text:
# 1 Introduction

## 1 Introduction

It is generally accepted that supersymmetry (SUSY) is one of the most promising concepts for physics beyond the Standard Model (SM). A special feature of SUSY models is the Majorana character of the neutralinos, the fermionic superpartners of the neutral gauge and Higgs bosons. After the observation of candidates for neutralinos at a future $`e^+e^{}`$ collider , their identification as Majorana particles is indispensable. Therefore an extensive study of the general characteristics of Majorana fermions produced in $`e^+e^{}`$ annihilation is of particular interest.

In , the authors analyzed the consequences of CP and CPT invariance for the symmetry properties of the cross section for Majorana fermions produced in $`e^+e^{}`$ annihilation with polarized beams. They proposed useful methods to distinguish between Majorana and neutral Dirac particles via the energy distributions of the leptons from their leptonic decay.

In the present paper we extend the investigation of CP and CPT symmetry properties to the complete spin production density matrix for Dirac and Majorana fermions and to their decay matrices for a three–body decay. We consider the most general dependence on beam polarization so that our analysis is also applicable to $`\mu ^+\mu ^{}`$ annihilation with the exchange of Higgs bosons.

CP and CPT symmetry relations lead to important consequences for the factorization of differential cross sections for production and subsequent decay into a production and a decay piece. In  it has been proven that the differential cross section factorizes only if the kinematic variables are properly chosen. However, factorization is ruled out in particular for the energy and angular distributions of the decay products in the lab frame due to interference between the helicity amplitudes.

In numerical analyses  it was demonstrated that for production and three–particle decay of neutralinos in $`e^+e^{}`$ annihilation the energy distribution of the decay products in the lab frame as well as the distribution of the opening angle between two of them indeed factorize. Contrary, for production and three–particle decay of charginos  the spin correlations between production and decay considerably contribute to the energy distribution of the decay products and therefore prevent factorization. Here we prove that the factorization of these observables in the case of Majorana fermions is a consequence of their CP/CPT symmetry properties. We show that the analysis of both the energy spectrum of the decay fermions and the opening angle distribution is useful for the identification of the Majorana character of neutral particles produced in fermion–antifermion annihilation with polarized beams.

This paper is organized as follows: In section 2.1 we give details of the spin density matrix formalism which is applied to the analysis of the consequences of CPT and CP invariance for the production density matrix of two different Dirac and Majorana fermions in section 2.2 and for three–body decay matrices in section 2.3. In section 3 we study analytically the consequences for angular distributions and the energy spectra of the decay fermions.

## 2  Constraints on the production of Dirac <br>and Majorana fermions from CPT and CP

### 2.1 Spin–density matrix and cross section

We consider pair production of Dirac or Majorana fermions in fermion–antifermion annihilation and their subsequent three–particle decay. The helicity amplitudes for the production processes

$$f(\stackrel{}{p}_1,\lambda _1)\overline{f}(\stackrel{}{p}_2,\lambda _2)f_i(\stackrel{}{p}_i,\lambda _i)\overline{f}_j(\stackrel{}{p}_j,\lambda _j)$$
(1)
are denoted by $`T_{P,\lambda _1\lambda _2}^{\lambda _i\lambda _j}`$. In the case of Majorana particles it is $`\overline{f}_jf_j`$. For the decay processes

$`f_i(\stackrel{}{p}_i,\lambda _i)`$ $``$ $`f_{i1}(\stackrel{}{p}_{i1})f_{i2}(\stackrel{}{p}_{i2})f_{i3}(\stackrel{}{p}_{i3}),`$ (2)
$`f_j(\stackrel{}{p}_j,\lambda _j)`$ $``$ $`f_{j1}(\stackrel{}{p}_{j1})f_{j2}(\stackrel{}{p}_{j2})f_{j3}(\stackrel{}{p}_{i3})`$ (3)
the helicity amplitudes are given by $`T_{D,\lambda _i}`$ and $`T_{D,\lambda _j}`$. Here $`f_{i1}`$ ($`f_{j1}`$) is a charged or neutral Dirac or a Majorana fermion and $`f_{i2}`$ ($`f_{j2}`$), $`f_{i3}`$ ($`f_{j3}`$) are Dirac fermions. The notation of the decays (2), (3) does not distinguish between fermions and antifermions for the initial particles and their decay products. The helicities of the decay products are also suppressed.

The spin density matrices of the polarized beams can be written as

$`\rho (f)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}(1+P_f^i\sigma ^i)`$ (4)
$`\rho (\overline{f})`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}(1+P_{\overline{f}}^i\sigma ^i),`$ (5)
where $`P_f^1`$, $`P_f^2`$, $`P_f^3`$ ($`P_{\overline{f}}^1`$, $`P_{\overline{f}}^2`$, $`P_{\overline{f}}^3`$) is the transverse polarization of $`f`$ ($`\overline{f}`$) in the production plane, the polarization which is perpendicular to the production plane and the longitudinal polarization.

The amplitude squared of the combined process of production and decay reads

$$|T|^2=\underset{\lambda _i\lambda _j\lambda _i^{^{}}\lambda _j^{^{}}}{}|\mathrm{\Delta }(f_i)|^2|\mathrm{\Delta }(f_j)|^2\rho _P^{\lambda _i\lambda _j,\lambda _i^{^{}}\lambda _j^{^{}}}\rho _{D,\lambda _i^{^{}}\lambda _i}\rho _{D,\lambda _j^{^{}}\lambda _j}.$$
(6)
It is composed from the (unnormalized) spin density production matrix

$$\rho _P^{\lambda _i\lambda _j,\lambda _i^{^{}}\lambda _j^{^{}}}=\underset{\lambda _1\lambda _2\lambda _1^{^{}}\lambda _2^{^{}}}{}\rho (f)_{\lambda _1^{}\lambda _1}\rho (\overline{f})_{\lambda _2^{}\lambda _2}T_{P,\lambda _1\lambda _2}^{\lambda _i\lambda _j}T_{P,\lambda _1^{}\lambda _2^{}}^{\lambda _i^{^{}}\lambda _j^{^{}}},$$
(7)
the decay matrices

$`\rho _{D,\lambda _i^{^{}}\lambda _i}`$ $`=`$ $`T_{D,\lambda _i}T_{D,\lambda _i^{}}^{}`$ (8)
$`\rho _{D,\lambda _j^{^{}}\lambda _j}`$ $`=`$ $`T_{D,\lambda _j}T_{D,\lambda _j^{}}^{}`$ (9)
and the propagators

$$\mathrm{\Delta }(f_k)=1/[p_k^2m_k^2+im_k\mathrm{\Gamma }_k],k=i,j.$$
(10)
Here $`p_k^2`$, $`m_k`$ and $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_k`$ denote the four–momentum squared, mass and total width of the fermion $`f_k`$. For these propagators we use the narrow–width approximation.

We introduce for $`f_i`$ ($`f_j`$) three spacelike polarization vectors $`s^{a\mu }(f_i)`$ ($`s^{b\mu }(f_j)`$) which together with $`p_i^\mu /m_i`$ ($`p_j^\mu /m_j`$) form an orthonormal set. Then the spin density matrix of production and the decay matrices can be expanded in terms of Pauli matrices $`\sigma ^a`$ with the first (second) row and column corresponding to the helicity $`\lambda =\frac{1}{2}`$ ($`\frac{1}{2}`$) :

$`\rho _P^{\lambda _i\lambda _j,\lambda _i^{^{}}\lambda _j^{^{}}}`$ $`=`$ $`\delta _{\lambda _i\lambda _i^{^{}}}\delta _{\lambda _j\lambda _j^{^{}}}P(f_if_j)+\delta _{\lambda _j\lambda _j^{^{}}}{\displaystyle \underset{a=1}{\overset{3}{}}}\sigma _{\lambda _i\lambda _i^{^{}}}^a\mathrm{\Sigma }_P^a(f_i)`$ (11)
$`+\delta _{\lambda _i\lambda _i^{^{}}}{\displaystyle \underset{b=1}{\overset{3}{}}}\sigma _{\lambda _j\lambda _j^{^{}}}^b\mathrm{\Sigma }_P^b(f_j)+{\displaystyle \underset{a,b=1}{\overset{3}{}}}\sigma _{\lambda _i\lambda _i^{^{}}}^a\sigma _{\lambda _j\lambda _j^{^{}}}^b\mathrm{\Sigma }_P^{ab}(f_if_j),`$
$`\rho _{D,\lambda _i^{^{}}\lambda _i}`$ $`=`$ $`\delta _{\lambda _i^{^{}}\lambda _i}D(f_i)+{\displaystyle \underset{a=1}{\overset{3}{}}}\sigma _{\lambda _i^{^{}}\lambda _i}^a\mathrm{\Sigma }_D^a(f_i),`$ (12)
$`\rho _{D,\lambda _j^{^{}}\lambda _j}`$ $`=`$ $`\delta _{\lambda _j^{^{}}\lambda _j}D(f_j)+{\displaystyle \underset{b=1}{\overset{3}{}}}\sigma _{\lambda _j^{^{}}\lambda _j}^b\mathrm{\Sigma }_D^b(f_j).`$ (13)
Here $`a`$ $`(b)=1,2,3`$ refers to the polarization vectors of $`f_i`$ ($`f_j`$). The contributions $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_P^a(f_i)`$ ($`\mathrm{\Sigma }_P^b(f_j)`$), $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_D^a(f_i)`$ ($`\mathrm{\Sigma }_D^b(f_j)`$) are linear, and $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_P^{ab}(f_if_j)`$ is bilinear in the polarization vectors $`s^{a\mu }(f_i)`$ ($`s^{b\nu }(f_j)`$). In (11) the dependence of $`\rho _P`$ on beam polarization has been suppressed.

The polarization vectors $`\stackrel{}{s^1}`$, $`\stackrel{}{s^2}`$, $`\stackrel{}{s^3}`$ form an orthogonal right–handed system in the lab system:

* $`\stackrel{}{s^3}(f_i)`$ ($`\stackrel{}{s^3}(f_j)`$) is in the direction of momentum $`\stackrel{}{p_i}`$ ($`\stackrel{}{p_j}`$),
* $`\stackrel{}{s^2}(f_i)=\frac{\stackrel{}{p}_1\times \stackrel{}{p}_i}{|\stackrel{}{p}_1\times \stackrel{}{p}_i|}=\stackrel{}{s^2}(f_j)`$ is perpendicular to the production plane,
* $`\stackrel{}{s^1}(f_i)`$ ($`\stackrel{}{s^1}(f_j)`$) is in the production plane orthogonal to the momentum $`\stackrel{}{p}_i`$ ($`\stackrel{}{p}_j`$).

Then $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_P^3(f_{i,j})/P(f_if_j)`$ is the longitudinal polarization, $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_P^1(f_{i,j})/P(f_if_j)`$ is the transverse polarization in the scattering plane and $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_P^2(f_{i,j})/P(f_if_j)`$ is the polarization perpendicular to the scattering plane. The terms $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_P^{ab}(f_if_j)`$ are due to correlations between the polarizations of both produced particles.

The amplitude squared $`|T|^2`$ of the combined process of production and decay (6) can be written as:

$`|T|^2`$ $`=`$ $`4|\mathrm{\Delta }(f_i)|^2|\mathrm{\Delta }(f_j)|^2[P(f_if_j)D(f_i)D(f_j)+{\displaystyle \underset{a=1}{\overset{3}{}}}\mathrm{\Sigma }_P^a(f_i)\mathrm{\Sigma }_D^a(f_i)D(f_j)`$ (14)
$`+{\displaystyle \underset{b=1}{\overset{3}{}}}\mathrm{\Sigma }_P^b(f_j)\mathrm{\Sigma }_D^b(f_j)D(f_i)+{\displaystyle \underset{a,b=1}{\overset{3}{}}}\mathrm{\Sigma }_P^{ab}(f_if_j)\mathrm{\Sigma }_D^a(f_i)\mathrm{\Sigma }_D^b(f_j)],`$
and the differential cross section is

$$d\sigma =\frac{1}{2s}|T|^2(2\pi )^4\delta ^4(p_1+p_2\underset{i}{}p_i)d\mathrm{lips},$$
(15)
with the Lorentz invariant phase space element $`d\mathrm{lips}`$.

For the case of neutralinos and charginos the complete analytical expressions for the production density matrix and for the decay matrices are given in different presentations in .

### 2.2  CPT and CP symmetries of the spin–density matrix

In this section we derive constraints from CPT and CP invariance for the density matrix (11) for the production of two (charged or neutral) Dirac fermions and of two different Majorana fermions, respectively, for polarized beams.

All contributions from the exchange of particles $`\alpha `$, $`\beta `$ to the coefficients

$$=\{P,\mathrm{\Sigma }_P^a,\mathrm{\Sigma }_P^b,\mathrm{\Sigma }_P^{ab}\}$$
(16)
of the spin–density matrix (11) are composed of products $`𝒞`$ of couplings, the propagators $`\mathrm{\Delta }(\alpha )`$, $`\mathrm{\Delta }(\beta )`$ and complex functions $`𝒮`$ of momenta and polarization vectors:

$$Re\{𝒞\times \mathrm{\Delta }(\alpha )\mathrm{\Delta }(\beta )^{}\times 𝒮\}.$$
(17)
Assuming complex couplings and taking into account the finite widths of the exchanged particles the general structure is

$``$ $``$ $`Re(𝒞)Re[\mathrm{\Delta }(\alpha )\mathrm{\Delta }(\beta )^{}]Re(𝒮)Re(𝒞)Im[\mathrm{\Delta }(\alpha )\mathrm{\Delta }(\beta )^{}]Im(𝒮)`$ (18)
$`+Im(𝒞)Re[\mathrm{\Delta }(\alpha )\mathrm{\Delta }(\beta )^{}]Im(𝒮)Im(𝒞)Im[\mathrm{\Delta }(\alpha )\mathrm{\Delta }(\beta )^{}]Re(𝒮),`$
$``$ $`_{RRR}+_{RII}+_{IRI}+_{IIR}.`$ (19)
If CP is conserved all couplings can be chosen real  and $`_{IRI}=_{IIR}=0`$. The terms $`_{RII}`$ and $`_{IIR}`$ are due to interference between s–channel exchange of particles with finite width and the crossed channels. Their contributions can be neglected except in the vicinity of the s-channel resonances (exchange of gauge bosons in the case of $`e^+e^{}`$ or $`q\overline{q}`$ annihilation and in addition of Higgs bosons in $`\mu ^+\mu ^{}`$ annihilation), since they are proportional to the width of the exchanged particles far from the pole. In $`_{RII}`$ and $`_{IRI}`$ the imaginary part of $`𝒮`$ originates from products of momenta and polarization vectors with the Levy–Civita tensor $`ϵ_{\mu \nu \rho \sigma }`$. These two terms lead to triple product correlations of momenta which are sensitive to CP violation .

#### 2.2.1 CPT invariance

Under CPT the helicity states of a Dirac fermion $`f_D`$ and a Majorana fermion $`f_M`$, respectively, transform as

$`|f_D(\stackrel{}{p},\lambda )>\stackrel{CPT}{}(1)^{\lambda \frac{1}{2}}|\overline{f}_D(\stackrel{}{p},\lambda )>,`$ (20)
$`|f_M(\stackrel{}{p},\lambda )>\stackrel{CPT}{}(1)^{\lambda \frac{1}{2}}\eta ^{CPT}|f_M(\stackrel{}{p},\lambda )>,`$ (21)
with the CPT phase $`\eta ^{CPT}=\pm i`$ of Majorana fermions . Beyond that time reversal would interchange in– and outgoing states. However, if the finite width of the exchanged particles is neglected CPT invariance and the unitarity of the S–matrix leads in leading order perturbation theory to symmetry relations for the helicity amplitudes and for the production density matrix.

In the following we derive these symmetry relations from CPT invariance for (charged or neutral) Dirac fermions and for the special case of Majorana fermions.

2.2.1.1 Dirac fermions

CPT invariance relates in lowest order perturbation theory the spin density matrix $`\rho _P^{\lambda _i\lambda _j,\lambda _i^{}\lambda _j^{}}`$ of the process

$$f\overline{f}f_i(\stackrel{}{p}_i,\lambda _i)\overline{f}_j(\stackrel{}{p}_j,\lambda _j)$$
(22)
to the spin density matrix $`\overline{\rho }_P^{\lambda _i\lambda _j,\lambda _i^{}\lambda _j^{}}`$ of

$$f\overline{f}\overline{f}_i(\stackrel{}{p}_i,\lambda _i)f_j(\stackrel{}{p}_j,\lambda _j)$$
(23)
by

$$\rho _P^{\lambda _i\lambda _j,\lambda _i^{^{}}\lambda _j^{^{}}}(P_f^{1,2,3};P_{\overline{f}}^{1,2,3};\mathrm{\Theta })=\overline{\rho }_P^{\lambda _i\lambda _j,\lambda _i^{^{}}\lambda _j^{^{}}}(P_{\overline{f}}^{1,2},P_{\overline{f}}^3;P_f^{1,2},P_f^3;\overline{\mathrm{\Theta }})^{},$$
(24)
where $`\mathrm{\Theta }`$ denotes the angle between $`f`$ and $`f_i`$ in (22) and $`\overline{\mathrm{\Theta }}\pi \mathrm{\Theta }`$ is the angle between the direction of beam particle $`f`$ and the outgoing antifermion $`\overline{f}_i`$ of the conjugated process (23) in the CMS. For polarized beams the polarizations of $`f`$ and $`\overline{f}`$ are interchanged with sign reversal of the longitudinal polarization. To derive (24) the CPT transformation has been supplemented by a rotation $`_2(\pi )`$ around the normal to the production plane so that the beam direction is unchanged (see Fig. 2a).

Both density matrices $`\rho _P`$ and $`\overline{\rho }_P`$ can be expanded according to (11) with the coefficients $`P(f_i\overline{f}_j)`$, $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_P^a(f_i)`$, $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_P^b(\overline{f}_j)`$, $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_P^{ab}(f_i\overline{f}_j)`$ and $`\overline{P}(\overline{f}_if_j)`$, $`\overline{\mathrm{\Sigma }}_P^a(\overline{f}_i)`$, $`\overline{\mathrm{\Sigma }}_P^b(f_j)`$, $`\overline{\mathrm{\Sigma }}_P^{ab}(\overline{f}_if_j)`$. Then from CPT and $`_2(\pi )`$ invariance and with the substitutions

$$\text{ }(P_f^{1,2,3};P_{\overline{f}}^{1,2,3};\mathrm{\Theta })(P_{\overline{f}}^{1,2},P_{\overline{f}}^3;P_f^{1,2},P_f^3;\overline{\mathrm{\Theta }}=\pi \mathrm{\Theta }),$$
(25)
one obtains the following relations:

$`P(f_i\overline{f}_j)=\overline{P}(\overline{f}_if_j),`$ (26)
$`\mathrm{\Sigma }_P^a(f_i)=\eta _a\overline{\mathrm{\Sigma }}_P^a(\overline{f}_i),`$ (27)
$`\mathrm{\Sigma }_P^b(\overline{f}_j)=\eta _b\overline{\mathrm{\Sigma }}_P^b(f_j),`$ (28)
$`\mathrm{\Sigma }_P^{ab}(f_i\overline{f}_j)=\eta _a\eta _b\overline{\mathrm{\Sigma }}_P^{ab}(\overline{f}_if_j),`$ (29)
with $`\eta _1=1=\eta _2`$ and $`\eta _3=1`$.

2.2.1.2 Majorana fermions

Since it is $`\overline{\rho }_P\rho _P`$ in (24) the invariance under CPT$`\times _2(\pi )`$ leads in lowest order perturbation theory to constraints for the production density matrix. The different terms in the expansion (11) of $`\rho _P`$ can be classified into contributions which are symmetric (Type S) and antisymmetric (Type A) with regard to the substitution

$$\text{ }(P_f^{1,2,3};P_{\overline{f}}^{1,2,3};\mathrm{\Theta })(P_{\overline{f}}^{1,2},P_{\overline{f}}^3;P_f^{1,2},P_f^3;\pi \mathrm{\Theta }),$$
(30)
where $`\mathrm{\Theta }`$ denotes the angle between $`f`$ and $`f_i`$ in the CMS.

* Type S: $`P`$, $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_P^1`$, $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_P^2`$, $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_P^{11}`$, $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_P^{22}`$, $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_P^{33}`$, $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_P^{12}`$, $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_P^{21}`$
* Type A: $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_P^3`$, $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_P^{13}`$, $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_P^{31}`$, $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_P^{23}`$, $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_P^{32}`$

All of them include terms $`_{RRR}`$ and $`_{IRI}`$ of (18).

For unpolarized beams the terms of type S are forward–backward symmetric whereas those of type A are forward–backward antisymmetric. These symmetry properties hold also for production of Majorana fermions with polarized $`e^+e^{}`$ beams.

The forward–backward symmetry of the term $`P`$ results in the FB–symmetry of the differential cross sections for the production of Majorana fermions with unpolarized and longitudinally polarized beams . Beyond that, also the symmetry properties of the different components of their polarization and of the spin–spin correlations are specific for their Majorana character.

#### 2.2.2 CP invariance

We now study the consequences of the invariance under a CP transformation (illustrated in Fig. 2b) for the production of two Dirac or two Majorana fermions.

Under CP the helicity states of a Dirac and a Majorana fermion transform as

$`|f_D(\stackrel{}{p},\lambda )>\stackrel{CP}{}|\overline{f}_D(\stackrel{}{p},\lambda )>,`$ (31)
$`|f_M(\stackrel{}{p},\lambda )>\stackrel{CP}{}\eta ^{CP}|f_M(\stackrel{}{p},\lambda )>`$ (32)
with $`\eta ^{CP}=\pm i`$.

2.2.2.1 Dirac fermions

CP invariance results in a relation between the spin density matrix $`\rho _P`$ for the conjugated process

$$f\overline{f}f_i(\stackrel{}{p}_i,\lambda _i)\overline{f}_j(\stackrel{}{p}_j,\lambda _j)$$
(33)
and the density matrix $`\overline{\rho }_P`$ for

$$f\overline{f}\overline{f}_i(\stackrel{}{p}_i,\lambda _i)f_j(\stackrel{}{p}_j,\lambda _j)$$
(34)
$$\rho _P^{\lambda _i\lambda _j,\lambda _i^{^{}}\lambda _j^{^{}}}(P_f^{1,2,3};P_{\overline{f}}^{1,2,3};\mathrm{\Theta })=\overline{\rho }_P^{\lambda _i\lambda _j,\lambda _i^{^{}}\lambda _j^{^{}}}(P_{\overline{f}}^1,P_{\overline{f}}^{2,3};P_f^1,P_f^{2,3};\overline{\mathrm{\Theta }}),$$
(35)
with the same denotation as in (24). For polarized beams the polarizations of $`f`$ and $`\overline{f}`$ are interchanged with an additional sign reversal for the longitudinal polarization and the polarization perpendicular to the production plane.

Expanding both density matrices $`\rho _P`$ and $`\overline{\rho }_P`$ according to (11) one obtains with the same substitutions

$$\text{ }(P_f^{1,2,3};P_{\overline{f}}^{1,2,3};\mathrm{\Theta })(P_{\overline{f}}^1,P_{\overline{f}}^{2,3};P_f^1,P_f^{2,3};\overline{\mathrm{\Theta }}=\pi \mathrm{\Theta })$$
(36)
as in (35) the following relations between the coefficients:

$`P(f_i\overline{f}_j)=\overline{P}(\overline{f}_if_j),`$ (37)
$`\mathrm{\Sigma }_P^a(f_i)=\eta _a\overline{\mathrm{\Sigma }}_P^a(\overline{f}_i),`$ (38)
$`\mathrm{\Sigma }_P^b(\overline{f}_j)=\eta _b\overline{\mathrm{\Sigma }}_P^b(f_j),`$ (39)
$`\mathrm{\Sigma }_P^{ab}(f_i\overline{f}_j)=\eta _a\eta _b\overline{\mathrm{\Sigma }}_P^{ab}(\overline{f}_if_j),`$ (40)
with $`\eta _1=+1`$ and $`\eta _2=1=\eta _3`$. For unpolarized or longitudinally polarized $`e^+e^{}`$ beams, the dependence on the beam polarization is given by the two factors $`(1P_f^3P_{\overline{f}}^3)`$ and $`(P_f^3P_{\overline{f}}^3)`$. If the widths of the exchanged particles in the s–channel are neglected, the CPT symmetry relations (24) hold and one obtains

$$\text{ }\mathrm{\Sigma }_P^2=0,\mathrm{\Sigma }_P^{12}=0=\mathrm{\Sigma }_P^{21},\mathrm{\Sigma }_P^{23}=0=\mathrm{\Sigma }_P^{32}.$$
(41)
2.2.2.2 Majorana fermions

With $`\overline{\rho }_P\rho _P`$ in (35) CP invariance again leads to a classification of the different contributions in the expansion (11) of $`\rho _P`$ according to their CP symmetry properties with regard to the substitution

$$\text{ }(P_f^{1,2,3};P_{\overline{f}}^{1,2,3};\mathrm{\Theta })(P_{\overline{f}}^1,P_{\overline{f}}^{2,3};P_f^1,P_f^{2,3};\pi \mathrm{\Theta }),$$
(42)
where $`\mathrm{\Theta }`$ is the scattering angle in the CMS:

* Type S: $`P`$, $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_P^1`$, $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_P^{11}`$, $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_P^{22}`$, $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_P^{33}`$, $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_P^{23}`$, $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_P^{32}`$,
* Type A: $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_P^2`$, $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_P^3`$, $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_P^{12}`$, $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_P^{21}`$, $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_P^{13}`$, $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_P^{31}`$

All terms have contributions with the structure $`_{RRR}`$ and $`_{RII}`$ of (18).

For unpolarized and longitudinally polarized $`e^+e^{}`$ beams, the terms of type S are FB–symmetric and those of type A are FB–antisymmetric. For both Dirac and Majorana fermions the terms $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_P^2`$, $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_P^{12}`$, $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_P^{21}`$, $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_P^{23}`$ and $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_P^{32}`$ vanish for unpolarized or longitudinally polarized beams if the CPT relations (26)–(29) hold. The FB–symmetry or antisymmetry of the polarization and of the spin–spin correlations, however, is specific for the Majorana character of the produced fermions beyond the FB–symmetry of their production cross section. Since in general the production of Dirac fermions will not exhibit these symmetry properties the measurement of polarization and spin–spin correlations are helpful for an experimental verification of the Majorana character.

#### 2.2.3 CP violation

If CP is violated due to complex couplings the two types $`_{IRI}`$, $`_{IIR}`$ of CP violating terms contribute in (18), whereas far from the s-channel resonances $`_{IIR}`$ can be neglected as explained in section 2.2.

Since for Dirac fermions the CP transformation relates the two processes $`f\overline{f}f_i\overline{f}_j`$ and $`f\overline{f}\overline{f}_if_j`$ we restrict ourselves to the discussion of the consequences of CP violation for the production density matrix of Majorana fermions for unpolarized or longitudinally polarized beams. Both types of CP violating terms $`_{IRI}`$ and $`_{IIR}`$ lead to contributions which show different FB angular dependence compared to the CP conserving ones.

In particular terms with the structure $`_{IRI}`$ result in nonvanishing polarization $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_P^2`$ perpendicular to the production plane and nonvanishing spin–spin correlations $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_P^{12,21}`$ and $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_P^{23,32}`$:

* FB–symmetric in $`_{IRI}`$: $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_P^2`$, $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_P^{12}`$, $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_P^{21}`$
* FB–antisymmetric in $`_{IRI}`$: $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_P^{23}`$, $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_P^{32}`$

These terms are proportional to $`Im(𝒮)`$ and are sensitive to triple product correlations of momenta. They are CP–odd quantities .

All other contributions in (11) are CP–even quantities and get in the case of CP violation terms with the structure $`_{IIR}`$:

* FB–symmetric in $`_{IIR}`$: $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_P^3`$, $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_P^{13}`$, $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_P^{31}`$
* FB–antisymmetric in $`_{IIR}`$: $`P`$, $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_P^1`$, $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_P^{11}`$, $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_P^{22}`$, $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_P^{33}`$

The consequences of CP and CPT for the FB–symmetry of the different terms of the production spin density matrix of Majorana fermions are summarized in Table 1.

### 2.3 CPT and CP symmetries of the decay matrices

In this section we derive from CPT and CP invariance constraints for the decay matrices for the three–body decay of neutral and charged Dirac fermions and of Majorana fermions.

#### 2.3.1 CPT invariance

2.3.1.1 Dirac fermions

For the three–body decay

$$f_i(\stackrel{}{p}_i,\lambda _i)f_{i1}(\stackrel{}{p}_{i1})f_{i2}(\stackrel{}{p}_{i2})\overline{f}_{i3}(\stackrel{}{p}_{i3})$$
(43)
of a Dirac fermion $`f_i`$ into a Dirac fermion $`f_{i1}`$ and a fermion–antifermion pair $`f_{i2}\overline{f}_{i3}`$, CPT invariance relates the decay matrix $`\rho _D`$ of (43) with the decay matrix $`\overline{\rho }_D`$ of the process

$$\overline{f}_i(\stackrel{}{p}_i,\lambda _i)\overline{f}_{i1}(\stackrel{}{p}_{i1})\overline{f}_{i2}(\stackrel{}{p}_{i2})f_{i3}(\stackrel{}{p}_{i3}).$$
(44)
Since we do not study the polarization of the decay fermions we sum about their helicities and obtain

$$\rho _{D,\lambda _i^{^{}}\lambda _i}(\stackrel{}{p}_{i2},\stackrel{}{p}_{i3})=(1)^{\lambda _i\lambda _i^{^{}}}\overline{\rho }_{D,\lambda _i^{^{}}\lambda _i}^{}(\stackrel{}{p}_{i3},\stackrel{}{p}_{i2}),$$
(45)
with the momenta of the fermion–antifermion pair interchanged and the signs of the helicities reversed.

Expanding $`\rho _D`$ and $`\overline{\rho }_D`$ according to (12) leads for the coefficients to

$`D(\stackrel{}{p}_{i2},\stackrel{}{p}_{i3})`$ $`=`$ $`\overline{D}(\stackrel{}{p}_{i3},\stackrel{}{p}_{i2}),`$ (46)
$`\mathrm{\Sigma }_D^a(\stackrel{}{p}_{i2},\stackrel{}{p}_{i3})`$ $`=`$ $`\overline{\mathrm{\Sigma }}_D^a(\stackrel{}{p}_{i3},\stackrel{}{p}_{i2}),a=1,2,3.`$ (47)
2.3.1.2 Majorana fermions

For the decay

$$f_i(\stackrel{}{p},\lambda _i)f_{i1}(\stackrel{}{p}_{i1})f_{i2}(\stackrel{}{p}_{i2})\overline{f}_{i2}(\stackrel{}{p}_{i3})$$
(48)
of a Majorana fermion $`f_i`$ into a Majorana fermion $`f_{i1}`$ and a Dirac fermion–antifermion pair $`f_{i2}\overline{f}_{i2}`$ with $`\overline{\rho }_D\rho _D`$ in (45), CPT invariance leads to constraints for the decay matrix from which one obtains definite symmetry properties for the expansion coefficients of $`\rho _D`$ in (12)

$`D(\stackrel{}{p}_{i2},\stackrel{}{p}_{i3})`$ $`=`$ $`D(\stackrel{}{p}_{i3},\stackrel{}{p}_{i2})`$ (49)
$`\mathrm{\Sigma }_D^a(\stackrel{}{p}_{i2},\stackrel{}{p}_{i3})`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_D^a(\stackrel{}{p}_{i3},\stackrel{}{p}_{i2}),a=1,2,3`$ (50)
if the momenta of the fermion–antifermion pair $`f_{i2}\overline{f}_{i2}`$ are exchanged.

#### 2.3.2 CP invariance

Applying the space–inversion $`P`$ to the decay (43) also the momentum of the decaying particle $`f_i`$ is reversed. We therefore add a rotation $`_\stackrel{}{n}(\pi )`$ around the normal to the plane $`(\stackrel{}{p}_i,\stackrel{}{p}_{i1})`$. Then $`𝒫\times _\stackrel{}{n}(\pi )`$ is equivalent to a reflection at the plane $`(\stackrel{}{p}_i,\stackrel{}{p}_{i1})`$.

2.3.2.1 Dirac fermions

The combined transformation $`CP\times _\stackrel{}{n}(\pi )`$ leads for the decay of a Dirac fermion to the process

$$\overline{f}_i(\stackrel{}{p}_i,\lambda _i)\overline{f}_{i1}(\stackrel{}{p}_{i1})\overline{f}_{i2}(\widehat{p}_{i2})f_{i3}(\widehat{p}_{i3}),$$
(51)
where $`\widehat{p}_{i2}`$ and $`\widehat{p}_{i3}`$ denotes the momentum $`\stackrel{}{p}_{i2}`$ and $`\stackrel{}{p}_{i3}`$, respectively, reflected at the plane $`(\stackrel{}{p}_i,\stackrel{}{p}_{i1})`$. The invariance under $`CP\times _\stackrel{}{n}(\pi )`$ relates the decay matrix $`\rho _D`$ for (43) with the decay matrix $`\overline{\rho }_D`$ for the antiparticle in (51)

$$\rho _{D,\lambda _i^{^{}}\lambda _i}(\stackrel{}{p}_{i2},\stackrel{}{p}_{i3})=(1)^{\lambda _i\lambda _i^{^{}}}\overline{\rho }_{D,\lambda _i^{^{}}\lambda _i}(\widehat{p}_{i3},\widehat{p}_{i2}).$$
(52)
In contrast to the CPT relation (45) the momenta of the fermion–antifermion pair are interchanged and additionally reflected at the plane ($`\stackrel{}{p}_i`$, $`\stackrel{}{p}_{i1}`$). For the coefficients in the expansion (12) one obtains

$`D(\stackrel{}{p}_{i2},\stackrel{}{p}_{i3})`$ $`=`$ $`\overline{D}(\widehat{p}_{i3},\widehat{p}_{i2}),`$ (53)
$`\mathrm{\Sigma }_D^2(\stackrel{}{p}_{i2},\stackrel{}{p}_{i3})`$ $`=`$ $`\overline{\mathrm{\Sigma }}_D^2(\widehat{p}_{i3},\widehat{p}_{i2}),`$ (54)
$`\mathrm{\Sigma }_D^{1,3}(\stackrel{}{p}_{i2},\stackrel{}{p}_{i3})`$ $`=`$ $`\overline{\mathrm{\Sigma }}_D^{1,3}(\widehat{p}_{i3},\widehat{p}_{i2}).`$ (55)
Combining these CP relations with the CPT properties (46)–(47) of the expansion coefficients leads to

* symmetric $`D`$, $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_D^{1,3}`$
* antisymmetric $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_D^2`$

under the reflection of the momenta $`\stackrel{}{p}_{i2}`$ and $`\stackrel{}{p}_{i3}`$ at the plane $`(\stackrel{}{p}_i,\stackrel{}{p}_{i1})`$.

2.3.2.2 Majorana fermions

For the decay (48) of a Majorana fermion with $`\overline{\rho }_D\rho _D`$ in (52) the combined transformation $`CP\times _\stackrel{}{n}(\pi )`$ constraints the decay matrix and their expansion coefficients when the momenta of the Dirac fermion $`f_{i2}`$ and antifermion $`\overline{f}_{i2}`$ are interchanged and reflected at the plane of the Majorana fermions $`f_i,f_{i1}`$. Neglecting the width of the exchanged particles CP and CPT invariance lead to the same symmetry properties of $`D`$, $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_D^{1,2,3}`$ as in the case of Dirac fermions under the reflection of the momenta $`\stackrel{}{p}_{i2}`$, $`\stackrel{}{p}_{i3}`$ at the plane $`(\stackrel{}{p}_i,\stackrel{}{p}_{i1})`$.

## 3 Energy and angular distributions of the decay products

In this section we study for the production of Dirac and Majorana fermions and their subsequent three–particle decay into fermions the influence of the polarization and of the spin–spin correlations on the energy spectrum and angular distributions in the lab frame. If the decay of only one of the produced fermions, e.g. $`f_i`$, is considered, it is in (14) $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_D^b(f_j)0`$ and $`D(f_j)1`$. Then the total cross section for the combined process of production and decay is given by $`\sigma _P(f\overline{f}f_if_j)\times BR(f_if_{i1}f_{i2}f_{i3})`$.

### 3.1 Energy spectrum and opening angle distribution of the decay leptons

We expect that in general the energy distribution of the decay particles in the lab system depends on the polarization of the decaying particle. In its rest frame the decay angular distribution is determined by the polarization with respect to a suitably chosen quantization axis. Since boosting in this direction into the lab frame the energy of a decay particle depends on the orientation of its momentum with respect to this axis it also depends on the polarization of the decaying particle. The same argument applies to the distribution of the opening angle in the lab frame between the decay products.

In the following we show that due to the specific CPT/CP properties of Majorana fermions the energy distribution and the opening angle distribution of the decay fermions are independent of the polarizations of the decaying particle. In this case both distributions factorize into a production and a decay piece.

For our analysis we parametrize the phase space in the lab frame in a way that it factorizes into the production and decay phase space.

#### 3.1.1 Energy spectrum

For the energy distribution $`d\sigma /dE_{i2}`$ the phase space can be parametrized by the polar angle $`\mathrm{\Theta }_{i,i2}`$ ($`\mathrm{\Theta }_{i,i3}`$) between the momenta of $`f_i`$ and $`f_{i2}`$ ($`f_{i3}`$) and the azimuth $`\mathrm{\Phi }_{i,i2}`$ ($`\mathrm{\Phi }_{i,i3}`$) of $`f_{i2}`$ ($`f_{i3}`$). All polar (azimuthal) angles are denoted by $`\mathrm{\Theta }_{\alpha \beta }`$ ($`\mathrm{\Phi }_{\alpha \beta }`$), where the first index denotes the polar axis:

$$d\sigma =|T|^2\mathrm{sin}\mathrm{\Theta }d\mathrm{\Theta }d\mathrm{\Phi }\mathrm{sin}\mathrm{\Theta }_{i,i2}d\mathrm{\Theta }_{i,i2}d\mathrm{\Phi }_{i,i2}\mathrm{sin}\mathrm{\Theta }_{i,i3}d\mathrm{\Theta }_{i,i3}d\mathrm{\Phi }_{i,i3}dE_{i2},$$
(56)
where $`\mathrm{\Theta }`$ is the production angle. For light fermions $`f_{i2}`$ and $`f_{i3}`$ $``$ is given by:

$$=\frac{q}{2^{11}(2\pi )^7m_i\mathrm{\Gamma }_iE_b^3}\frac{E_{i2}[m_i^2m_{i1}^22E_{i2}(E_iq\mathrm{cos}\mathrm{\Theta }_{i,i2})]}{[E_iq\mathrm{cos}\mathrm{\Theta }_{i,i3}E_{i2}(1\mathrm{cos}\mathrm{\Theta }_{i2,i3})]^2}.$$
(57)
$`E_b`$ denotes the beam energy, $`E_\alpha `$ denotes the energy of the fermion $`f_\alpha `$ in the lab frame and $`q=|\stackrel{}{p}_i|=|\stackrel{}{p}_j|`$. The opening angle $`\mathrm{\Theta }_{i2,i3}`$ between $`f_{i2}`$ and $`f_{i3}`$ can be expressed via (A.1) by the independent variables chosen in (56).

The kinematical boundaries for $`\mathrm{\Theta }_{i,i2}`$ depend on $`E_{i2}`$:

$$\mathrm{\Theta }_{i,i2}=\{\begin{array}{cc}[0,\pi ],\hfill & 0<E_{i2}<{\scriptscriptstyle \frac{m_i^2m_{i1}^2}{2\left(E_i+q\right)}}\hfill \\ (0,\mathrm{arccos}\left(\frac{E_i}{q}\frac{m_i^2m_{i1}^2}{2qE_{i2}}\right)),\hfill & {\scriptscriptstyle \frac{m_i^2m_{i1}^2}{2\left(E_i+q\right)}}E_{i2}{\scriptscriptstyle \frac{m_i^2m_{i1}^2}{2\left(E_iq\right)}}.\hfill \end{array}$$
(58)
#### 3.1.2 Opening angle distribution

For the distribution of the opening angle $`\mathrm{\Theta }_{i2,i3}`$ between the fermions $`f_{i2}`$ and $`f_{i3}`$ from the decay $`f_if_{i1}f_{i2}f_{i3}`$ it is favorable to parametrize the phase space of $`f_{i3}`$ by $`\mathrm{\Theta }_{i2,i3}`$ and the corresponding azimuthal angle $`\mathrm{\Phi }_{i2,i3}`$ (Fig. 2), i.e. to substitute in (56) $`\mathrm{\Theta }_{i,i3}\mathrm{\Theta }_{i2,i3}`$ and $`\mathrm{\Phi }_{i,i3}\mathrm{\Phi }_{i2,i3}`$. The kinematical region of $`E_{i2}`$ depends on $`\mathrm{\Theta }_{i,i2}`$: $`0E_{i2}\frac{m_i^2m_{i1}^2}{2(E_iq\mathrm{cos}\mathrm{\Theta }_{i,i2})}`$. The angles $`\mathrm{\Theta }_{i,i3}`$ and $`\mathrm{\Phi }_{i,i3}`$ can be expressed by (A.3) and (A.6), (A.8)–(A.10) by the chosen independent angular variables.

#### 3.1.3 Transverse polarizations

In the contributions $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_P^a(f_i)\mathrm{\Sigma }_D^a(f_i)`$, $`a=1,2,3`$, from the polarization of the decaying particle $`f_i`$ both factors depend on the polarization vectors $`s^{a\mu }(f_i)`$ defined with respect to the production plane, cf. section 2.1. They can be written

$$\mathrm{\Sigma }_P^a(f_i)=\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Sigma }}_P^\mu (f_i)s_\mu ^a(f_i),\text{and}\mathrm{\Sigma }_D^a(f_i)=\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Sigma }}_D^\mu s_\mu ^a(f_i).$$
(59)
To study their influence on the energy and the opening angle distribution we distinguish between the contributions $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_P^{1,2}(f_i)`$ from the transverse polarizations and $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_P^3(f_i)`$ from the longitudinal polarization. In the contributions of the transverse polarizations, the coefficients $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_D^{1,2}(f_i)`$ depend on the azimuth $`\mathrm{\Phi }_{i,i2}`$ between the production plane and the plane defined by the decaying fermion $`f_i`$ and the decay product $`f_{i2}`$. To separate the $`\mathrm{\Phi }_{i,i2}`$ dependence we introduce a new system of polarization vectors $`t^{a\nu }(f_i)`$ with $`t^{3\nu }(f_i)=s^{3\nu }(f_i)`$, whereas in the lab system $`\stackrel{}{t^2}(f_i)`$ is perpendicular to the plane defined by the momenta of $`f_i`$ and $`f_{i2}`$ and $`\stackrel{}{t^1}(f_1)`$ is in this plane orthogonal to the momentum of the decaying fermion $`f_i`$. Then in (59) the transverse polarization vectors $`s^{1,2\nu }(f_i)`$ are

$`s^{1\nu }(f_i)`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{cos}\mathrm{\Phi }_{i,i2}t^{1\nu }(f_i)\mathrm{sin}\mathrm{\Phi }_{i,i2}t^{2\nu }(f_i),`$ (60)
$`s^{2\nu }(f_i)`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{sin}\mathrm{\Phi }_{i,i2}t^{1\nu }(f_i)+\mathrm{cos}\mathrm{\Phi }_{i,i2}t^{2\nu }(f_i).`$ (61)
Applying the transformations (A.1) and (A.3), (A.6), (A.8) – (A.10) for the angles $`\mathrm{\Theta }_{i,i3}`$ and $`\mathrm{\Phi }_{i,i3}`$ to the phase space parameterization (56) the contributions of $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_D^{1,2}(f_i)`$ to the opening angle distribution and to the lepton energy spectrum vanish for both Majorana and Dirac fermions due to the integration over $`\mathrm{\Phi }_{i,i2}`$ .

#### 3.1.4 Longitudinal polarization

3.1.4.1 Majorana fermions

The longitudinal polarization $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_P^3(f_i)`$ is forward–backward antisymmetric if CP is conserved, cf. section 2.2.2. Due to the factorization of the phase space in production and decay also the contribution of the longitudinal polarization vanishes after integration over the production angle $`\mathrm{\Theta }`$.

Consequently both the energy and the opening angle distribution of the decay products of Majorana fermions in the laboratory system are independent of spin correlations and factorize exactly into production and decay if CP is conserved.

The factorization of the energy and opening angle distribution is essentially equivalent since for both observables it is a consequence of the FB-antisymmetry of the longitudinal polarization of Majorana fermions.

Assuming CP violation and taking into account the widths of the exchanged particles the exact factorization of the energy distribution and of the opening angle distribution of the decay products of Majorana fermions is destroyed, since the longitudinal polarization $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_P^3`$ gets FB–symmetric contributions from CP violating terms. These additional terms have the structure $`_{IIR}`$, and are therefore for energies far from the resonance proportional to the width of the exchanged particle.

3.1.4.2 Dirac fermions

In general, the longitudinal polarization of produced Dirac fermions is not forward–backward asymmetric. Therefore the energy spectra and opening angle distributions of the decay products do not factorize into production and decay.

### 3.2 Decay lepton angular distribution

For the distribution $`d\sigma /d\mathrm{cos}\mathrm{\Theta }_{1,i2}`$ of the angle $`\mathrm{\Theta }_{1,i2}`$ in the lab frame between the incoming fermion $`f`$ and the fermion $`f_{i2}`$ from the decay $`f_if_{i1}f_{i2}f_{i3}`$ we parameterize the phase space by

$$d\sigma =|T|^2\mathrm{sin}\mathrm{\Theta }d\mathrm{\Theta }d\mathrm{\Phi }\mathrm{sin}\mathrm{\Theta }_{1,i2}d\mathrm{\Theta }_{1,i2}d\mathrm{\Phi }_{1,i2}\mathrm{sin}\mathrm{\Theta }_{1,i3}d\mathrm{\Theta }_{1,i3}d\mathrm{\Phi }_{1,i3}dE_{i2}.$$
(62)
and express all angles in $``$ (57) and the azimuth $`\mathrm{\Phi }_{i,i2}`$ in (60), (61) by the independent variables in (62). The relations are given in (A.2), (A.4), (A.5), (A.7) . Thus the kinematic factor $``$ depends explicitly on the scattering angle $`\mathrm{\Theta }`$ and neither the contributions $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_D^{1,2}(f_i)`$ of the transverse polarizations nor that of the longitudinal polarization $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_P^3(f_i)`$ vanish due to phase space integration.
Consequently neither for Dirac fermions nor for Majorana fermions the decay lepton angular distribution in the lab frame factorizes in production and decay but depends sensitively on the spin correlations.

### 3.3 Siamese opening angle distribution

The siamese opening angle $`\mathrm{\Theta }_{j2,i2}`$ denotes the angle between decay products $`f_{i2}`$ and $`f_{j2}`$ from the decay of different particles $`f_i`$ and $`\overline{f}_j`$ ($`f_j`$ in the case of Majorana fermions) in the lab frame. The distribution $`d\sigma /d\mathrm{cos}\mathrm{\Theta }_{j2,i2}`$ is determined by the spin–spin correlations $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_P^{ab}`$ (14) between the decaying mother particles $`f_i`$ and $`\overline{f}_j`$. Here it is favorable to parameterize both phase spaces for the decay of $`f_i`$ and of $`\overline{f}_j`$ by the angles $`\mathrm{\Theta }_{i,i3}`$, $`\mathrm{\Phi }_{i,i3}`$, and $`\mathrm{\Theta }_{i,j2}`$, $`\mathrm{\Phi }_{i,j2}`$

$`d\sigma `$ $`=`$ $`𝒢|T|^2\mathrm{sin}\mathrm{\Theta }d\mathrm{\Theta }d\mathrm{\Phi }\mathrm{sin}\mathrm{\Theta }_{i,j2}d\mathrm{\Theta }_{i,j2}d\mathrm{\Phi }_{i,j2}\mathrm{sin}\mathrm{\Theta }_{i,j3}d\mathrm{\Theta }_{i,j3}d\mathrm{\Phi }_{i,j3}dE_{j2}`$ (63)
$`\times \mathrm{sin}\mathrm{\Theta }_{i,i3}d\mathrm{\Theta }_{i,i3}d\mathrm{\Phi }_{i,i3}\mathrm{sin}\mathrm{\Theta }_{j2,i2}d\mathrm{\Theta }_{j2,i2}d\mathrm{\Phi }_{j2,i2}dE_{i2},`$
where $`\mathrm{\Theta }_{i,j3}`$, $`\mathrm{\Phi }_{i,j3}`$ is defined with respect to the direction of $`f_i`$ and $`\mathrm{\Theta }_{j2,i2}`$, $`\mathrm{\Phi }_{j2,i2}`$. $``$ is given by (57) and

$`𝒢`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2^5(2\pi )^5m_j\mathrm{\Gamma }_j}}{\displaystyle \frac{E_{j2}[m_j^2m_{j1}^22E_{j2}(E_jq\mathrm{cos}\mathrm{\Theta }_{i,j2})]}{[E_jq\mathrm{cos}\mathrm{\Theta }_{i,j3}E_{j2}(1\mathrm{cos}\mathrm{\Theta }_{j2,j3})]^2}}.`$ (64)
Using the transformation formulae (A.1) and (A.11) – (A.16) all angles can be expressed by the independent variables chosen in (63).

With the same arguments as for the contributions from transverse polarization to the opening angle distribution one infers:
The siamese opening angle distribution factorizes neither for Majorana nor for Dirac fermions, it depends, however, only on the diagonal spin–spin correlations $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_P^{11}`$, $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_P^{22}`$, $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_P^{33}`$ if CP is conserved.

The polarizations of the produced fermions and the spin–spin correlations between these contributing to the energy and the different angular distributions of their decay products are listed in Table 2.

## 4 Conclusion

Assuming CPT and CP invariance we derived symmetry properties of the spin density matrix for production of Dirac and Majorana fermions in fermion–antifermion annihilation with polarized beams and for their three–particle decay matrices. Majorana fermions show specific forward–backward symmetry properties of their polarizations and the spin–spin correlations. In particular for the production of Majorana fermions with unpolarized or longitudinally polarized $`e^+e^{}`$ beams their longitudinal polarization in the CMS is forward-backward antisymmetric so that the energy distributions of the decay products and the distribution of the opening angle between them are exactly independent of spin correlations if CP is conserved and if the width of the exchanged particles can be neglected. Thus they factorize into a production and a decay piece which allows to study the dynamics of the decay of Majorana fermions independently of that of the production process. Since this factorization is specific for Majorana fermions it opens the possibility to establish experimentally the Majorana character by comparing the measured decay energy and opening angle distributions with Monte Carlo studies.

## 5 Acknowledgment

We thank A. Bartl, E. Christova, F. Franke and W. Majerotto for valuable discussions. This work was supported by the Bundesministerium für Bildung und Forschung, contract No. 05 7WZ91P (0), by DFG FR 1064/4–1, by the Fonds zur Förderung der wissenschaftlichen Forschung of Austria, project No. P13139-PHY and by the EU TMR Network Contract No. HPRN-CT-2000-00149.

## Appendix A Parametrization of phase space

For completeness we list all angular relations used for the different parametrizations of the phase space in section 3.

$`\mathrm{cos}\mathrm{\Theta }_{i2,i3}`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{cos}\mathrm{\Theta }_{i,i2}\mathrm{cos}\mathrm{\Theta }_{i,i3}+\mathrm{sin}\mathrm{\Theta }_{i,i2}\mathrm{sin}\mathrm{\Theta }_{i,i3}\mathrm{cos}(\mathrm{\Phi }_{i,i2}\mathrm{\Phi }_{i,i3}),`$ (A.1)
$`=`$ $`\mathrm{cos}\mathrm{\Theta }_{1,i2}\mathrm{cos}\mathrm{\Theta }_{1,i3}+\mathrm{sin}\mathrm{\Theta }_{1,i2}\mathrm{sin}\mathrm{\Theta }_{1,i3}\mathrm{cos}(\mathrm{\Phi }_{1,i2}\mathrm{\Phi }_{1,i3}),`$ (A.2)
$`\mathrm{cos}\mathrm{\Theta }_{i,i3}`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{cos}\mathrm{\Theta }_{i,i2}\mathrm{cos}\mathrm{\Theta }_{i2,i3}+\mathrm{sin}\mathrm{\Theta }_{i,i2}\mathrm{sin}\mathrm{\Theta }_{i2,i3}\mathrm{cos}\mathrm{\Phi }_{i2,i3},`$ (A.3)
$`=`$ $`\mathrm{cos}\mathrm{\Theta }\mathrm{cos}\mathrm{\Theta }_{1,i3}+\mathrm{sin}\mathrm{\Theta }\mathrm{sin}\mathrm{\Theta }_{1,i3}\mathrm{cos}\mathrm{\Phi }_{1,i3},`$ (A.4)
$`\mathrm{sin}\mathrm{\Phi }_{i,i3}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{sin}\mathrm{\Theta }_{1,i3}}{\mathrm{sin}\mathrm{\Theta }_{i,i3}}}\mathrm{sin}\mathrm{\Phi }_{1,i3},`$ (A.5)
$`=`$ $`\mathrm{sin}\mathrm{\Phi }_{i,i2}\mathrm{cos}(\mathrm{\Phi }_{i,i2}\mathrm{\Phi }_{i,i3})\mathrm{cos}\mathrm{\Phi }_{i,i2}\mathrm{sin}(\mathrm{\Phi }_{i,i2}\mathrm{\Phi }_{i,i3}),`$ (A.6)
$`\mathrm{cos}\mathrm{\Phi }_{i,i3}`$ $`=`$ $`[\mathrm{cos}\mathrm{\Theta }_{1,i3}\mathrm{sin}\mathrm{\Theta }\mathrm{sin}\mathrm{\Theta }_{1,i3}\mathrm{cos}\mathrm{\Theta }\mathrm{cos}\mathrm{\Phi }_{1,i3}]/\mathrm{sin}\mathrm{\Theta }_{i,i3},`$ (A.7)
$`=`$ $`\mathrm{cos}\mathrm{\Phi }_{i,i2}\mathrm{cos}(\mathrm{\Phi }_{i,i2}\mathrm{\Phi }_{i,i3})+\mathrm{sin}\mathrm{\Phi }_{i,i2}\mathrm{sin}(\mathrm{\Phi }_{i,i2}\mathrm{\Phi }_{i,i3}).`$ (A.8)
In (A.6) and (A.8) one has to insert:

$`\mathrm{cos}(\mathrm{\Phi }_{i,i2}\mathrm{\Phi }_{i,i3})`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{cos}\mathrm{\Theta }_{i2,i3}\mathrm{sin}\mathrm{\Theta }_{i,i2}\mathrm{cos}\mathrm{\Theta }_{i,i2}\mathrm{sin}\mathrm{\Theta }_{i2,i3}\mathrm{cos}\mathrm{\Phi }_{i2,i3}}{\mathrm{sin}\mathrm{\Theta }_{i,i3}}},`$ (A.9)
$`\mathrm{sin}(\mathrm{\Phi }_{i,i2}\mathrm{\Phi }_{i,i3})`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{sin}\mathrm{\Theta }_{i2,i3}}{\mathrm{sin}\mathrm{\Theta }_{i,i3}}}\mathrm{sin}\mathrm{\Phi }_{i2,i3}.`$ (A.10)
The angles $`\mathrm{\Theta }_{i,i2}`$, $`\mathrm{\Phi }_{i,i2}`$ are given analogously to (A.4), (A.5) and (A.7) with $`\mathrm{\Theta }_{1,i3}\mathrm{\Theta }_{1,i2}`$, $`\mathrm{\Phi }_{1,i3}\mathrm{\Phi }_{1,i2}`$ and $`\mathrm{\Theta }_{i,i3}\mathrm{\Theta }_{i,i2}`$.

$`\mathrm{cos}\mathrm{\Theta }_{i,i2}`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{cos}\mathrm{\Theta }_{i,j2}\mathrm{cos}\mathrm{\Theta }_{j2,i2}+\mathrm{sin}\mathrm{\Theta }_{i,j2}\mathrm{sin}\mathrm{\Theta }_{j2,i2}\mathrm{cos}\mathrm{\Phi }_{j2,i2},`$ (A.11)
$`\mathrm{sin}\mathrm{\Phi }_{i,i2}`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{sin}(\mathrm{\Phi }_{i,j2}\mathrm{\Phi }_{i,i2})\mathrm{cos}\mathrm{\Phi }_{i,j2}+\mathrm{cos}(\mathrm{\Phi }_{i,j2}\mathrm{\Phi }_{i,i2})\mathrm{sin}\mathrm{\Phi }_{i,j2},`$ (A.12)
$`\mathrm{cos}\mathrm{\Phi }_{i,i2}`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{sin}(\mathrm{\Phi }_{i,j2}\mathrm{\Phi }_{i,i2})\mathrm{sin}\mathrm{\Phi }_{i,j2}+\mathrm{cos}(\mathrm{\Phi }_{i,j2}\mathrm{\Phi }_{i,i2})\mathrm{cos}\mathrm{\Phi }_{i,j2},`$ (A.13)
$`\mathrm{cos}\mathrm{\Theta }_{j2,j3}`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{cos}\mathrm{\Theta }_{i,j2}\mathrm{cos}\mathrm{\Theta }_{i,j3}+\mathrm{sin}\mathrm{\Theta }_{i,j2}\mathrm{sin}\mathrm{\Theta }_{i,j3}\mathrm{cos}(\mathrm{\Phi }_{i,j2}\mathrm{\Phi }_{i,j3}),`$ (A.14)
where one has to insert:

$`\mathrm{sin}(\mathrm{\Phi }_{i,j2}\mathrm{\Phi }_{i,i2})`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{sin}\mathrm{\Theta }_{j2,i2}}{\mathrm{sin}\mathrm{\Theta }_{i,i2}}}\mathrm{sin}\mathrm{\Phi }_{j2,i2},`$ (A.15)
$`\mathrm{cos}(\mathrm{\Phi }_{i,j2}\mathrm{\Phi }_{i,i2})`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{sin}\mathrm{\Theta }_{i,j2}\mathrm{cos}\mathrm{\Theta }_{j2,i2}\mathrm{cos}\mathrm{\Theta }_{i,j2}\mathrm{sin}\mathrm{\Theta }_{j2,i2}\mathrm{cos}\mathrm{\Phi }_{j2,i2}}{\mathrm{sin}\mathrm{\Theta }_{i,i2}}}.`$ (A.16)


format: text

text:
# Scalar Mesons and Chiral Dynamics

## I Introduction

The understanding of scalar excitations is a fundamental problem which we encounter in many branches of physics ranging from the dilaton in theories for gravity, the higgs in the electroweak theory, to the pairing of fermions in condensed matter. The reason is quite simple: scalar excitations have the same quantum numbers as the vacuum and their properties are strongly influenced by it. Understanding scalar excitations is at the same time, in some way, an understanding of the vacuum properties of the corresponding theory which is a particularly difficult task in the case it has an strongly coupled regime.

In this talk I will summarize our work on scalar mesons in low energy QCD. The well-established lowest lying scalar mesons are the isovector $`a_0(980)`$ and the isoscalar $`f_0(980)`$. These mesons are nearly degenerate in mass which suggests they are the scalar analogous to the $`\rho (770)`$ and $`\omega (780)`$ which would imply a $`\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}(\overline{u}u\overline{d}d)`$ and $`\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}(\overline{u}u+\overline{d}d)`$ for the $`a_0(980)`$ and $`f_0(980)`$ respectively. The first problem with this identification is the experimental fact that the $`f_0(980)`$ strongly couples to the $`\overline{K}K`$ system. The second problem is the small coupling to two photons these mesons have, a problem which we will review in detail below. Before this let us mention that over the past few years compelling evidence has accumulated for the existence of a broad isoscalar structure ($`\sigma `$) in the very low energy region  which is strongly coupled to two pions and the existence of a isospinor scalar in the $`800900`$ MeV has been claimed by many authors , although its existence is still under debate .

### A Scalar (and pseudoscalar) mesons as $`\overline{Q}Q`$ states: testing the structure of hadrons with photons.

Electromagnetic decays of hadrons give valuable information on their structure for the simple reason that photons couple to charged objects, in particular to the partons constituting a hadron. In this sense the two photon decay of scalars constitute direct evidence for their quark structure. Quark model calculations for the $`a_0(980)\gamma \gamma `$ and $`f_0(980)\gamma \gamma `$ decays were summarized in  and a molecule structure was explored in this work which seemed to be favored by the measured branching ratios. Here we will work with the following assumptions: i) meson are composed of $`\overline{Q}Q`$ where $`Q`$ denotes a constituent (colored) quark. ii)They are non-relativistic systems and we work in the zero-binding approximation ($`M2m_Q`$). Under these assumptions we can use either NRQCD-like calculations (singlet channels only) or we can apply the quarkonium techniques developed in . The calculations lead to

$`\begin{array}{ccc}\mathrm{\Gamma }(^1S_0\gamma \gamma )=\frac{12\alpha ^2}{M_P^2}|R(0)|^2e_Q^2\hfill & & \\ \mathrm{\Gamma }(^3P_J\gamma \gamma )=\frac{N_J\alpha ^2}{M_J^4}|R^{}(0)|^2e_Q^2\hfill & & \end{array}`$

where $`N_0=432,N_2=576/5`$ and $`N_1=0`$ as required by charge conjugation. Here, $`e_Q`$ denotes the charge of the constituent quark (in units of $`e`$) and $`R(0)`$, $`R^{}(0)`$ denote the quarkonium wave funcion and its derivative evaluated at the origin respectively. For the physical process meson $`\gamma \gamma `$ it is necessary to consider the isospin structure which amounts to replace $`e_Q^2F(I)`$, where $`F(1)=(e_u^2e_d^2)/\sqrt{2}`$ for a $`(\overline{u}u\overline{d}d)/\sqrt{2}`$ meson and $`F(0)=(e_u^2+e_d^2)/\sqrt{2}`$ for a $`(\overline{u}u+\overline{d}d)/\sqrt{2}`$ meson. The only unknown parameters here are the wave functions at the origin which do not allow us to predict the individual widths. However, this factor cancels out in the ratios of widths which allow us to compare with the measured ratios for mesons with the same orbital angular momentum. We show in a table the results for the ratios of different combinations of the $`{}_{}{}^{3}P_{J}^{}\gamma \gamma `$ decay widths $`R_{th}^{M_1M_2}\frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }(M_1\gamma \gamma )}{\mathrm{\Gamma }(M_2\gamma \gamma )}=(\frac{m_{M_2}}{m_{M_1}})^4\frac{F^2(I_1)}{F^2(I_2)}`$. In this table a $`(\overline{u}u+\overline{d}d)/\sqrt{2}`$ structure has been assumed for the $`f_0`$ and $`f_2`$ mesons and a $`(\overline{u}u\overline{d}d)/\sqrt{2}`$ structure for the $`a_0`$ and $`a_2`$ mesons.

| $`M_1M_2`$ | $`R_{th}^{M1M2}`$ | $`R_{exp}^{M1M2}`$ |
| --- | --- | --- |
| $`a_2(1320)f_2(1270)`$ | $`0.31`$ | $`0.36\pm 0.05`$ |
| $`a_0(980)f_0(980)`$ | $`0.35`$ | $`1.62\pm 0.96`$ |
| $`f_0(980)f_2(1270)`$ | $`0.76`$ | $`0.14\pm 0.04`$ |
| $`a_0(980)a_2(980)`$ | $`0.85`$ | $`0.24\pm 0.09`$ |

The conclusion we extract from this table is that two photon decays of tensor mesons are consistent with the assumed composition whereas $`a_0(980)\gamma \gamma `$ and $`f_0(980)\gamma \gamma `$ are not consistent with a $`(\overline{u}u\pm \overline{d}d)/\sqrt{2}`$ structure for these mesons. Another possibility in the case of the $`f_0(980)`$ is a $`\overline{s}s`$ structure. For this case we obtain $`R_{th}^{f_0f_2}=0.06`$ vs $`R_{exp}^{f_0f_2}=0.14\pm 0.04`$. Thus $`f_0(980)\gamma \gamma `$ is neither well described in terms of quarkonium calculations assuming a pure $`\overline{s}s`$ structure. It still remain the possibility that the $`f_0(980)`$ be a more complicated object similar to the $`\eta `$ or $`\eta ^{}`$ i.e. $`f_0=\mathrm{sin}\varphi _\mathrm{s}S_{\mathrm{ns}}+\mathrm{cos}\varphi _\mathrm{s}S_\mathrm{s}`$ where $`S_{\mathrm{ns}}=(\overline{u}u+\overline{d}d)/\sqrt{2}`$ and $`S_\mathrm{s}=\overline{s}s`$. In this case $`R_{th}^{f_0f_2}=\frac{4}{15}(\frac{M_{f_2}}{M_{f_0}})^4(\mathrm{sin}\varphi _\mathrm{s}+\frac{\sqrt{2}}{5}\mathrm{cos}\varphi _\mathrm{s})`$ and agreement with the experimental ratio requires $`\varphi _\mathrm{s}9^{}`$.

What about pseudoscalars?. In this case the quarkonium state has the $`J^{PC}=0^+`$ quantum numbers ($`{}_{}{}^{1}S_{0}^{}`$ state in spectroscopic notation). The predicted ratio of widths in the case $`\eta \pi `$, written in terms of the mixing angle in the singlet-octet basis $`\theta _P=\varphi _P54.7^{}`$ is $`R_{th}^{\eta \pi }=\frac{m_\eta ^3}{m_\pi ^3}(\frac{m_\pi }{m_\eta })^5\frac{1}{\sqrt{3}}[\mathrm{cos}\theta _\mathrm{p}2\sqrt{2}\mathrm{sin}\theta _\mathrm{p})]^2`$. In this case, the results for the ratio of widths differ from those arising in naive quark model (or SU(3)) (see e.g.  page 117) . Indeed, there is a dynamical factor $`(\frac{m_\pi }{m_\eta })^510^3`$ for this ratio which considerable reduce the ratio with respect to naive quark model considerations when physical masses are used in the numerics. Reproducing experimental data require to introduce a “reference mass”($`M_R`$)  whose origin is clear in our framework, $`M_R2m_Q`$ which represent the “constituent mass” for the quarkonium. The inability of quarkonium calculations to describe two photon decays of pseudoscalars without any additional assumption has to do with the mechanisms which deviate the values of the masses of pseudoscalars from their “constituent mass” values. It has been clear since the early days of QCD that the spectrum of pseudoscalars is strongly influenced by non-trivial effects due to the properties of the QCD vacuum. On the other hand scalars have the same quantum numbers as the vacuum and the immediate question is whether or not the scalar spectrum and decay properties are modified, from what we naively would expect, by effects due to the properties of the QCD vacuum. In the next section we will review our work on the effects of the vacuum in the structuring of the spectrum and decay properties of scalar mesons.

### B Chiral symmetry, vacuum effects and scalar meson properties.

We explored this topic in the framework of a Linear Sigma Model (LSM) which incorporates the most important effects in the low energy domain of QCD, namely, the spontaneous breaking of $`\chi `$ral symmetry (SB$`\chi `$S) and the breakdown of the singlet axial symmetry. For the latter we use the bosonized version of the instanton induced six-quark interaction discovered by ’t Hooft. The pseudoscalar and scalar matrix fields $`P`$ and $`\sigma `$ are written in terms of a specific basis spanned by seven of the standard Gell-Mann matrices, namely $`\lambda _i(i=1,\mathrm{},7)`$, and by two unconventional matrices $`\lambda _{\mathrm{ns}}`$=diag(1,1,0), and $`\lambda _\mathrm{s}`$ = $`\sqrt{2}`$ diag(0,0,1), respectively. We use the convention $`P\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}\lambda _iP_i`$ with $`i=ns,s,1,\mathrm{},7`$ and similarly for the scalar field. The scalar and a pseudoscalar mesonic nonet enter in the chiral combination $`M=\sigma +iP`$. The lagrangian is

$$=_{sym}+_{U_A(1)}+_{SB}.$$
(1)
The $`[U(3)_LU(3)_R]`$ symmetric part is given by

$$_{sym}=\frac{1}{2}\mathrm{tr}\left[(_\mu M)(^\mu M^{})\right]\frac{\mu ^2}{2}X(\sigma ,P)\frac{\lambda }{4}Y(\sigma ,P)\frac{\lambda ^{}}{4}X^2(\sigma ,P),$$
(2)
where $`X(\sigma ,P)\mathrm{tr}\left[MM^{}\right]Y(\sigma ,P)\mathrm{tr}\left[(MM^{})^2\right]`$. The $`U_A(1)`$ symmetry breaking lagrangian is given by $`_{U_A(1)}=\beta \{\text{det}(M)+\text{det}(M^{})\}`$. Finally we have the explicit symmetry breaking term $`_{SB}=\mathrm{tr}\left[c\sigma \right]=\mathrm{tr}\left[\frac{b_0}{\sqrt{2}}_q(M+M^{})\right]`$ where $`c\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}\lambda _ic_i`$,is related to the quark mass matrix $`_q`$ by $`c=\sqrt{2}b_0_q`$ and has $`\frac{c_{\mathrm{ns}}}{\sqrt{2}}=\sqrt{2}\widehat{m}b_0`$ and $`c_\mathrm{s}=\sqrt{2}m_sb_0`$ as the only non-vanishing entries. Here, $`b_0`$ is an unknown parameter with dimensions of squared mass. We work in the exact isospin limit, $`\widehat{m}=m_u=m_d`$. The linear $`\sigma `$ term induces $`\sigma `$-vacuum transitions which rearrange the vacuum. Shifting to physical fields we obtain the following masses  :

$`m_\pi ^2=\xi \underset{¯}{+2\beta b}+\lambda a^2,m_{a_0}^2=\xi \underset{¯}{2\beta b}+3\lambda a^2`$

$`m_K^2=\xi \underset{¯}{+2\beta a}+\lambda (a^2ab\text{+}b^2),m_\kappa ^2=\xi \underset{¯}{2\beta a}+\lambda (a^2+ab\text{+}b^2)`$

$$m_{\eta _{\mathrm{ns}}}^2=\xi \underset{¯}{2\beta b}+\lambda a^2,m_{S_{\mathrm{ns}}}^2=\xi \underset{¯}{+2\beta b}+3\lambda a^2+4\lambda ^{}a^2,$$
(3)
$`m_{\eta _\mathrm{s}}^2=\xi +\lambda b^2,m_{S_\mathrm{s}}^2=\xi +3\lambda b^2+2\lambda ^{}b^2`$

$`m_{\eta _{\mathrm{s}\mathrm{ns}}}^2=\underset{¯}{2\sqrt{2}\beta a},m_{S_{\mathrm{s}\mathrm{ns}}}^2=\underset{¯}{2\sqrt{2}}(\underset{¯}{\beta }+\lambda ^{}b)\underset{¯}{a}.`$where $`a=\sigma _{\mathrm{ns}}/\sqrt{2}`$, $`b=\sigma _\mathrm{s}`$ and $`m_{\eta _{\mathrm{s}\mathrm{ns}}}^2`$, $`m_{S_{\mathrm{s}\mathrm{ns}}}^2`$ denote the OZI rule violating terms mixing strange and non-strange isoscalar quarkonia. Notice that the $`U_A(1)`$ symmetry breaking couples to the spontaneous breakdown of chiral symmetry (underlined terms in Eq.(3)) contributing to the masses of all fields (except strange fields) and this effect has the opposite sign in the scalar sector with respect to the pseudoscalar sector. In particular it is responsible for the mixing of flavor fields. We claim that this is the striking effect which explains the unusual properties of the lowest lying scalar mesons. In  the corresponding coupling has been fixed to $`\beta =1.551\pm 0.072`$ GeV using information on the pseudoscalar spectrum as input and the members of the scalar nonet were identified as $`\sigma (450),f_0(980),a_0(980),`$ and $`\kappa (900)`$. The $`U_A(1)`$-SB$`\chi `$S effect has the following consequences: It pushes the pions and kaons down making them light (an effect driven by the quark masses since elimination of linear terms after SB$`\chi `$S requires $`f_\pi m_\pi ^2=2\widehat{m}b_0;f_Km_K^2=(\widehat{m}+m_\mathrm{s})b_0`$ ) and the $`\eta _{\mathrm{ns}}`$ up making it heavy (an effect only partly driven by quark masses).ii) It pushes the $`a_0`$ and $`\kappa `$ mesons up making them heavy and $`\sigma _{\mathrm{ns}}`$ down making it light. As a consequence this effect simultaneously explains at the qualitative level :i) Why the pion and kaon are light, ii) The mixing of pseudoscalar and scalar mesons. iii) Why the $`\eta _{\mathrm{ns}}`$ is so heavy, iv) Why the sigma meson is so light, vi) The accidental degeneracy of the $`a_0(980)`$ and the $`f_0(980)`$ (and perhaps also of the $`\kappa `$ meson) vi) The strong coupling of the $`f_0(980)`$ to $`\overline{K}K`$. The immediate question at this point is what the model predicts for the coupling of $`f_0(980)`$ and $`a_0(980)`$ to two photons.

### C  Consistent description of $`a_0(980)\gamma \gamma `$ and $`f_0(980)\gamma \gamma `$ decays

The $`a_0(980)\gamma \gamma `$ and $`f_0(980)\gamma \gamma `$ decays have been calculated in the present framework . These decays are induced by loops of charged mesons ($`M`$). The calculation of the corresponding diagrams give finite contributions. The analytical results depend on the $`SMM`$ couplings which are related to meson masses by chiral symmetry. The amplitude for $`S\gamma \gamma `$ decay is

$$(S\gamma (\epsilon ,k)\gamma (q,\eta ))=\frac{i\alpha }{\pi f_K}𝒜^S(q.kg^{\mu \nu }k^\mu q^\nu )\eta _\mu \epsilon _\nu .$$
(4)
and the corresponding width is $`\mathrm{\Gamma }(S\gamma \gamma )=\frac{\alpha ^2}{64\pi ^3}\frac{m_S^3}{f_K^2}|𝒜^S|^2`$, whereas the measured widths are  $`\mathrm{\Gamma }(f_0\gamma \gamma )_{exp}=0.39_{13}^{+10}\text{keV},\mathrm{\Gamma }(a_0\gamma \gamma )_{exp}=0.24_{0.07}^{+0.08}\text{keV}`$ (we assume $`BR(a_0(980)\pi ^0\eta )1`$). From these values we extract $`|𝒜_{exp}^{a_0}|=0.34\pm 0.05`$ and $`|𝒜_{exp}^{f_0}|=0.44\pm 0.07`$ .

In the model, the $`a_0\gamma \gamma `$ decay is induced by loops of kaons and kappas. Kaon loops yield $`𝒜__K^{a_0}=0.42`$. Kappa loops interfere destructively with kaon loops and results depend on the kappa mass. Using e.g. $`m_\kappa =900`$ MeV we obtain $`𝒜_{_{LSM}}^{a_0}=0.36`$. The experimental result is consistent with $`m_\kappa [800,935]`$ MeV.

In the case of the $`f_0(980)\gamma \gamma `$ decay there are contributions from loops of pions kaons and kappas. The corresponding amplitudes as calculated in the model yield $`𝒜__M^{f_0}=f__K\left(\frac{g_{_{f_0MM}}}{m_{f_0}^2}\right)N__M`$ with the loop factors $`N_\pi =(1.10+0.48i)`$, $`N__K=1.06`$ and the value of $`N_\kappa `$ depend again on the kappa mass. For $`m_\kappa =900`$ MeV we obtain $`N_\kappa =0.12`$. The dominant contribution again comes from kaon loops since the $`f_0\pi \pi `$ coupling is proportional to the $`\mathrm{sin}\varphi _\mathrm{s}`$ factor which is small, and the $`f_0\kappa \kappa `$ coupling is proportional to $`m_f^2m_\kappa ^2`$ which is also small relative to the typical hadron energy scale of 1 GeV. Kaon loops contributions alone (using $`\varphi _s=9^{}`$) yield $`𝒜__K^{f_0}=0.46`$ whereas including all contributions (using the E791 value $`m_\kappa =797`$ MeV ) yield $`|𝒜_{_{LSM}}^{f_0}|=0.42`$ to be compared with $`|𝒜_{exp}^{f_0}|=0.44\pm 0.06`$. Reversing the argument: fixing the value of $`m_\kappa `$ to the central value of E791, the experimental uncertainties allow for $`\varphi _s[4^{},25^{}]`$. In the whole we conclude that experimental data on $`a_0\gamma \gamma `$ and $`f_0\gamma \gamma `$ are well described by meson loops.

### D  Complementarity of LSM and $`\chi `$PT in the scalar channel: $`V^0P^0P_{}^{0}{}_{}{}^{}\gamma `$ decays.

From the experimental point of view these decays are a clean place to study $`P^0P_{}^{0}{}_{}{}^{}`$ systems since neutral particles are involved in the final state, hence there exist no final state radiation. Branching ratios and energy spectrum were recently measured for some of these decays by the SND and CMD collaborations at Novosibirsk and improved data can be expected from DA$`\mathrm{\Phi }`$NE. On the theoretical side contributions from intermediate vector mesons $`V^0V_{}^{0}{}_{}{}^{}P^0P^0P_{}^{0}{}_{}{}^{}\gamma `$ were estimated in  using VMD and the corresponding results do not describe the experimental results for the BR.’s. The possibility of enhancement of these BR’s due to re-scattering effects was explored in  using $`\chi `$PT with vector mesons as external fields. At leading order ($`𝒪(p^4)`$) these contributions are finite and no ambiguities due to counter-terms exist. VMD and chiral loops contributions are collected in a table below which shows that these contributions do not account for the measured BR’s either. Since the $`P^0P_{}^{0}{}_{}{}^{}`$ system can be in a $`J^P=0^+`$ state we should expect resonant effects due to scalars manifest in these decays.

| Decay | BR$`{}_{\mathrm{exp}}{}^{}\times 10^5`$ | (VC)$`\times `$ 105 | ($`\chi `$PT) $`\times `$ 105 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |
| $`\varphi \pi ^0\pi ^0\gamma `$ | 11.58 $`\pm `$ 0.93 $`\pm `$ 0.52 | 1.2 | 5.05 |
| $`\varphi \pi ^0\eta \gamma `$ | 9.0 $`\pm `$ 2.4 $`\pm `$ 1.0 | 0.54 | 2.95 |
| $`\varphi K^0\overline{K}^0\gamma `$ |  | 2.7 $`\times `$ 10-7 | 1.0 $`\times `$ 10-3 |
| $`\rho \pi ^0\pi ^0\gamma `$ | 4.2$`{}_{2.0}{}^{+2.9}\pm `$ 1.0 | 1.1 | 0.97 |
| $`\rho \pi ^0\eta \gamma `$ |  | 4 $`\times `$ 10-5 | 4 $`\times `$ 10-6 |
| $`\omega \pi ^0\pi ^0\gamma `$ | 7.2 $`\pm `$ 2.5 | 2.8 | 9 $`\times `$ 10-2 |
| $`\omega \pi ^0\eta \gamma `$ |  | 1.6 $`\times `$ 10-2 | 1.6 $`\times `$ 10-4 |

Vector fields were introduced as external field in the model in  and contributions of intermediate scalar mesons to these processes were calculated for the most interesting processes, namely $`\varphi \pi ^0\pi ^0\gamma `$, $`\varphi \pi ^0\eta \gamma `$ and $`\rho ,\omega \pi ^0\pi ^0\gamma `$. We refer to  for details. Here we just summarize the main results. From the theoretical point of view is worth to remark that the obtained amplitudes to these processes reduce to the $`𝒪(p^4)`$ $`\chi `$PT amplitudes obtained in  in the case of heavy scalars. In this sense, LSM yields results which are complementary to $`\chi `$PT. In addition to catch the physics of chiral loops the LSM amplitude is also able to reproduce the effects of the scalar poles at higher $`P^0P_{}^{0}{}_{}{}^{}`$ invariant mass values. In the case of $`\varphi P^0P_{}^{0}{}_{}{}^{}\gamma `$ pion loops are suppressed by G-parity, hence kaon loops give the most important contribution. The decay $`\varphi \pi ^0\pi ^0\gamma `$ is highly sensitive to the scalar mixing angle and it is not sensitive to the $`\sigma `$ mass whenever it be light since $`g_{\sigma KK}m_\sigma ^2m_K^2`$. Disastrous results are obtained for $`m_\sigma >600`$ MeV. The energy spectrum for this process is nicely reproduced by the calculations in the model . The calculated branching ratios, including intermediate vector meson contributions is $`BR(\varphi \pi ^0\pi ^0\gamma )_{\text{TH}}=1.08\times 10^4`$ which is to be compared with $`BR(\varphi \pi ^0\pi ^0\gamma )_{\text{EXP}}=1.08\pm 0.17\pm 0.09`$ measured by the CMD2 coll. and $`BR(\varphi \pi ^0\pi ^0\gamma )_{\text{EXP}}=1.14\pm 0.10\pm 0.12`$ obtained by the SND Coll. .

In the case of $`\varphi \pi ^0\eta \gamma `$, the only intermediate scalar is the $`a_0(980)`$. The corresponding spectrum is also reproduced in the model. The branching ratio calculated in the model is $`B(\varphi \pi ^0\eta \gamma )_{\mathrm{LSM}}=(0.75`$$`0.95)\times 10^4`$, to be compared with the values reported by the CMD2 Collaboration $`B(\varphi \pi ^0\eta \gamma )_{\mathrm{CMD2}}=(0.90\pm 0.24\pm 0.10)\times 10^4`$  and the SND result $`B(\varphi \pi ^0\eta \gamma )_{\mathrm{SND}}=(0.88\pm 0.14\pm 0.09)\times 10^4`$ . Improved data near the $`a_0`$ pole will be very important in the understanding of the $`a_0(980)`$ meson.

In the case of $`\rho \pi ^0\pi ^0\gamma `$ exchange of vector mesons account for $`25\%`$ of the measured BR, $`\chi `$ral loops (dominated by pions) account for another $`20\%`$ and the calculated BR taking into account both contributions  is within two standard deviations from the experimental results recently reported by the SND Coll.  and quoted in table above. An analysis of the energy spectrum as a function of the mass and width of the $`\sigma `$ meson shows that this process is sensitive enough to these quantities and a measurement of the spectrum can be used to extract the corresponding values. Integrating the $`\pi ^0\pi ^0`$ invariant mass spectrum and using the central values obtained by the E791 Collaboration $`m_\sigma =478_{23}^{+24}\pm 17`$ MeV and $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_\sigma =324_{40}^{+42}\pm 21`$ MeV we obtain $`BR(\rho \pi ^0\pi ^0\gamma )_{\text{LSM}}=1.5\times 10^5`$ .For $`m_\sigma =478`$ MeV and a narrower width $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_\sigma =263`$ MeV (as predicted by the LSM, see also ) we obtain $`BR(\rho \pi ^0\pi ^0\gamma )_{\text{LSM}}=2.1\times 10^5`$.

Finally, in the case of $`\omega \pi ^0\pi ^0\gamma `$ pion loops are also suppressed by G-parity and kaon loops should give the most important contribution. However, the intermediate scalars are $`f_0(980)`$ and $`\sigma `$ and the $`f_0(980)`$ has a large mass compared to the energy region of interest whereas $`\sigma `$ contributions are highly suppressed since $`g_{\sigma KK}m_\sigma ^2m_K^2`$. Hence, whenever the mass of the sigma meson be small, scalar effects are negligible in this process, although interference with the intermediate vector meson contributions seem to close the gap between the experimental results $`BR(\omega \pi ^0\pi ^0\gamma )_{\text{EXP}}=(7.2\pm 2.5)\times 10^5`$  and the VM contributions when we take care of including properly the $`\omega \rho `$ mixing  which yield $`BR(\omega \pi ^0\pi ^0\gamma )_{\text{TH}}=4.5\pm 1.1\times 10^5`$  (see also ).

### E Conclusions.

Summarizing, calculations for $`S\gamma \gamma `$ ($`S=a_0(980),f_0(980)`$) considering $`S`$ as a NR-quarkonium state yield results which are not consistent with experimental data. The same is true in the case of pseudoscalars. In this case the disagreement can be traced back to the strong distortion of the spectrum from naive quarkonium expectations due to QCD vacuum effects. Since scalars have the same quantum numbers as the vacuum, highly non-trivial effects are expected in this sector due to vacuum properties. We study such effects in the framework of a phenomenological $`U(3)\times U(3)`$ chiral lagrangian which incorporates spontaneous $`\chi `$S and $`U_A(1)`$ symmetry breaking. In this framework there is an important effect: the coupling of the $`U_A(1)`$ violating interaction to the spontaneous breaking of chiral symmetry which generates mass terms ($`U_A(1)`$-SB$`\chi `$S effect). This effect simultaneously explains: the smallness of the masses of the pions and kaons (an effect driven by quark masses), the OZI-rule violating mixing of flavor fields, the accidental degeneracy of the $`a_0(980)`$ and $`f_0(980)`$ , the lightness of the sigma meson and the controversial $`a_0,f_0\gamma \gamma `$ decays. Intermediate scalar contributions to $`V^0P^0P_{}^{0}{}_{}{}^{}\gamma `$ are also calculated. The energy spectrum of $`\varphi \pi ^0\pi ^0\gamma `$ is nicely described giving direct evidence for the assignment of the $`f_0(980)`$ and indirect evidence for a light $`\sigma `$. Calculations for total and partial BR’s are in good agreement with measurements from SND and CMD collaborations. Energy spectrum in $`\varphi \pi ^0\eta \gamma `$ is well described by the chiral loops + scalar resonant effects. Improvement in the measurements near the $`a_0`$ pole are encouraged. We also calculate the $`\rho \pi ^0\pi ^0\gamma `$ decay. The corresponding BR is sensitive to the parameters of the $`\sigma `$. The branching ratio as measured by the SND Coll. is consistent with the results of the model when the values for the mass and width of this scalar as measured by the E791 Collaboration are used. Measurements of the energy spectrum are encouraged. Finally, $`\omega \pi ^0\pi ^0\gamma `$ is not sensitive to scalar contributions.

### F Acknowledgements

I wish to thank J. L Lucio, S. Rodriguez, A. Bramon, R. Escribano, M. Kirchbach and A. Wirzba for an enjoyable collaboration. This work was supported by CONCYTEG, Mexico under contract 00-16-CONCYTEG-CONACYT-075.