\mathrm{exp}[|𝐫𝐫^{}|^2)/2\beta ]),`$ (12)
where $`V(𝐫)=1/2r^2`$, and as in Ref. nara  we have introduced the generalized Bose function

$$g_\alpha (x,y)=\underset{j=1}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}\frac{x^jy^{1/j}}{j^\alpha }.$$
(13)
For $`𝐫=𝐫^{}`$ and $`d=2`$, Eq. (12) becomes

$$\rho ^{(0)}(𝐫)=\frac{1}{(2\pi )^2}\frac{d^2𝐩}{[\mathrm{exp}\left[(\frac{p^2}{2}+\frac{1}{2}r^2+\mu )\beta \right]1]},$$
(14)
with the normalization condition

$$N=\rho ^{(0)}(𝐫)d^2𝐫.$$
(15)
If one attempts to solve Eqs. (14,15) for all $`T`$, it is readily shown that there exists a temperature $`T^{}`$ below which the equations can no longer be satisfied bhaduri ; vanzyl . In fact, the temperature $`T^{}`$ is identical to the the critical temperature $`T_c^{(0)}`$ obtained by Bagnato and Kleppner bagnato . Thus, in order to obtain solutions below $`T_c^{(0)}`$, a condensate order parameter is required. We introduce the macroscopic occupation of the ground state in the one-particle density matrix according to the ansatz

$$\rho ^{(0)}(𝐫,𝐫^{})=N_0\psi _0^{(0)}(𝐫)\psi _0^{(0)}(𝐫^{})+\frac{1}{(2\pi \beta )^{d/2}}g_{d/2}(\mathrm{exp}\left[\beta (\mu [V(𝐫)+V(𝐫^{})]/2)\right],\mathrm{exp}\left[|𝐫𝐫^{}|^2/2\beta \right]),$$
(16)
where $`\psi _0^{(0)}(𝐫)`$ is the zero temperature ground-state eigenfunction of the HO and

$$N_0=\frac{e^{\beta \mu }}{1e^{\beta \mu }}.$$
(17)
The 2D density is then given by Eq. (16) with $`𝐫=𝐫^{}`$,

$$\rho ^{(0)}(𝐫)=N_0|\psi _0^{(0)}(𝐫)|^2+\frac{1}{(2\pi )^2}\frac{d^2𝐩}{[\mathrm{exp}\left[(\frac{p^2}{2}+\frac{1}{2}r^2+\mu )\beta \right]1]}.$$
(18)
The semiclassical densities obtained from Eq. (18) are indistinguishable from the exact densities obtained from Eq. (5). The semiclassical correlation function, Eq. (16), at various temperatures is represented in Fig. 2 as filled circles. The superb agreement between the exact (solid curves) and semiclassical results shows that the semiclassical approximation is valid well below the critical temperature provided one takes into account the macroscopic occupation of the ground state separately. If the atoms had remained in the uncondensed phase, Eqs. (14,15) would have been sufficient to describe the gas for all $`T0`$.

## III Interacting gas

The thermodynamic properties of the interacting Bose gas are most commonly described by the self-consistent mean-field HFB equations. In most calculations (see Ref. giorgini ; dalfovo  and references therein for details), the semiclassical approximation is applied to the discrete set of coupled Bogliubov equations, leading to the considerably simplified semiclassical HFB theory. The semiclassical HFB approximation is well-known to be an excellent tool for describing the interacting 3D Bose gas giorgini ; dalfovo . The 2D version of the semiclassical HFB theory is formally identical to the 3D version and has already been examined by Mullin mullin3 . We present only the essentials of the model here for completeness.

In the semiclassical HFB approach, the condensed and uncondensed atoms are described by a set of coupled, self-consistent equations. The macroscopic condensate wavefunction, $`\psi _0(𝐫)`$, is characterized by the finite-temperature Gross-Pitaevskii equation which is given by

$$\left[\frac{1}{2}^2+\frac{1}{2}r^2\mu +2\gamma \rho (𝐫)\gamma \rho _0(𝐫)\right]\psi _0(𝐫)=0,$$
(19)
where $`\gamma `$ is the coupling constant associated with the assumed repulsive zero-range two-body pseudo-potential. The total density, $`\rho (𝐫)`$, is made up of a condensate $`\rho _0(𝐫)|\psi _0(𝐫)|^2`$, and a noncondensate density,

$$\rho _T(𝐫)=\left\{\left[u^2(𝐩,𝐫)+v^2(𝐩,𝐫)\right]f(𝐩,𝐫)+v^2(𝐩,𝐫)\right\}d^2𝐩,$$
(20)
where

$$f(𝐩,𝐫)=\frac{1}{e^{\beta \epsilon }1},$$
(21)
$$u^2(𝐫,𝐩)=\frac{\mathrm{\Lambda }+\epsilon }{2\epsilon },$$
(22)
$$v^2(𝐫,𝐩)=\frac{\mathrm{\Lambda }\epsilon }{2\epsilon },$$
(23)
$$\mathrm{\Lambda }=\frac{p^2}{2}+\frac{1}{2}r^2\mu +2\gamma \rho (𝐫),$$
(24)
and

$$\epsilon (𝐩,𝐫)=\sqrt{\mathrm{\Lambda }^2(\gamma \rho _0(𝐫))^2}.$$
(25)
The total number of particles satisfies

$$N=[\rho _0(𝐫)+\rho _T(𝐫)]d^2𝐫.$$
(26)
In the absence of a condensate, it is easy to show that the above set of HFB equations reduce to

$$\rho _T(𝐫)=\frac{1}{2\pi }\frac{d^2𝐩}{\left[\mathrm{exp}\left[\left(\frac{p^2}{2}+\frac{1}{2}r^2+2\gamma \rho _T(𝐫)\mu \right)\beta \right]1\right]},$$
(27)
with

$$N=\rho _T(𝐫)d^2𝐫.$$
(28)
Equations (27,28) are equivalent to the so-called self-consistent Thomas-Fermi approximation used in Refs. bhaduri ; vanzyl . Putting $`\gamma =0`$ in Eq. (27) yields an expression that is identical to the semiclassical approximation of the exact diagonal density matrix, viz., Eq. (14), found in the previous section; recall from Sec. II that below $`T_c^{(0)}`$, Eqs. (27,29) cannot be solved self-consistently. However, if one puts any finite $`\gamma >0`$ in Eq. (27), self-consistent solutions to the HFB equations can be obtained all the way down to $`T=0`$ bhaduri ; vanzyl ; mullin2 . To illustrate this, we show in Fig. 3 the density and chemical potential (figure inset) of the gas for $`\gamma =0`$ (long-dash-short-dashed line), $`\gamma =0.16`$ (solid line), and $`\gamma =0.31`$ (dashed line). In contrast to the noninteracting 2D gas (where a condensate order-parameter has to be introduced below $`T_c^{(0)}`$), the interacting system remains in the uncondensed phase for all $`T0`$.

Although no condensation occurs, it is interesting to compare the densities of the noninteracting (Fig. 1) and interacting gases (Fig. 3) just above and below $`T_c^{(0)}`$. The essential point to be made from this comparison is that in both cases, there is an increase in the density of atoms near the center of the trap for $`T<T_c^{(0)}`$. While the noninteracting density shows a much larger enhancement at $`𝐫=0`$, the interacting gas also displays a similar (albeit diminished) behaviour. Since an increase in the density of atoms near the center of the trap is associated with ODLRO in the noninteracting gas, it is worthwhile investigating the off-diagonal density matrix for the interacting 2D gas within the semiclassical HFB approximation.

The 2D semiclassical HFB off-diagonal density matrix can be obtained from the leading order term in the Wigner-Kirkwood semiclassical expansion of the quantum mechanical off-diagnonal density matrix brack . The noncondensed particles are treated as bosons in an effective potential, and we obtain

$$\rho (𝐫,𝐫^{};\beta )=\frac{1}{2\pi \beta }g_1(\mathrm{exp}\left[\beta (\mu [V_{\mathrm{eff}}(𝐫)+V_{\mathrm{eff}}(𝐫^{})]/2)\right],\mathrm{exp}\left[|𝐫𝐫^{}|^2/2\beta \right]),$$
(29)
where

$$V_{\mathrm{eff}}(𝐫)=\frac{1}{2}r^2+2\gamma \rho (𝐫).$$
(30)
Since there is no condensate for $`\gamma >0`$, we have not included the first term in Eq. (16). Of course, for $`𝐫=𝐫^{}`$, Eq. (29) reduces to Eq. (27).

As in Sec. II, the normalized correlation function for the finite sized system is given by

$$g(𝐫,0;\beta )=\frac{\rho (𝐫,0;\beta )}{\sqrt{\rho (𝐫)}\sqrt{\rho (0)}},$$
(31)
where again, we have fixed $`𝐫^{}=0`$. The temperature dependence of $`g(𝐫,0;\beta )`$ is shown in Figs. 4, 5 for coupling strengths $`\gamma =0.16,0.31`$, respectivley.

Above $`T_c^{(0)}`$, the interacting and noninteracting (see Fig. 2) systems have similar correlations. However, as we cool the gas to temperatures just below $`T_c^{(0)}`$, there is an drastic change in the behaviour of the interacting off-diagonal density matrix, which to the best of our knowledge, has never been noticed before. In particluar, we observe that the decay of the correlations in the interacting system are qualitatively different from the noninteracting gas. For the interacting gas, values of $`r\mathrm{}_0`$ lead to the tail of the correlation function decreasing slowler than the noninteracting case. In contrast, for $`r\mathrm{}_0`$, the interacting correlation function has a much faster spatial decay than the noninteracting system. We have already discussed the fact that the near constancy of the noninteracting correlation function, $`g^{(0)}(𝐫,𝐫^{})`$, over the size of the sample ($`r\mathrm{}_0`$) is indicative of negligible phase fluctuations in the condensate penrose . Thus, the re-appearance of ODLRO in $`g(𝐫,𝐫^{})`$ below $`T_c^{(0)}`$ suggests that there may be larger fluctuations in the phase as compared to the noninteracting gas. If we apply Eq. (10) to $`g(𝐫,𝐫^{})`$ (with $`\gamma =0.16`$), we obtain $`0.002,0.25,0.58,0.70`$ at $`T/T_c^{(0)}=1.0,0.8,0.6,0.4`$ respectively, for the asymptotic behaviour of the correlation fucntion. Even though we may not be able to interpret these numbers as condensate fractions, it is tempting to conjecture that they represent a nonzero value of an order-parameter in the system.

We can be more quantitative about the nature of the correlations displayed by $`g(𝐫,𝐫^{})`$ below $`T_c^{(0)}`$ as follows. In the interacting homogeneous 2D Bose gas, Popov popov  has already calculated the low temperature correlation function:

$$g(𝐫,𝐫^{};\beta )R^\alpha ,$$
(32)
where

$$R\frac{|𝐫𝐫^{}|}{\beta \sqrt{\gamma \rho _s}},\alpha =\frac{1}{2\pi \beta \rho _s},$$
(33)
and $`\rho _s`$ is the so-called superfluid density. The algebraic ODLRO exhibited by $`g(𝐫,𝐫^{})`$ implies that at low temperature, correlations can extend over macroscopic (i.e., size of the system) distances, although phase fluctutations will be nonzero. This is reminiscent of the quasi-condensate described in Ref. petrov , and it is only identically at $`T=0`$ that the system will attain a “true condensate”.

If the system is finite (i.e., in a 2DHO potential), then Bogliubov et al. bogliubov , have shown that

$$R\frac{|𝐫𝐫^{}|}{\beta \sqrt{\gamma \rho (0)}},\alpha =\frac{1}{2\pi \beta \rho (𝐒)},$$
(34)
where $`𝐒=(𝐫+𝐫^{})/2`$. Eq. (34) is formally identical to (33) except for the slowly varying factor $`\rho (𝐒)`$ which is the inhomogeneous boson density. This additional spatial dependence results in a deviation from the strict power law dependence of the uniform gas. We have found that at low temperatures, the power law dependence in Eq. (34) agrees well with the observed numerical behaviour of $`g(𝐫,𝐫^{};\beta )`$. This suggests that at low temperatures, the interacting system exhibits algebraic ODLRO similar to that of the superfluid state in the uniform Bose gas. At exactly $`T=0`$, the gas will have a true condensate.

## IV Conclusions

We have investigated the finite-temperature correlations in both the ideal and interacting trapped, 2D Bose gas. Our study of the noninteracting gas provided an exact framework from which we could compare the validity of the semiclassical approximation over a wide temperature range. Our results indicate that the semiclassical approach works extremetly well, even below the critical temperature, provided the macroscopic occupations of the ground state is treated separately. A careful examination of the correlation function reveals that, as in Ref. petrov , there are two BEC regimes for the noninteracting gas. Namely, for temperatures $`0.9<T/T_c^{(0)}<1.0`$, the system is a quasi-condensate in the sense that the phase correlations are comparable to the spatial extent of the single-particle density. On the other hand, when the temperature is lowered to $`T/T_c^{(0)}0.9`$, phase fluctuations become negligible, and the gas is a true condensate. It is straightforward to apply our results to study the finite $`N`$ dependence on the coherence properties of trapped gases in dimensions $`d=1,2,3`$. (see e.g., Ref. barnett  for work relating to 3D).

In the interacting gas, we found that even though the system does not contain a condensate, there is a revival of ODLRO for $`T/T_c^{(0)}1`$. The low temperature behaviour of the interacting correlation function was found to be consistent with an algebraic (i.e., power law) decay in the phase correlations, similar to what is found in the uniform 2D superfluid Bose gas. Whether or not this re-entrant ODLRO is to the superfluid state is presently being investigated.

Finally, it is interesting to note that Margo and Ceperely margo  have found conclusions analgous to ours for the uniform 2D charged Bose fluid (CBF) with $`\mathrm{ln}(r)`$ interactions. Specifically, they found that even though the 2D CBF does not undergo a condensation, the noncondensed fluid exhibits a power-law decay of the one-particle density matrix similar to what is found in the present work. It is not immediately clear what relevance their findings may have on our results for the interacting, inhomogeneous 2D Bose gas.

###### Acknowledgements.

It is a pleasure to thank Drs. Wonkee Kim, Rajat Bhaduri and J. P. Carbotte for illuminating discussions. This work was supported in part by the National Sciences and the Engineering Research Council of Canada (NSERC) and by the Canadian Institute for Advanced Research (CIAR).


text:
# REFERENCES

The charm quark EDM and singlet $`P`$-wave charmonium production in supersymmetry

Z. Z. Aydin and U. Erkarslan

Ankara University, Faculty of Engineering,

Department of Engineering Physics, 06100 Tandogan, Ankara–TURKEY

## Abstract

We analyze the singlet $`P`$–wave charmonium production at $`e^+e^{}`$ colliders within the framework of unconstrained supersymmetry. We show that the CP–violating transitions, dominated by the gluino exchange, are typically four orders of magnitude larger than the CP–conserving ones, and former is generated by the electric dipole moment of the charm quark. Our results can be directly tested via the charmonium searches at the CLEO–c experiment.

I. INTRODUCTION

A permanent electric dipole moment (EDM) of an elementary particle is a clear signature for the CP violation. In the Standard Model (SM) of electroweak interactions CP-violation originates from the phase in the CKM matrix; but in this model the single fermion’s EDM vanishes up to two-loop order, and also three-loop contributions partially cancel. Therefore, the SM contribution is neither relevant phenomenologically nor numerically important. However, the Supersymmetric (SUSY) extension of SM contains many new sources of CP violation generated by soft SUSY breaking terms. Actually such a SUSY Model has many phases, but not all of them are physical. After using some symmetries such as R-symmetry and the Peccie-Quinn symmetry, only two of them remain physical: the trilinear coupling A and the $`\mu `$ parameter.

The upper bounds for the neutron and electron EDMs imply that CP violation phases are duly small if the exchanged SUSY particles have masses close to their current experimental lower limits. There are several suggestions to find the electron and neutron EDMs below the experimental upper limits when CP phases $``$O(1). Two possibilities have been commonly discussed in the literature which include (i ) finding appropriate parameter domain where different contributions cancel or (ii)making the first two generations of scalar fermions heavy enough but keeping the soft masses of the third generation below the TeV scale.

As the analysis of Ref.  shows clearly, the electric dipole moments (EDM) of the heavy quarks play an important role in the direct production of singlet P–wave mesons at $`e^+e^{}`$ colliders. Indeed, it is possible to observe $`{}_{}{}^{1}\text{P}_{1}^{}`$ bottomonium in $`B`$ factories like BaBaR, KEK or BEPC with sufficiently high statistics provided that the $`b`$ quark possesses a large enough EDM. Since the single fermion EDMs are exceedingly small in the standard electroweak theory  the SUSY contribution remains as the only viable option. Indeed, in SUSY the EDMs exist already at the one-loop level and typically exceed the existing $`1.5\sigma `$ upper bounds.

However, not only the bottom quark but also the charm quark EDM offers an important arena in searching for the singlet P–wave charmonia. Indeed, in near future with increasing data at CLEO-c experiment , it might be possible to produce the $`{}_{}{}^{1}\text{P}_{1}^{}`$ charmonium state, $`h_c`$, directly. Therefore, a direct estimate of the charm quark EDM $`𝒟_c`$ in SUSY will help in predicting how large the effect could be at CLEO-c.

In our analysis we will concentrate on unconstrained low-energy SUSY model as in Ref.  in that portion of the parameter space where large SUSY contributions to electron and neutron EDMs are naturally suppressed. Such a region of the SUSY parameter space is characterized by a small phase for the $`\mu `$ parameter: $`\pi /(5\mathrm{tan}\beta )\phi _\mu \pi /(5\mathrm{tan}\beta )`$ .

Assuming universality of the gaugino masses at some ultra high scale, it is known that the only physical soft phases are those of the $`A`$ parameters, $`\phi _{A_i}`$ ($`i=u,c,\mathrm{}b`$) and the $`\mu `$ parameter. Therefore, in what follows we will scan the SUSY parameter space by varying ($`i`$) all soft masses from $`m_t`$ to $`1\mathrm{TeV}`$, ($`ii`$) the phases of the $`A`$ parameters from $`0`$ to $`\pi `$, and finally, ($`iii`$) the phase of the $`\mu `$ parameter in bounds noted above suggested by the cancellation mechanism.

In the second section, we calculate the chargino and gluino contributions to the c-quark EDM in effective SUSY at one-loop level and show that the gluino contribution dominates.

Section 3 is devoted to the analysis of our numerical calculations.

In section 4, we discuss the possible signatures of the c-quark EDM in the $`e^+e^{}`$ annihilation. After examining the formation of $`{}_{}{}^{1}P_{1}^{}`$ charmonium state in $`e^+e^{}`$ channel, we show that the CP-violating part, generated by the c-quark EDM dominates over the CP-conserving ones. In the case of observing the CP-odd resonance in the data accumulating at CLEO-c experiment, this would be a direct evidence for the charm quark’s EDM and also for the CP- violation in SUSY.

2.THE CHARM QUARK EDM in SUSY

The EDM of a spin 1/2 particle is defined as follows

$$𝔏=\frac{i}{2}𝒟_f\overline{\psi }\sigma _{\mu \nu }\gamma _5\psi F^{\mu \nu }$$
(1)
which obviously appears as a quantum loop-effects. In the SM, $`𝒟_f`$ vanishes up to two-loop order , whereas in SUSY it exists already at one-loop level.

As shown in Fig. 1 the $`c`$ EDM is generated by the gluino, chargino and neutralino diagrams at one loop level. The general expressions for the quark EDMs in SUSY can be found in . At large $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$ the individual contributions to the $`c`$ quark EDM take the following compact forms. The gluino contribution is given by

$`\left({\displaystyle \frac{𝒟_c}{e}}\right)^{\stackrel{~}{g}}`$ $`=`$ $`\left({\displaystyle \frac{\alpha _s(M_{SUSY})}{\alpha _s(m_t)}}\right)^{16/21}\left({\displaystyle \frac{\alpha _s(m_t)}{\alpha _s(m_b)}}\right)^{16/23}\left({\displaystyle \frac{\alpha _s(m_b)}{\alpha _s(m_c)}}\right)^{\frac{16}{25}}{\displaystyle \frac{2\alpha _s}{3\pi }}Q_c{\displaystyle \frac{m_{\stackrel{~}{g}}m_c\text{Im}[A_c^{}]}{M_{\stackrel{~}{c}_1}^2M_{\stackrel{~}{c}_2}^2}}`$ (2)
$`\times `$ $`\left[{\displaystyle \frac{\text{B}(m_{\stackrel{~}{g}}^2/M_{\stackrel{~}{c}_1}^2)}{M_{\stackrel{~}{c}_1}^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{\text{B}(m_{\stackrel{~}{g}}^2/M_{\stackrel{~}{c}_2}^2)}{M_{\stackrel{~}{c}_2}^2}}\right]`$ (3)
where the loop function $`\text{B}(x)`$ can be found in . Here $`M_{\stackrel{~}{c}_{1,2}}^2`$ are the masses of the charm squark. It is clear that at large $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$ the (dominant) gluino–scharm contribution to $`c`$–quark EDM is almost independent of the phase of the $`\mu `$ parameter.

The chargino contribution, which proceeds via the exchange of charged gauginos and Higgsinos together with the scalar $`s`$–quark does have a direct dependence on the phase of the $`\mu `$ parameter via chargino mass matrix . The exact expression reads as

$`\left({\displaystyle \frac{𝒟_c}{e}}\right)^{\chi ^\pm }`$ $`=`$ $`\left({\displaystyle \frac{\alpha _s(M_{SUSY})}{\alpha _s(m_t)}}\right)^{16/21}\left({\displaystyle \frac{\alpha _s(m_t)}{\alpha _s(m_b)}}\right)^{16/23}\left({\displaystyle \frac{\alpha _s(m_b)}{\alpha _s(m_c)}}\right)^{\frac{16}{25}}`$ (5)
$`\times {\displaystyle \frac{\alpha _2}{4\pi }}Q_c{\displaystyle \underset{k=1}{\overset{2}{}}}{\displaystyle \underset{j=1}{\overset{2}{}}}\mathrm{}\left[\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\chi ^\pm }^{kj}\right]{\displaystyle \frac{1}{M_{\chi _j^\pm }}}F_\pm \left({\displaystyle \frac{M_{\chi _j^\pm }^2}{M_{\stackrel{~}{s}_k}^2}}\right)`$
$`=`$ $`\left({\displaystyle \frac{\alpha _s(M_{SUSY})}{\alpha _s(m_t)}}\right)^{16/21}\left({\displaystyle \frac{\alpha _s(m_t)}{\alpha _s(m_b)}}\right)^{16/23}\left({\displaystyle \frac{\alpha _s(m_b)}{\alpha _s(m_c)}}\right)^{\frac{16}{25}}`$ (7)
$`\times {\displaystyle \frac{\alpha _2}{4\pi }}{\displaystyle \frac{m_c}{M_W^2}}\mathrm{}\left[C_7^{\chi ^\pm }(M_W)\right]`$
where the first line results from the direct computation, and depends on the vertex factors $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\chi ^\pm }^{kj}`$ and the loop function $`F_\pm `$ both defined in Ref. . The second line, however, is the dipole coefficient arising in $`cu\gamma `$ decay as was pointed out in Ref.  for $`bs\gamma `$. (This relation to rare radiative decays is particularly important as $`C_7^{\chi ^\pm }(M_W)`$ is particularly sensitive to large $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$ effects  which introduces large enhancements compared to the SM.) A precise determination of the branching ratio and the CP–asymmetry in $`cu\gamma `$(or the hadronic mode $`D\pi \gamma `$ )  decay will help in fixing the chargino contribution to the $`c`$–quark EDM. Presently, the experimental data is not precise enough to bound this contribution so that we will analyze the result of the direct calculation in (3) in the numerical studies below.

The neutralino contribution is at least 20 times smaller numerically than the gluino contribution. So we do not include it in our numerical analysis below.

3.NUMERICAL ANALYSIS

We now discuss numerically the gluino and chargino contributions to the EDM of the c-quark. As mentioned before, in our analysis we take the SUSY parameters in the following ranges:

* Soft masses: $`m_t^2M_{\stackrel{~}{s}_k}^2,M_{\stackrel{~}{c}_k}^2,|A_{c,s}|^2\left(1\mathrm{TeV}\right)^2`$
* Gaugino Masses: $`m_tM_21\mathrm{TeV}`$ with $`m_{\stackrel{~}{g}}=\frac{\alpha _s}{\alpha _2}M_2`$
* Phase of the $`\mu `$ parameter: $`\frac{\pi }{5\mathrm{tan}\beta }\phi _\mu \frac{\pi }{5\mathrm{tan}\beta }`$
* Phase of the $`A`$ parameters: $`0\phi _{A_{c,s}}\pi `$
* $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$: $`10\mathrm{tan}\beta 50`$

where the modulus of $`\mu `$ is determined via the relation

$`\left|A_c\mu \mathrm{cot}\beta \right|={\displaystyle \frac{1}{4m_c^2}}\left[\left(M_{\stackrel{~}{c}_1}^2M_{\stackrel{~}{c}_2}^2\right)^2rM_W^4(\mathrm{cos}2\beta )^2\right]`$ (8)
with $`r=(g_2^2(5/3)g_1^2)/(2g_2^2)`$.

In Fig.2 we plot the gluino contribution, $`𝒟_c^{\stackrel{~}{g}},`$ in units of 10-26e.cm, as a function of the Ac phase (Fig.2(a)), $`\mu `$ parameter phase (Fig.2(c)) and tan$`\beta `$ (Fig.2(b)). We have to emphasize that here we use the exact formula instead of Eq.(2). In all these plots, we scan the other parameters in their allowed ranges. It is clear from Fig. 2(a) that for most of the $`\phi _A`$ space (i.e. from 0 to $`\pi `$) the value of the EDM is around 10-21 e.cm, showing a slight maximum at $`\pi /2`$. At $`\phi _A`$=0, the 102 times smaller value of $`𝒟_c^{\stackrel{~}{g}}`$ comes from the $`\phi _\mu `$ phase in the large tan$`\beta `$ limit. As we have already mentioned, Fig.2(b) shows the almost independent behavior of the EDM on $`\phi _\mu `$ phase for large tan$`\beta `$. In Fig.2(c) we see a slight dependence on tan$`\beta `$ , as we expected for the c-quark contrary to the case of the b-quark.

We conclude that for a reasonable portion of the parameter space the c-quark EDM gets a gluino contribution to the order of $`10^{21}`$ e.cm.

Fig.3(a-c) show the dependence of the chargino contribution on the parameters $`\phi _A`$, $`\phi _\mu `$ and tan$`\beta ,`$ respectively. All the plots give a very small contribution, smaller than 10-24 e. cm which is at least two orders of magnitude smaller than the gluino contribution. Although its numerical value is far below of the gluino contribution, it would be worth mentioning the rather slight increase of the chargino contribution with $`\phi _\mu `$ and tan$`\beta .`$ In these plots we used exact expression for $`𝒟_c^{\chi ^\pm }`$ which depends on the phase of $`\mu `$ parameter and tan$`\beta `$ in a very complicated way. In order to explain the origin of these behaviours, one needs an analytical dependence of $`_{k=1}^2_{j=1}^2\mathrm{}\left[\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\chi ^\pm }^{kj}\right]`$ factor on $`\phi _\mu `$ and tan$`\beta `$ which could be achieved only by using some approximations.

4. CHARM QUARK EDM and 1P1CHARMONIUM

Recently the E760 collaboration at Fermilab have announced the first possible observation of the 1P1 CP-odd charmonium state in $`\overline{p}p`$ annihilations and the mass value of h$`{}_{c}{}^{}(1P)`$ is given (3525,20$`\pm 0.15\pm 0.20)`$ MeV. However the production of the 1P1 charmonium state in the $`e^+e^{}`$ annihilation is very interesting from the point of view of the experimental evidence of the c-quark EDM, since the coupling of photon to the hc(11P1 (1+-)) charmonium is identical to the effective Lagrangian (1). The quantum numbers of this CP-odd resonance coincide with those of the current density

$$J_\alpha (\overline{c}c|^1P_1)=\overline{c}(x)_\alpha \gamma _5c(x)$$
(9)
In the $`e^+e^{}`$ annihilation the $`{}_{}{}^{1}P_{1}^{}`$state can be produced via the $`\gamma Z`$ and $`ZZ`$ box diagrams in the framework of the SM. After using the same consideration in Ref. one can reach the following effective CP invariant Hamiltonian

$$H_{SM}=\frac{\alpha }{3\pi \sqrt{2}}G_Fm_em_c𝔅J_\alpha (\overline{c}c|^1P_1).J^\alpha (e^+e^{}|^1P_1)$$
(10)
where the current is defined in Eq.(6), and the box function $`𝔅`$ comes from standard loop integrals  and it behaves as

$$𝔅\frac{1}{M_Z^2m_c^2}\mathrm{ln}(\frac{m_c}{m_e})$$
(11)
In minimal SUSY with two Higgs doublets, in addition to $`\gamma Z`$ box diagram there is another CP-odd Higgs scalar, A0 which also contributes to the formation of $`{}_{}{}^{1}P_{1}^{}`$ resonance in $`e^+e^{}`$ annihilation. Replacing the Z boson by $`A^0`$ in Fig 4, the SUSY contributions to the CP-conserving effective Hamiltonian can be written

$$H_{SUSY}=H_{SM}[M_ZM_{A^0}]$$
(12)
which is typically smaller than the SM amplitude for $`M_{A^0}>M_Z`$. In this sense size of the CP–conserving transitions is fixed by the SM not by the SUSY contribution. This is an important difference between the charm and bottom $`{}_{}{}^{1}P_{1}^{}`$ production in $`e^+e^{}`$ collisions.

In addition to the CP-conserving decay modes, the $`{}_{}{}^{1}P_{1}^{}`$ state can also be produced via the c-EDM in $`e^+e^{}`$ channel which is a CP-violating mode. Grey blob in Fig.4(b) represents the effective Lagrangian (1). In this CP-violating mode, $`e^+e^{}`$ system is in the most probable state $`{}_{}{}^{3}S_{1}^{}`$. Therefore the effective Hamiltonian violating CP from the Fig. 4(b) is

$$H_{SUSY}=\frac{4\pi \alpha }{M_{h_c}^2}(\frac{𝒟_c}{e})J_\alpha (\overline{c}c|^1P_1).(e^+(x)\gamma _\alpha e^{}(x))$$
(13)
which is a pure SUSY effect. The comparison between the sizes of this CP–violating transition with the CP–conserving one is a comparison between the SUSY and SM contributions. In fact, the CP–violating production amplitude dominates the CP–conserving one provided that the EDM of charm quark exceeds the critical value

$$\left|\frac{𝒟_c^{crit}}{e}\right|\frac{G_Fm_e}{12\sqrt{2}\pi ^2}\frac{M_{h_c}^2}{M_Z^2}\mathrm{ln}\frac{m_c}{m_e}10^{26}\mathrm{cm},$$
(14)
which is one order of magnitude smaller than the one for the $`b`$ quark EDM. If $`𝒟_c`$ is large enough compared to $`𝒟_c^{crit}`$ then the CP–violating transition Eq. (9) can be suited to generate the $`h_c`$ meson. In the preceding section we performed a scanning of the SUSY parameter space within the bounds mentioned before, and found that $`𝒟_c`$ is well above the critical value Eq.(10).

Now we discuss our estimates with possible $`h_c`$ signatures at charm factories. The bottomonia and charmonia production in lepton and hadron colliders have been the primary step for experimental investigation of $`B`$ and $`D`$ mesons. Indeed, several experiments like the $`B`$ factories (BABAR, CLEO and KEK-B $`e^{}e^+`$ colliders running at $`\mathrm{{\rm Y}}(4S)`$, the $`D`$ factories (CLEO-C and BES $`e^{}e^+`$ colliders running at $`J/\psi `$, $`\psi ^{}`$, $`\psi ^{\prime \prime }`$ and $`\psi (4140)`$ resonances) as well as $`p\overline{p}`$ (FNAL E789 at $`\sqrt{s}=800\mathrm{GeV}`$, and CERN WA102 at $`\sqrt{s}=450\mathrm{GeV}`$) and $`pSi`$ (FNAL E771 at $`\sqrt{s}=800\mathrm{GeV}`$) colliders form an arena where different bottomonia and charmonia can be produced in intermediate and final states.

Among all $`b\overline{b}`$ and $`c\overline{c}`$ resonances we are particularly interested in the singlet P–wave states, $`h_b(nP)`$ and $`h_c(nP)`$, as these are CP–odd states their production and decays are highly sensitive to sources of CP violation in the underlying theory. Presently, there is no experimental evidence for such resonances except for the discovery of $`h_c(1P)`$ at FNAL E760 experiment . However, as the recent work  suggests, the production of the singlet P–wave mesons (of $`b\overline{b}`$ type) at $`e^+e^{}`$ colliders are particularly interesting in that there are spectacular enhancements in CP–violating transitions if the underlying theory admits large enough electric dipole moments (EDM) for heavy quarks. In this sense, production of such resonances is particularly sensitive to the CP violation sources beyond the standard CKM picture as the single fermion EDMs in the standard model (SM) are highly suppressed (See  and references therein). From the experimental point of view, $`e^+e^{}`$ colliders running at $`\sqrt{s}2m_b`$ ($`\sqrt{s}2m_c`$) form the basic environment where $`h_b(nP)`$ ($`h_c(nP)`$) resonances can be directly produced. Therefore, the $`B`$ ($`e.g.`$ BABAR) and $`D`$ ($`e.g.`$ CLEO-C  and ) factories provide the requisite experimental opportunities. Unlike the $`B`$ factories where the $`e^+e^{}`$ center–of–mass energy is fixed to $`\mathrm{{\rm Y}}(4S)`$ resonance, in $`D`$ factories, especially CLEO-C , has a variable center–of–mass energy enabling one to wander energies around $`\sqrt{s}2m_c`$ where $`h_c(1P)`$ can be directly produced.

Considering CLEO-C for definiteness and its variable center–of–mass energy, it is possible to estimate to what extent it can observe $`h_c`$ meson. Let us suppose that CLEO-C observed resonance at or in close vicinity of the E760 value of $`M_{h_c}`$ then the cross section for this event will be

$`\sigma (e^+e^{}h_c)=27\left|{\displaystyle \frac{𝒟_c}{e}}\right|^2\left|{\displaystyle \frac{R_P^{^{}}(0)}{R_S(0)}}\right|^2\sigma (e^+e^{}^3S_1)27\left|{\displaystyle \frac{M_{h_c}𝒟_c}{e}}\right|^2\sigma (e^+e^{}^3S_1)`$ (15)
where $`R_P`$ and $`R_S`$ are the wavefunctions of $`h_c`$ and $`{}_{}{}^{3}S_{1}^{}`$ states, respectively. Clearly, when $`𝒟_c/eM_{h_c}^1`$ the two cross sections will be of similar size making $`h_c`$ highly observable. However, except for FNAL E760, no experiment has been able to detect such a CP–odd meson so far. Therefore, its production cross section must be rather small compared to $`\sigma (e^+e^{}^3S_1)`$. This rareness of $`h_c`$ production is directly tied up to the smallness of its production cross section. Indeed, for the face value of $`𝒟_c/e10^{21}\mathrm{cm}`$ as follows from the dominant gluino production, one expects $`\sigma (e^+e^{}h_c)10^{12}\sigma (e^+e^{}^3S_1)`$. If CLEO-c observes this resonance with a much larger rate then one will need other sources of CP violation to enhance the charm quark EDM. On the other hand, if the observed cross section turns out to be this size then it will clearly be an indication for SUSY CP violation.

5.LIGHT GLUINO CASE

It is useful to look for regions of the SUSY parameter space where $`h_c`$ production cross section in other words the EDM of charm quark is substantially enhanced. This would be useful, at least, for excluding certain portions of the SUSY parameter space depending on the size of the signal in near-future experiments like CLEO-c. It is straightforward to observe that the charm quark EDM, especially the gluino contribution, is grossly enhanced in regions of the SUSY parameter space where the gluino and lighter scharm are nearly degenerate and close to the hadronic scale (See  for analogous discussion of the scalar bottom quarks). To prevent any conflict with the LEP results, we must suppress $`Z`$ boson couplings to scharms  hence we take

$`\mathrm{sin}\theta _{\stackrel{~}{c}}=\sqrt{{\displaystyle \frac{4}{3}}}\mathrm{sin}\theta _W,`$ (16)
and $`M_{\stackrel{~}{c}_1}M_{\stackrel{~}{c}_2}`$. Here $`\theta _{\stackrel{~}{c}}`$ is the mixing angle of scalar charm quarks, and its is fixed by requiring that $`Z`$ boson does not couple to light scharm, $`\stackrel{~}{c}_2`$. On the other hand, the two scalar charms must be well splitted in mass to suppress $`e^+e^{}Z^{}\stackrel{~}{c}_2\stackrel{~}{c}_2`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{c}_2\stackrel{~}{c}_1`$ signals at LEP. Under these conditions, the gluino contribution to the charm quark EDM becomes,

$`\left({\displaystyle \frac{𝒟_c}{e}}\right)^{\stackrel{~}{g}}{\displaystyle \frac{\alpha _s(m_{\stackrel{~}{g}})}{27\pi }}{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{sin}\phi _{A_c}}{m_{\stackrel{~}{g}}}}`$ (17)
when $`m_{\stackrel{~}{g}}M_{\stackrel{~}{c}_2}`$. Therefore, when $`m_{\stackrel{~}{g}}`$ value lies between $`m_b`$ and $`2m_b`$ the charm quark EDM is around $`10^{17}cm.\mathrm{sin}\phi _{A_c}`$ which is nine orders of magnitude larger than the critical value computed in Sec. 4. It is clear that, with such an enhancement the $`h_c`$ production cross section obeys roughly $`\sigma (e^+e^{}h_c)10^4\sigma (e^+e^{}^3S_1)`$ which must be in the experimentally detectable range. With a heavy SUSY spectrum, as investigated in previous sections, the $`h_c`$ production cross section is rather small, and unless the detector has a good energy resolution it is difficult to observe an $`h_c`$ resonance in $`s`$ channel. However, a SUSY spectrum with light gluinos and scalar charm quark (with no conflict with the existing experiments) it is possible to enhance the $`h_c`$ production cross section significantly making it easier to search for such resonances at, for instance, the CLEO experiment.

For making our results more transparent to experimental investigation, it is useful to discuss the quantity

$$R=L\sigma (e^+e^{}h_c)27\times N_{J/\psi }\left|\frac{M_{h_c}𝒟_c}{e}\right|^2$$

where $`N_{J/\psi }10^9`$ is the expected number of events at CLEO-c. For a heavy sparticle spectrum, $`R10^2`$ whereas for a scenario with light gluinos and scharms one has $`R10^5`$ which is well inside the observable range provided that $`10^9`$ $`J/\psi `$ mesons are produced.

6. DISCUSSIONS AND CONCLUSION

We have discussed the production of singlet $`P`$–wave charmonia at $`e^+e^{}`$ colliders. This process is determined mainly by the CP–violating transitions shown in Fig. 4 (b). It is clear that the EDM of the charm quark is the basic machinery to generate $`h_c`$, and it is only via SUSY with explicit CP violation that the CP–violating transition dominates the CP–conserving channel.

The channel we discuss here, which can be directly tested at the CESR–c collider, suggests a direct access to the SUSY phases. The amount of CP violation provided by SUSY is large, and hard to realize in other extensions $`e.g`$ two–doublet models. Therefore, any evidence for $`h_c`$ at the CESR–c experiment will form a direct evidence for SUSY in general, and SUSY CP violation in particular.

Acknowledgements
The authors would like to thank the Scientific and Technical Research Council of Turkey (TUBITAK) for the support.