-
The
B_s decay intoJ/\psi and two mesons is an excellent source of information on meson dynamics. At the quark level the decay proceeds via internal emission [1], as shown in Fig. 1. Thec \bar c quarks give rise to theJ/\psi and the extras \bar s , which appear in the Cabibbo favored decay mode, have isospinI = 0 . It is a rather clean process and indeed, in the LHCb experiment [2] thef_0(980) resonance was seen as a strong peak in the invariant mass distribution of\pi^+ \pi^- . The way\pi^+ \pi^- are produced is studied in detail in Ref. [3]. Thes \bar s pair of quarks is hadronized, introducing a\bar q q pair with vacuum quantum numbers, andK \bar K inI = 0 plus\eta \eta are produced, which are allowed to interact within the chiral unitary approach [4–7] to produce thef_0(980) resonance, which is dynamically generated from the interaction of pseudoscalar pairs and couples mostly toK \bar K . With such a clean process producingI = 0 , one finds a very interesting place to produce thea_0(980) , via isospin violation, and add extra information to the subject of thef_0(980)-a_0(980) mixing that has stimulated much work. Indeed, there are many works devoted to this subject [8–36] and some cases where, due to a triangle singularity, the amount of isospin breaking (we prefer this language rather than mixing, since there is not a universal mechanism for the mixing and it depends upon the particular reaction) is abnormally large [26, 27, 37]. The way thea_0(980) resonance can be produced in theB_s \to J/\psi \pi^0 \eta decay is tied to the nature off_0(980) anda_0(980) , since the resonances are dynamically generated by the pseudoscalar–pseudoscalar (PP ) interaction [4]. It is the meson–meson loops in the Bethe–Salpeter equation, particularlyK \bar K in the case off_0 anda_0 , that give rise to the resonances. TheK^+ K^- andK^0 \bar K^0 loops cancel forI = 1 starting from theI = 0 combination of the hadronizeds \bar s quarks, but only if the masses ofK^+ andK^0 are taken as equal. When the mass difference is considered, then the isospin is automatically broken and some peaks appear for the isospin-violating decay modes which are rather narrow and are tied to the kaon mass differences. The relation of thea_0-f_0 mixing to this mass difference is shared by most theoretical studies, starting from Ref. [8]. However, as shown in Ref. [38] in the study ofD_s \to e^+ \nu_e a_0(980) , isospin breaking takes place in the loop forK \bar K propagation in the decay but also in the same meson–meson scattering matrix, which enters the evaluation of the process, something already noticed in Ref. [39]. Yet, the two sources of isospin violation are different depending on the reaction studied, hence the importance of studying the isospin violation in different processes to gain information on the way the violation is produced and its dependence on the nature of thea_0(980) andf_0(980) resonances, which has originated much debate in the literature.We study the process of
a_0 andf_0 production, following the lines of Refs. [3] and [38], and by taking experimental information on theB_s \to J/\psi \pi^+ \pi^- reaction, we make predictions for the rate ofB_s \to J/\psi \pi^0 \eta production and the shape of the\pi^0 \eta mass distribution. The branching fraction obtained for this latter decay is of the order of5\times 10^{-6} , well within the range of rates already measured and reported by the PDG [40], which should stimulate its measurement in the future. -
The mechanism at the quark level for the
\bar{B}_s^0 \to J/\psi \pi^+ \pi^- (\pi^0 \eta) reaction is depicted in Fig. 1, having ans\bar{s} pair with isospinI = 0 at the end. Note that the light scalarsf_0(980) anda_0(980) haveI = 0, 1 , respectively. The production off_0(980) is isospin conserved, while the production ofa_0(980) is isospin forbidden and involves isospin violation.To obtain
\pi^+\pi^- or\pi^0\eta in the final state in Fig. 1, we need to hadronize thes\bar s pair by introducing an extra\bar q q pair with vacuum quantum numbers. We start with theq \bar q matrix M in SU(3),M = \left( {\begin{array}{*{20}{c}} {u\bar u}&{u\bar d}&{u\bar s}\\ {d\bar u}&{d\bar d}&{d\bar s}\\ {s\bar u}&{s\bar d}&{s\bar s} \end{array}} \right).
(1) Next, we write the matrix M in terms of pseudoscalar mesons, assuming that the
\eta is\eta_8 of SU(3),M \to {\cal P} = \left( {\begin{array}{*{20}{c}}\\[-5pt] {\dfrac{1}{{\sqrt 2 }}{\pi ^0} + \dfrac{1}{{\sqrt 6 }}\eta + \dfrac{1}{{\sqrt 3 }}\eta '}&{{\pi ^ + }}&{{K^ + }}\\ {{\pi ^ - }}&{ - \dfrac{1}{{\sqrt 2 }}{\pi ^0} + \dfrac{1}{{\sqrt 6 }}\eta + \dfrac{1}{{\sqrt 3 }}\eta '}&{{K^0}}\\ {{K^ - }}&{{{\bar K}^0}}&{ - \sqrt {\dfrac{2}{3}} \eta + \sqrt {\dfrac{1}{3}} \eta '}\\ \end{array}} \right), (2) which is often used in chiral perturbation theory [4]. On the other hand, when we consider the Bramon
\eta-\eta' mixing [41], the matrix M can be written asM \to {{\cal P}^{({m})}} = \left( {\begin{array}{*{20}{c}} {\dfrac{1}{{\sqrt 2 }}{\pi ^0} + \dfrac{1}{{\sqrt 3 }}\eta + \dfrac{1}{{\sqrt 6 }}\eta '}&{{\pi ^ + }}&{{K^ + }}\\ {{\pi ^ - }}&{ - \dfrac{1}{{\sqrt 2 }}{\pi ^0} + \dfrac{1}{{\sqrt 3 }}\eta + \dfrac{1}{{\sqrt 6 }}\eta '}&{{K^0}}\\ {{K^ - }}&{{{\bar K}^0}}&{ - \dfrac{1}{{\sqrt 3 }}\eta + \sqrt {\dfrac{2}{3}} \eta '} \end{array}} \right).
(3) Since the
\eta' is inessential in the dynamical generation of thef_0(980) anda_0(980) resonances [4], we will ignore the\eta' in the present work.After hadronization of the
s \bar s component, we obtains\bar s \to H = \sum\limits_i s\, \bar q_i q_i \, \bar s = \sum\limits_i {\mathcal{P}}_{3i} \; {\mathcal{P}}_{i3}\, = ({\mathcal{P}}^2)_{33}.
(4) In the case without
\eta-\eta' mixing, the matrix\mathcal{P} of Eq. (2) is used, and then the hadron component H in Eq. (4) is given byH = K^-K^+ + \bar K^0 K^0 + \frac{2}{3}\, \eta \eta.
(5) In the case with
\eta-\eta' mixing, one uses matrix\mathcal{P}^{(m)} of Eq. (3), and obtainsH = K^-K^+ + \bar K^0 K^0 + \frac{1}{3}\, \eta \eta,
(6) differing only in the
\eta\eta component, which affects the production off_0 but not the production ofa_0 . We define the weight of thePP components in H ash_{K^+K^-} = 1,\; \; \; \; h_{K^0 \bar K^0} = 1,\; \; \; \; h_{\eta\eta} = \frac{2}{3},\; \; \; \; h_{\eta\eta}^{(\mathrm{m})} = \frac{1}{3}.
(7) One can see that neither Eq. (5) nor Eq. (6) contains
\pi^+ \pi^- or\pi^0 \eta , but they can be produced by the final state interaction of theK \bar K and\eta \eta components, as depicted in Fig. 2. The transition matrix from thePP state to\pi^+ \pi^- or\pi^0 \eta is represented by the circle behind the meson–meson loop in Fig. 2, which contains the information off_0(980) anda_0(980) respectively. According to the method in Ref. [4] (the chiral unitary approach), these resonances are the result of thePP interaction in the coupled channelsK\bar K, \pi\pi, \pi\eta, \eta\eta .Figure 2. Final state interaction of the hadron components leading to
\pi^+\pi^- or\pi^0 \eta in the final state.By using the unitary normalization [4, 38], the amplitude for the
\bar{B}_s^0 \to J/\psi \pi^+ \pi^- decay, as a function of the\pi^+\pi^- invariant massM_{\rm{inv}}(\pi^+\pi^-) , is given by [38]\begin{aligned}[b] t_{\pi^+\pi^-} =& {\mathcal{C}}\left[ h_{K^+K^-} \cdot G_{K^+K^-} (M_{\rm{inv}}(\pi^+\pi^-)) \cdot T_{K^+K^-,\pi^+\pi^-}(M_{\rm{inv}}(\pi^+\pi^-)) \right. \\ & + h_{K^0 \bar K^0} \cdot G_{K^0 \bar K^0} (M_{\rm{inv}}(\pi^+\pi^-)) \cdot T_{K^0 \bar K^0,\pi^+\pi^-}(M_{\rm{inv}}(\pi^+\pi^-)) \\ & + h_{\eta\eta} \times 2\times \frac{1}{2} \cdot \left. G_{\eta\eta} (M_{\rm{inv}}(\pi^+\pi^-)) \cdot T_{\eta\eta,\pi^+\pi^-}(M_{\rm{inv}}(\pi^+\pi^-))\right], \end{aligned}
(8) and the amplitude for the
\bar{B}_s^0 \to J/\psi \pi^0 \eta decay, as a function of the\pi^0\eta invariant massM_{\rm{inv}}(\pi^0\eta) , is given by [38]\begin{aligned}[b] t_{\pi^0\eta} = & {\mathcal{C}}\left[ h_{K^+K^-} \cdot G_{K^+K^-} (M_{\rm{inv}}(\pi^0\eta)) \cdot T_{K^+K^-,\pi^0\eta}(M_{\rm{inv}}(\pi^0\eta)) \right. \\ & + h_{K^0 \bar K^0} \cdot G_{K^0 \bar K^0} (M_{\rm{inv}}(\pi^0\eta)) \cdot T_{K^0 \bar K^0,\pi^0\eta}(M_{\rm{inv}}(\pi^0\eta)) \\ & + h_{\eta\eta} \times 2\times \frac{1}{2} \cdot \left. G_{\eta\eta} (M_{\rm{inv}}(\pi^0\eta)) \cdot T_{\eta\eta,\pi^0\eta}(M_{\rm{inv}}(\pi^0\eta))\right], \end{aligned}
(9) with
\mathcal{C} an arbitrary normalization constant which is canceled in the ratio of thef_0 anda_0 production rates. For the case with\eta-\eta' mixing, the corresponding amplitudes can be obtained by replacingh_{\eta\eta} withh_{\eta\eta}^{(m)} in Eqs. (8) and (9).In Eqs. (8) and (9),
G_i is the loop function of the two intermediate pseudoscalar mesons, which is regularized with a three momentum cut-offq_{\rm{max}} [4],G_i(\sqrt{s}) = \int_0^{q_{\rm{max}}} \frac{q^2\; {\rm{d}}q}{(2\pi)^2}\; \frac{w_1+w_2}{w_1\, w_2 \,[s-(w_1 +w_2)^2+{\rm i} \epsilon]},
(10) with
w_j = \sqrt{m_j^2+\vec q^{\,2}} and\sqrt{s} the centre-of-mass energy of the two mesons in the loop.T_{i,j} is the total amplitude for thei\to j transition and can be obtained by solving the Bethe–Salpeter (BS) equation with sixPP coupled channels\pi^+\pi^- ,\pi^0\pi^0 ,K^+K^- ,K^0\bar{K}^0 ,\eta\eta and\pi^0\eta , in a matrix form,T = [1-V\,G]^{-1}\, V,
(11) where the matrix V is the kernel of the BS equation. Its elements
V_{ij} are the s-wave transition potentials which can be taken from Eq. (A3) and Eq. (A4) of Ref. [38], corresponding to the cases without and with\eta-\eta' mixing, respectively.The differential decay width for
\bar B_s^0\to J/\psi\pi^0\eta or\bar B_s^0\to J/\psi\pi^+\pi^- decay is given by\frac{{\rm{d}} \Gamma}{{\rm{d}} M_{\rm{inv}}(ij)} = \frac{1}{(2\pi)^3} \; \frac{1}{4M_{\bar B_s^0}^2}\; \frac{1}{3}\; p_{J/\psi}^2 \; p_{J/\psi}\; \tilde{p}_{\pi}\; |t_{ij}|^2,
(12) where
ij = \pi^+ \pi^- or\pi^0 \eta ,M_{\rm{inv}}(ij) is the invariant mass of the final\pi^+ \pi^- or\pi^0 \eta ,t_{\pi^+ \pi^-} andt_{\pi^0 \eta} are the amplitudes from Eq. (8) and Eq. (9) respectively,p_{J/\psi} is theJ/\psi momentum in the\bar B_s^0 rest frame, and\tilde{p}_{\pi} is the pion momentum in the rest frame of the\pi^+ \pi^- or\pi^0 \eta system,p_{J/\psi} = \frac{\lambda^{1/2}(M^2_{\bar B^0_s},M^2_{J/\psi},M_{\rm{inv}}^2)}{2M_{\bar B^0_s}},
(13) {\tilde p_\pi } = \left\{ {\begin{array}{*{20}{l}} {\dfrac{{{\lambda ^{1/2}}(M_{{\rm{inv}}}^2,m_\pi ^2,m_\pi ^2)}}{{2{M_{{\rm{inv}}}}}},}&{{\rm{for}}\;{\pi ^ + }{\pi ^ - }\;{\rm{production}},}\\ {\dfrac{{{\lambda ^{1/2}}(M_{{\rm{inv}}}^2,m_\pi ^2,m_\eta ^2)}}{{2{M_{{\rm{inv}}}}}},}&{{\rm{for}}\;{\pi ^0}\eta \;{\rm{production}},} \end{array}} \right.
(14) with
\lambda(x^2, y^2, z^2) = x^2+y^2+z^2-2xy-2yz-2zx the Källen function. In Eq. (12), the factor\dfrac{1}{3}\, p_{J/\psi}^2 stems from the fact that we need a p-wave to match angular momentum in the0^- \to 1^-\, 0^+ transition and we take a vertex of typep_{J/\psi}\, \cos \theta . -
We follow Ref. [38] and take the cut-off
q_{\rm{max}} = 600 MeV and650 MeV for the cases without\eta-\eta' mixing and with\eta-\eta' mixing respectively, with which thef_0(980) anda_0(980) resonances can be dynamically produced well from the PP interaction. The\pi^+ \pi^- and\pi^0 \eta mass distributions\frac{{\rm{d}} \Gamma}{{\rm{d}} M_{\rm{inv}}(ij)} are shown in Fig. 3 for the case without\eta-\eta' mixing and in Fig. 4 for the case with\eta-\eta' mixing, respectively. By comparing Fig. 3 and Fig. 4, one finds that the results of the two figures are very similar, and the difference between them can serve as an estimate of the uncertainties of our formalism.Figure 3. (color online)
M_{\rm inv}(\pi^+ \pi^-) mass distribution for\bar B_s^0 \to J/\psi f_0(980), f_0(980) \to \pi^+ \pi^- decay, andM_{\rm inv}(\pi^0 \eta) mass distribution for\bar B_s^0 \to J/\psi a_0(980), a_0(980) \to \pi^0 \eta decay. Inset: Magnified\pi^0 \eta . (Without\eta-\eta' mixing).Figure 4. (color online)
M_{\rm inv}(\pi^+ \pi^-) mass distribution for\bar B_s^0 \to J/\psi f_0(980), f_0(980) \to \pi^+ \pi^- decay, andM_{\rm inv}(\pi^0 \eta) mass distribution for\bar B_s^0 \to J/\psi a_0(980), a_0(980) \to \pi^0 \eta decay. Inset: Magnified\pi^0 \eta . (With\eta-\eta' mixing).Now, let us look at the
\pi^+ \pi^- and\pi^0 \eta mass distributions in Fig. 4 with\eta-\eta' mixing. One can see a strong peak forf_0(980) production in the\pi^+ \pi^- mass distribution and a small peak fora_0(980) production in the\pi^0 \eta mass distribution. Here the shape ofa_0(980) resonance is quite narrow, considerably different to the standard cusp-like shape (with a width of about 120 MeV) of the ordinary production ofa_0(980) in an isospin allowed reaction [42]. If isospin were conserved, one would find thea_0(980) production with zero strength. The small peak ofa_0(980) in Fig. 4 indicates that isospin violation takes places in the\bar{B}_s^0 \to J/\psi \pi^0 \eta reaction. According to Eq. (A4) of Ref. [38], we haveV_{K^+K^-,\pi^0\eta} = -V_{K^0 \bar K^0,\pi^0\eta} for the transition potentials. Hence, if we use average masses for kaons, there will be a precise cancellation of the first two terms of the amplitudet_{\pi^0\eta} in Eq. (9), resulting on zero strength fora_0(980) production. On the contrary, using the physical masses for the neutralK^0 and the chargedK^+ in the formalism results in the production of thea_0(980) resonance with a narrow shape related to the difference of mass between the charged and neutral kaons. In our picture, there are two sources of isospin violation: one is theK^+ ,K^0 mass difference for the explicitK^+ K^- andK^0 \bar K^0 loops in Fig. 2, and the other is from the T matrix involving rescattering in Fig. 2.It is interesting to investigate the effects of these two sources of isospin violation. For that, we follow Ref. [38] and define the ratio R, which reflects the amount of the isospin violation, as
R = \frac{\Gamma(\bar B_s^0 \to J/\psi a_0(980), a_0(980) \to \pi^0 \eta )} {\Gamma(\bar B_s^0 \to J/\psi f_0(980), f_0(980) \to \pi^+ \pi^-)},
(15) with decay widths
\Gamma[\bar B_s^0 \to J/\psi a_0(980) ,a_0(980) \to \pi^0 \eta ] and\Gamma[\bar B_s^0 \to J/\psi f_0(980), f_0(980) \to \pi^+ \pi^-] obtained by integrating Eq. (12) over the invariant massM_{\rm{inv}}(ij) .Under several different assumptions related to the two sources of isospin violation, we evaluate the ratio R. The results are shown in Table 1.
no \eta-\eta' mixingI.V. both in T matrix and in explicit K\bar K loops (Case 1)3.1\times 10^{-2} I.V. only in T matrix (Case 2) 3.5\times 10^{-2} I.V. only in explicit K\bar K loops (Case 3)7.0\times 10^{-4} with \eta-\eta' mixingI.V. both in T matrix and in explicit K\bar K loops (Case 4)3.7\times 10^{-2} I.V. only in T matrix (Case 5) 4.1\times 10^{-2} I.V. only in explicit K\bar K loops (Case 6)9.7\times 10^{-4} Table 1. Values of R with different assumptions. (In the table, I.V. denotes isospin violation.)
From Table 1, we observe that the ratio R with
\eta-\eta' mixing (Case 4) is about 20% bigger than that without\eta-\eta' mixing (Case 1). By comparing the values of R for Case 2 and Case 3 (or, for Case 5 and Case 6), we find that the isospin violation in the T matrix has a more important effect than that in the explicitK\bar K loops, being at least one order of magnitude larger. This fact is interesting, since in our picture thef_0(980) anda_0(980) resonances are dynamically generated from thePP interaction with the information on their nature contained in the T matrix. For the\bar B_s^0 \to J/\psi \pi^+ \pi^- (\pi^0 \eta) decay, neither the\pi^+ \pi^- nor the\pi^0 \eta can be directly produced froms\bar s hadronization [see Eqs. (5) and (6)], hence there is no contribution from the tree level. Instead, they are produced through the rescattering mechanism of Fig. 2, withf_0(980) anda_0(980) resonances as dynamically generated states from thePP interaction. The production rate of thef_0(980) (a_0(980) ) resonance in the\bar B_s^0 \to J/\psi \pi^+ \pi^- (\pi^0 \eta) decay is sensitive to the resonance information contained in the T matrix. Therefore, this mode is particularly suitable to test the nature off_0(980) anda_0(980) resonances and to investigate the isospin violation.From the PDG [40], the experimental branching ratio of the
\bar B_s^0 \to J/\psi f_0(980), f_0(980) \to \pi^+ \pi^- decay reads{\mathrm{Br}}[\bar B_s^0 \to J/\psi f_0(980), f_0(980) \to \pi^+ \pi^-] = (1.28 \pm 0.18)\times 10^{-4}.
(16) By using the ratio R in Table 1 and the branching ratio of Eq. (16), the branching ratio for
a_0(980) production can be obtained,\begin{aligned}[b]& {\rm{Br}}[\bar B_s^0 \to J/\psi {a_0}(980),{a_0}(980) \to {\pi ^0}\eta ] \\=& \left\{ {\begin{array}{*{20}{l}} {(3.95 \pm 0.56) \times {{10}^{ - 6}},}&{{\rm{for}}\;{\rm{Case}}\;1;}\\ {(4.74 \pm 0.67) \times {{10}^{ - 6}},}&{{\rm{for}}\;{\rm{Case}}\;4.} \end{array}} \right. \end{aligned}
(17) This branching ratio is of the order of
5\times 10^{-6} , not too small considering that several rates of the order of10^{-7} are tabulated in the PDG [40]. The branching ratio and the shape of the\pi^0 \eta mass distribution of the\bar B_s^0 \to J/\psi \pi^0 \eta decay provide relevant information on the nature of thea_0(980) resonance. Experimental measurements will be very valuable. -
In the present work, we study the isospin allowed decay process
\bar B_s^0 \to J/\psi \pi^+ \pi^- and the isospin forbidden decay process\bar B_s^0 \to J/\psi \pi^0 \eta , paying attention to the different sources of isospin violation.First, we have
J/\psi\; s\bar s production in the\bar B_s^0 decay, via internal emission as shown in Fig. 1. After the hadronization ofs \bar s into meson–meson components, we obtainK\bar K pairs and\eta \eta , while\pi^+ \pi^- and\pi^0 \eta are not produced at this step. Therefore, to see\pi^+\pi^- or\pi^0\eta in the final state, rescattering of theK \bar K or\eta \eta components is needed to produce\pi^+ \pi^- and\pi^0 \eta at the end. The picture shows that the weak decay amplitudes are proportional to the T matrix of the meson–meson transitions. We can obtain information about the violation of isospin from these magnitudes. In Figs. 3 and 4, we observe a clear signal forf_0(980) production. We also observe that the shape of the\pi^0 \eta mass distribution is very different from the shape of the commona_0(980) production in isospin-allowed reactions, and it is related to the difference in mass between the charged and neutral kaons. In the production ofa_0(980) we find two sources of isospin violation: one is that the loops containingK^+ K^- orK^0 \bar K^0 do not cancel due to the different mass between the charged and neutral kaons, and the other is that the transition T matrix of the meson–meson interaction already contains some isospin violation. In fact, we find that the contribution from isospin violation in the T matrix is far more important than the contribution of the explicit loops in the weak decay, being at least one order of magnitude larger. The study here shows that this reaction is very sensitive to the way the resonances are generated.The
D_s^+ semileptonic decay [38] and\bar B_s^0 mesonic decay both produce ans \bar s pair at the end, and the two resonances off_0(980) anda_0(980) are produced dynamically by the interaction of pseudoscalar mesons through the chiral unitary approach. The results ofD_s^+ semileptonic decay are consistent with the experimental upper bound. We also calculate the branching ratio of\bar B_s^0 \to J/\psi a_0(980) fora_0(980) production, and the values are not too small, of the order of5\times 10^{-6} . Our results provide a reference basis for experiments, which we expect to be carried out in the near future.
The {\bar{\boldsymbol B}_{\boldsymbol s}^{\bf 0} \to {\boldsymbol J}/\boldsymbol\psi \boldsymbol\pi^{\bf 0}\boldsymbol \eta} decay and the {{\boldsymbol a}_{\bf 0}{\bf (980)}-{\boldsymbol f}_{\bf 0}{\bf (980)}} mixing
- Received Date: 2022-04-13
- Available Online: 2022-08-15
Abstract: We study the