Upload
greyson-jordon
View
219
Download
5
Tags:
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
Partial Wave AnalysisLectures at the “School on Hadron Physics”
Klaus PetersRuhr Universität Bochum
Varenna, June 2004
E. Fermi CLVII Course
2
Overview
Overview
Introduction and Concepts
Spin Formalisms
Dynamical Functions
Technical Issues
3
Overview – Introduction and Concepts
Overview
Introduction and Concepts
Spin Formalisms
Dynamical Functions
Technical Issues
GoalsWave ApproachIsobar-ModelLevel of Detail
4
Overview – Spin Formalisms
Overview
Introduction and Concepts
Spin Formalisms
Dynamical Functions
Technical Issues
Overview
Zemach Formalism
Canonical Formalism
Helicity Formalism
Moments Analysis
5
Overview - Dynamical Functions
Overview
Introduction and Concepts
Spin Formalisms
Dynamical Functions
Technical Issues
Breit-Wigner
S-/T-Matrix
K-Matrix
P/Q-Vector
N/D-Method
Barrier Factors
Interpretation
6
Overview – Technical Issues / Fitting
Overview
Introduction and Concepts
Spin Formalisms
Dynamical Functions
Technical Issues
Coding Amplitudes
Speed is an Issue
Fitting Methods
Caveats
FAQ
7
Header – Introduction and Concepts
Introduction& Concepts
Introduction and Concepts
Spin Formalisms
Dynamical Functions
Technical issues
8
What is the mission ?
Particle physics at small distances is well understoodOne Boson Exchange, Heavy Quark Limits
This is not true at large distancesHadronization, Light mesonsare barely understood compared to their abundance
Understanding interaction/dynamics of light hadrons willimprove our knowledge about non-perturbative QCDparameterizations will give provide toolkit to analyze heavy quark processesthus an important tool also for precise standard model tests
We needAppropriate parameterizations for the multi-particle phase spaceA translation from the parameterizations to effective degrees of freedom for a deeper understanding of QCD
9
Goal
For whatever you need the parameterization of the n-Particle phase space
It contains the static properties of the unstable (resonant) particles within the decay chain like
masswidthspin and parities
as well as properties of the initial stateand some constraints from the experimental setup/measurement
The main problem is, you don‘t need just a good description,you need the right one
Many solutions may look alike but only one is right
10
Intermediate State Mixing
Many states may contribute to a final state
not only ones with well defined (already measured) propertiesnot only expected ones
Many mixing parameters are poorly known
K-phasesSU(3) phases
In additionalso D/S mixing(b1, a1 decays)
11
n-Particle Phase space, n=3
2 ObservablesFrom four vectors 12Conservation laws -4Meson masses -3Free rotation -3Σ 2
Usual choiceInvariant mass m12
Invariant mass m13
π3
π2pp
π1
Dalitz plot
12
J/ψ π+π-π0
Angular distributions are easily seen in the Dalitz plot
cosθ
-1 0 +1
13
Phase Space Plot - Dalitz Plot
dN ~ (E1dE1) (E2dE2) (E3dE3)/(E1E2E3)
Energy conservation E3 = Etot-E1-E2
Phase space density ρ = dN/dEtot ~ dE1 dE2
Kinetic energies Q=T1+T2+T3
Plot x=(T2-T1)/√3
y=T3-Q/3
Flat, if no dynamics is involved
Q smallQ large
14
The first plots τ/θ-Puzzle
Dalitz applied it first to KL-decays
The former τ/θ puzzle with only a few eventsgoal was to determine spin and parity
And he never called them Dalitz plots
15
Interference problem
PWAThe phase space diagram in hadron physics shows a patterndue to interference and spin effectsThis is the unbiased measurementWhat has to be determined ?
Analogy Optics ⇔ PWA# lamps ⇔ # level# slits ⇔ # resonancespositions of slits ⇔ massessizes of slits ⇔ widths
but only if spins are properly assigned
bias due to hypothetical spin-parity assumption
Optics
Dalitz plot
16
It’s All a Question of Statistics ...
pp 30 with
100 events
17
It’s All a Question of Statistics ... ...
pp 30 with
100 events1000 events
18
It’s All a Question of Statistics ... ... ...
pp 30 with
100 events1000 events10000 events
19
It’s All a Question of Statistics ... ... ... ...
pp 30 with
100 events1000 events10000 events100000 events
20
Experimental Techniques
Scattering Experiments
πN - N* measurementπN - meson spectroscopy
E818, E852 @ AGS, GAMSpp meson threshold production
Wasa @ Celsius, COSYpp or πp in the central region
WA76, WA91, WA102γN – photo production
Cebaf, Mami, Elsa, Graal
“At-rest” Experiments
pN @ rest at LEARAsterix, Obelix, Crystal Barrel
J/ψ decaysMarkIII,DM2,BES,CLEO-c
ф(1020) decaysKloe @ Dafne, VEPP
D and Ds decays
FNAL, Babar, Belle
21
Introducing Partial Waves
Schrödinger‘s Equation
Angular Amplitude
Dynamic Amplitude
22
Argand Plot
23
Standard Breit-Wigner
Full circle in the Argand PlotPhase motion from 0 to π
Intensity I=ΨΨ*
Phase δ Speed dφ/dm
Argand Plot
24
Breit-Wigner in the Real World
e+e- ππ
mππ
ρ-ω
25
Dynamical Functions are Complicated
Search for resonance enhancements is a major tool in meson spectroscopy
The Breit-Wigner Formula was derived for a single resonance appearing in a single channel
But: Nature is more complicatedResonances decay into several channelsSeveral resonances appear within the same channelThresholds distort line shapes due to available phase space
A more general approach is needed for a detailed understanding (see last lecture!)
26
Isobar Model
Generalizationconstruct any many-body system as a tree of subsequent two-body decaysthe overall process is dominated by two-body processesthe two-body systems behave identical in each reactiondifferent initial states may interfere
We needneed two-body “spin”-algebra
various formalisms
need two-body scattering formalismfinal state interaction, e.g. Breit-Wigner
Isobar
27
The Full Amplitude
For each node an amplitude f(I,I3,s,Ω) is obtained.
The full amplitude is the sum of all nodes.Summed over all unobservables
28
Example: Isospin Dependence
pp initial states differ in isospin
Calculate isospin Clebsch-Gordan
1S0 destructive interferences3S1 ρ0π0 forbidden
29
Header – Spin Formalisms
Spin Formalisms
Introduction and Concepts
Spin Formalisms
Dynamical Functions
Technical Issues
30
Formalisms – on overview
Tensor formalismsin non-relativistic (Zemach) or covariant formFast computation, simple for small L and S
Spin-projection formalismswhere a quantization axis is chosen and proper rotations are used to define a two-body decayEfficient formalisms, even large L and S easy to handle
Formalisms based on Lorentz invariants (Rarita-Schwinger)where each operator is constructed from Mandelstam variables onlyElegant, but extremely difficult for large L and S
31
How To Construct a Formalism
Key steps are
Definition of single particle states of given momentum and spin component (momentum-states),
Definition of two-particle momentum-states in the s-channel center-of-mass system and of amplitudes between them,
Transformation to states and amplitudes of given total angular momentum (J-states),
Symmetry restrictions on the amplitudes,
Derive Formulae for observable quantities.
32
Zemach Formalism
For particle with spin Straceless tensor of rank S
with indices
Similar for orbital angular momentum L
33Example: Zemach – pp (0-+)f2π0
Construct total spin 0 amplitude
Angulardistribution(Intensity)
A=Af2π x Aππ
34
The Original Zemach Paper
35
Spin-Projection Formalisms
Differ in choice of quantization axis
Helicity Formalismparallel to its own direction of motion
Transversity Formalismthe component normal to the scattering plane is used
Canonical (Orbital) Formalismthe component m in the incident z-direction is diagonal
37
Properties
Helicity Transversity Canonical
property possibility/simplicity
partial wave expansion simple complicated complicated
parity conservation no yes yes
crossing relation no good bad
specification of kinematical constraints
no yes yes
38
Rotation of States
Canonical System Helicity System
39
Single Particle State
Canonical
1) momentum vector is rotated via z-direction. Secondly2) absolute value of the momentum is Lorentz boosted along z3) z-axis is rotated to the momentum direction
40
Single Particle State
Helicity
1) z-axis is rotated to the momentum direction 2) Lorentz BoostTherefore the new z-axis, z’, is parallel to the momentum
41
Two-Particle State
Canonicalconstructed from two single-particle states(back-to-back)
Couple s and t to S
Couple L and S to J
Spherical Harmonics
42
Two-Particle State
Helicitysimilar procedure
no recoupling needed
normalization
43
Completeness and Normalization
Canonical
completeness
normalization
Helicity
completeness
normalization
44
CanonicalFrom two-particle state
LS-Coefficients
Canonical Decay Amplitudes
45
Helicity Decay Amplitudes
HelicityFrom two-particle state
Helicity amplitude
46
Spin Density and Observed Number of Events
To finally calculate the intensityi.e. the number of eventsobserved
Spin density of the initial state
Sum over all unobservables
taking into account
47
Relations Canonical ⇔ Helicity
Recoupling coefficients
Start with
Canonical to Helicity
Helicity to Canonical
48
Clebsch-Gordan Tables
Clebsch-Gordan Coefficients are usually tabled in a graphical form(like in the PDG)
Two cases
coupling two initial particles with |j1m1> and |j2m2> to final system <JM|
decay of an initial system |JM> to <j1m1| and <j2m2|
j1 and j2 do not explicitly appear in the tables
all values implicitly contain a square root
Minus signs are meant to be used in front of the square root
j1 x j2J J
M M
m1 m2
<j1m1j2m2|JM>m1 m2
49
Using Clebsch-Gordan Tables, Case 1
1 x 12
+2 2 1
+1 +1 1 +1 +1
+1 0 1/2 1/2 2 1 0
0 +1 1/2 -1/2 0 0 0
+1 -1 1/6 1/2 1/3
0 0 2/3 0 -1/3 2 1
-1 +1 1/6 -1/2 1/3 -1 -1
-1 0 1/2 1/2 2
0 -1 1/2 -1/2 -2
-1 -1 1
( )
( )
1 1
2 2
1 1 2 2
JM 20
j m 11
j m 1 1
j m j m JM 11 1 1 20
16
=
=
= -
= -
=
50
1 x 12
+2 2 1
+1 +1 1 +1 +1
+1 0 1/2 1/2 2 1 0
0 +1 1/2 -1/2 0 0 0
+1 -1 1/6 1/2 1/3
0 0 2/3 0 -1/3 2 1
-1 +1 1/6 -1/2 1/3 -1 -1
-1 0 1/2 1/2 2
0 -1 1/2 -1/2 -2
-1 -1 1
Using Clebsch-Gordan Tables, Case 2
1 1
2 2
1 1 2 2
JM 00
j m 10
j m 10
j m j m JM 10 10 00
13
=
=
=
=
= -
51
Parity Transformation and Conservation
Parity transformationsingle particle
two particles
helicity amplitude relations (for P conservation)
52f2 ππ (Ansatz)
Initial: f2(1270) IG(JPC) = 0+(2++)
Final: π0 IG(JPC) = 1-(0-+)Only even angular momenta, since ηf=ηπ
2(-1)l
Total spin s=2sπ=0
Ansatz( )
( )
( )( )
( )
1 2 1 2
J M J J*λ λ J λ λ Mλ
1 2
2M 2 2*00 2 00 M0
22 00 20 20
1 1
2M 2*00 20 M0
A N F D φ,θ
λ λ λ 0
J 2
A N F D φ,θ
N F 5 20 00 20 00 00 00 a 5a
A 5a D φ,θ
=
= - =
=
=
= =
=
E555555F E555555F
53f2 ππ (Rates)
Amplitude has to be symmetrized because of the final state particles
( ) ( )( ) ( )
( )( )( )
( )
( ) ( )
( ) ( )
( )
2 2iφ2 0
2 iφ1 0
1M 200 20 00
2 iφ102 2iφ20
1M 1M'*00 MM' 00
M,M'
2 22 0
21 0
2 200
d θ ed θ e
A 5a d θd θ ed θ e
I θ A ρ A
11ρ
2J 1 1
6d θ sin θ
4
3d θ sinθcosθ
23 1
d θ cos θ2 2
--
--
±
±
é ùê úê úê úê ú=ê úê úê úê úë û
=
æ ö÷ç ÷ç= ÷ç ÷ç+ ÷÷çè ø
=
= -
æ ö÷ç= - ÷ç ÷÷çè ø
å
O
( )
4 2 2 4 2
22 4 2 2 2
20
1 3 1 115 sin θ sin θcos θ cos θ cos θ
4 4 2 12
2
20
15 3 1I θ a sin θ 15sin θcos θ 5 cos θ
4 2 2
a const
æ ö÷ç + + - + ÷ç ÷÷çè ø
æ öæ ö ÷ç ÷ç ÷ç= + + - ÷÷çç ÷÷ç ÷è øç ÷çè ø
= =
E5555555555555555555555555555555F
54
ω π0γ (Ansatz)
Initial: ω IG(JPC) = 0-(1--)Final: π0 IG(JPC) = 1-(0-+)
γ IG(JPC) = 0(1--)Only odd angular momenta, since ηω=ηπηγ(-1)l
Only photon contributes to total spin s=sπ+sγ
Ansatz( )
( )
( )( )
( )
1 2 1 2
J M J J*λ λ J λ λ Mλ
1 2 γ 1
1M 1 1*λ0 1 λ0 Mλ
11 λ0 11 11
λ 1
2
1M 1*λ0 11 Mλ
A N F D φ,θ
λ λ λ λ λ
J 1
A N F D φ,θ
3N F 3 10 1λ J λ 1λ 00 1λ a λ a
2
3A λ a D φ,θ
2
-
=
= - = =
=
=
= = -
= -
E55555F E55555F
55
ω π0γ (Rates)
λγ=±1 do not interfere, λγ=0 does not exist for real photons
Rate depends on density matrixChoose uniform density matrix as an example
( )( ) ( ) ( ) ( )( ) ( ) ( )
( ) ( ) ( )
( )
( ) ( ) ( ) ( )
( ) ( ) ( ) ( )
1 iφ 1 iφ1 1 1 1
1M 1 1λ0 010 1
1 iφ 1 iφ111 1
1M 1M'*λ0 MM' λ '0 λλ '
M,M',λ,λ '
1 11 1 1 1
1 1 110 01 0 1
d θ e 0 d θ e3
A d θ 0 d θ2
d θ e 0 d θ e
I θ A ρ A δ
1 0 01ρ 0 1 0
3 0 0 1
1 cosθd θ d θ
2sinθ
d θ d θ d θ2
- -- - -
-
-
±
-
é ù-ê úê ú= - -ê úê ú-ê úë û
=
æ ö÷ç ÷ç= ÷ç ÷ç ÷÷çè ø
±= =
= - = =
å
m
2 21 1 cosθ 1 cosθ
I 2 2 22 2 2
æ ö æ ö- +÷ ÷ç ç= + +÷ ÷ç ç÷ ÷÷ ÷ç çè ø è ø
2sin θ
2
2 211 cos θ sin θ 1
2const
é ùê úê úê úë û
é ù= + + =ê úë û
=
56f0,2 γγ (Ansatz)
Initial: f0,2 IG(JPC) = 0+(0,2++)
Final: γ IG(JPC) = 0(1--)
Only even angular momenta, since ηf=ηγ2(-1)l
Total spin s=2sγ=2, l=0,2 (f0), l=0,2,4 (f2)
Ansatz ( )
( ) ( )( )
( ) ( )( )
( ) ( )( )
1 2 1 2
1 2
00 0 0*λ λ 1 λ λ 0λ
00 λ λ 1 1 2 2 ls
ls
00 1 2
22 1 2
00 22
J 0
A N F D φ,θ
N F l0 sλ J λ s λ s λ sλ a
1a 00 00 00 1λ 1 λ 0λ
5a 20 20 00 1λ 1 λ 2λ
1 1a a
3 6
=
=
= -
= -
+ -
= +
å
( )1 2 1 2
JM J J*λ λ J λ λ Mλ
1 2
A N F D φ,θ
λ λ λ
=
= -
57f0,2 γγ (cont‘d)
Ratio between a00 and a22 is not measurable
Problem even worse for J=2
( )
( )
1 1 1 1
00 0 0*λ λ 1 λ λ 00
0*00 22 00
const
A N F D φ,θ
1 1a a D φ,θ
3 6
const
=
é ùê ú= +ê úê úë û
=
E5555F
( )
( ) ( )( )
( ) ( )( )
( ) ( )( )
( ) ( )( )
1 2 1 2
1 2
2M 2 2*λ λ 2 λ λ Mλ
22 λ λ 1 1 2 2 ls
ls
20 1 2
22 1 2
42 1 2
J 2
A N F D φ,θ
N F l0 sλ J λ s λ s λ sλ a
5a 20 00 2λ 1λ 1 λ 00
5a 20 2λ 2λ 1λ 1 λ 2λ
9a 40 2λ 2λ 1λ 1 λ 2λ
=
=
= -
= -
+ -
+ -
å
58f0,2 γγ (cont‘d)
Usual assumption J=λ=2
( ) ( )( )
( )( )
( )( )
( ) ( )( ) ( )
( )
22 1 2 ls1 1
ls
22
127
42
t.b.d. 1
2M 2 2 2*2 M21 1 1 1
2*2 M2
000
N F l0 s2 2 s 1 s 1 s2 a
5a 20 22 22 11 11 22
9a 40 22 22 11 11 22
Symmetrization
A N F F D φ,θ
N 'D φ,θ
Comparison
A N '
-
- -
=
= +
+
= +
=
=
å
E555555F E55555F
E555555F 14444244443
59
pp (2++) ππ
Proton antiproton in flight into two pseudo scalarsInitial: pp J,M=0,±1Final: π IG(JPC) = 1-(0-+)
Ansatz
Problem: d-functions are not orthogonal, if φ is not observedambiguities remain in the amplitude – polarization is needed
( )
( )
( )( )
( ) ( )
1 2 1 2
lJ
JM J J*λ λ J λ λ Mλ
1 2
JM J J*00 J 00 M0
JJ 00 l0 J0
l δ 1
JM J* J* iMφ00 J0 M0 J0 M0
A N F D φ,θ
λ λ λ 0
J l
A N F D φ,θ
N F 2J 1 l0 00 J0 00 00 00 a 2J 1a
A 2J 1a D φ,θ 2J 1a d θ e-
=
= - =
=
=
= + = +
= + = +
å E55555F E555555F
60
pp π0ω
Two step processFirst step ppπ0ω - Second step ωπ0γCombine the amplitudes
helicity constant aω,11 factorizes and is unimportant for angular distributions
( ) ( ) ( )
( ) ( )
( ) ( ) ( )
( ) ( ) ( )
ω
ω γ γ ω
γ ω γ ω ω
ω γ ω
ω γ ω
1λJM JMλ λ ω γ λ 0 γ λ 0 ω
1 J* J J*ω,1 λ 0 λ λ γ pp,J λ 0 Mλ ω
1* J*ω,11 λ λ γ ω ω pp,l1 Mλ ω
l
1* J*ω,11 λ λ γ Mλ ω ω ω pp,l1
l
A Ω ,Ω A Ω A Ω
N F D Ω N F D Ω
3λ a D Ω 2l 1 l0 1λ J λ a D Ω
2
3λ a D Ω D Ω 2l 1 l0 1λ J λ a
2
=
=
= - +
= - +
å
å
61pp (0-+) f2π0
Initial: pp IG(JPC) = 1-(0-+)Final: f2(1270) IG(JPC) = 0+(2++)
π0 IG(JPC) = 1-(0-+)is only possible from L=2
Ansatz ( )
( ) ( ) ( ) ( )
( )( )
( )( )
( ) ( )
1 2 1 2
2 2 2
2 2
2 2
J M J J*λ λ J λ λ Mλ
00 20 0 0* 2 2*00 f 00 π pp,0 00 00 ff ,2 00 00 π
0pp,0 00 pp,22
115
2f ,2 00 f ,20
1 1
00 20 2*00 f 00 π pp,22 f ,20 00
A N F D Ω
A Ω A Ω N F D Ω N F D Ω
N F 1 20 20 00 20 00 20 a
N F 5 20 00 20 00 00 00 a
A Ω A Ω 5a a D
=
=
=
=
=
E555555F E555555F
E555555F E555555F
( )
( )
2
2
2π pp,22 f ,20
22 2
pp,22 f ,20
3 1Ω 5a a cos θ
2 2
3 1I cosθ 5 a a cos θ
2 2
æ ö÷ç= - ÷ç ÷÷çè ø
æ ö÷ç= - ÷ç ÷÷çè ø
2
1 2
pp
f
λ λ λ 0
J 0
J 2
= - =
=
=
62
General Statements
Flat angular distributions
General rules for spin 0initial state has spin 0
0 any
both final state particles have spin 0J 0+0
Special rules for isotropic density matrix and unobserved azimuth angle
one final state particle has spin 0 and the second carries the same spin as the initial state
J J+0
63
Moments Analysis
Consider reaction
Total differential cross section
expand H
leading to
64
Moments Analysis cont‘d
Define now a density tensor
the d-function productscan be expanded in spherical harmonics
and the density matrix gets absorbed in a spherical moment
65
Example: Where to start in Dalitz plot anlysis
Sometimes a moment-analysis can help to find important contributionsbest suited if no crossing bands occur
( ) ( )
( ) ( )
LM0
LM0
t LM D φ,θ,0
I Ω D φ,θ,0 dΩ
=
= ò
D0KSK+K-
66
Proton-Antiproton Annihilation @ Rest
Atomic initial systemformation at high n, l (n~30)slow radiative transitionsde-excitation through collisions (Auger effect)Stark mixing of l-levels (Day, Snow, Sucher‚ 1960)
AdvantagesJPC varies with target densityisospin varies with n (d) or p targetincoherent initial statesunambiguous PWA possible
Disadvantagesphase space very limitedsmall kaon yield
LL
K(1%) rad. Transition
Stark-Effectext. Auger-Effect
S-Wave
P-Wave(99% of 2P)
Annihilation
S P D F
n=4
n=3
n=2
n=1
67
Initial States @ Rest
Quantumnumbers
G=(-1)I+L+S
P=(-1)L+1
C=(-1)L+S CP=(-1)2L+S+1
I=0
I=1
JPC IG L S
1S0 0-+ pseudo scalar 1-;0+ 0 0
3S1 1-- vector 1+;0- 0 1
1P1 1+- axial vector 1+;0- 1 0
3P0 0++ scalar 1-;0+ 1 1
3P1 1++ axial vector 1-;0+ 1 1
3P2 2++ tensor 1-;0+ 1 1
68
Proton-Antiproton Annihilation in Flight
0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0
10
1
P [GeV/c]lab
l=4
l=3
l=2l=1
ang. mom. ~ /0.2 GeV/
ll p ccms
ann= l l
l(p)=(2l+1) [1-exp(- (p))] / p l2
l(p)=N(p) exp(-3l(l+1)/4p R ) 2 2100
l [
mb]
Annihilation in flightscattering process:no well defined initial statemaximum angular momentum rises with energy
Advantageslarger phase spaceformation experiments
Disadvantagesmany waves interfere with each othermany waves due to large phase space
69
Scattering Amplitudes in Flight (I)
pp helicity amplitude
only H++ and H+- exist
C-InvarianceH++=0 if L+S-J odd
CP-InvarianceH+-=0 if S=0 and/or J=0
( )( )( )
( ) ( )
1 2
1 2 2 1
Jν ν 1 1 2 2
L,S
JJ Jν ν J ν ν
2L 1H L0Sν J ν s ν s ν Sν J MLS J M
2J 1
H η 1 H- -
+= -
+
= -
å M
CP transformCP=(-1)2L+S+1
S and CP directly correlatedCP conserved in strong int.singlet and triplet decoupled
C transformL and P directly correlated
C conserved in strong int.(if total charge is q=0)
odd and even L decouples
4 incoherent sets of coherent amplitudes
70
Scattering Amplitudes in Flight (II)
Singlett even L
JPC L S H++ H+-
1S0 0-+ 0 0 Yes No
1D2 2-+ 2 0 Yes No
1G4 4-+ 4 0 Yes No
Triplett even L
JPC L S H++ H+-
3S1 1-- 0 1 Yes Yes
3D1 1-- 2 1 Yes Yes
3D2 2-- 2 1 Yes Yes
3D3 3-- 2 1 Yes Yes
Singlett odd L
JPC L S H++ H+-
1P1 1+- 1 0 Yes No
1F3 3+- 3 0 Yes No
1G5 5+- 5 0 Yes No
Triplett odd L
JPC L S H++ H+-
3P0 0++ 1 1 Yes No
3P1 1++ 1 1 No Yes
3P2 2++ 1 1 Yes Yes
3F2 2++ 3 1 Yes No
3F3 3++ 3 1 No Yes
3F4 4++ 3 1 Yes Yes
71
Header – Dynamical Functions
Dynamical Functions
Introduction and concepts
Spin Formalisms
Dynamical Functions
Technical issues
72
S-Matrix
Differential cross section
Scattering amplitude
Total scattering cross section
S-Matrix
with
and
73
Harmonic Oscillator
Free oscillator
Damped oscillator
Solution
External periodic force
Oscillation strengthand phase shiftLorentz function
74
T-Matrix from Scattering
Back to Schrödinger‘s equation
Incoming wave
Solves the equation
solution without interaction
solution with interaction
incomingwave
outgoingwave
inelasticity and phase shift
75
T-Matrix from Scattering (cont’d)
Scatteringwave function
Scattering amplitudeand T-Matrix
Example: ππ-Scatteringbelow 1 GeV/c2
76
(In-)Elastic cross sections and T-Matrix
Total cross section
Identify elastic
and inelastic part
using the optical theorem
77
Breit-Wigner Function
Wave function for an unstable particle
Fourier transformation for E dependence
Finally our first Breit-Wigner
78
Dressed Resonances – T-Matrix & Field Theory
Suppose we have a resonance with mass m0
We can describe this with a propagator
But we may have a self-energy term
leading to
79
T-Matrix Perturbation
We can have an infinite number of loops inside our propagator
every loop involves a coupling b,so if b is small, this converges like a geometric series
+ ... =
+ +
80
T-Matrix Perturbation – Retaining Breit-Wigner
So we get
and the full amplitude with a “dressed propagator” leads to
which is again a Breit-Wigner like function, but the bare energy E0 has now changed into E0-<{b}
81
Relativistic Breit-Wigner
By migrating from Schrödinger‘s equation (non-relativistic)to Klein-Gordon‘s equation (relativistic) the energy term changesdifferent energy-momentum relation E=p2/m vs. E2=m2c4+p2c2
The propagators change to sR-s from mR-m
Intensity I=ΨΨ*Phase δArgand Plot
82
Barrier Factors - Introduction
At low energies, near thresholdsbut is not valid far away from thresholds -- otherwise the width would explode and the integral of the Breit-Wigner diverges
Need more realistic centrifugal barriers known as Blatt-Weisskopf damping factors
We start with the semi-classical impact parameter
and use the approximation for the stationary solution of the radial differential equation
withwe obtain
83
Blatt-Weisskopf Barrier Factors
The energy dependence is usually parameterized in terms of spherical Hankel-Functions
we define Fl(q) with thefollowing features
Main problem is the choice of the scale parameter qR=qscale
84
Blatt-Weisskopf Barrier Factors (l=0 to 3)
Usage
85
Barrier factors
Scales and Formulaeformula was derived from a cylindrical potentialthe scale (197.3 MeV/c) may be different for different processesvalid in the vicinity of the poledefinition of the breakup-momentum
Breakup-momentummay become complex (sub-threshold)set to zero below threshold
need <Fl(q)>=∫Fl(q)dBWFl(q)~ql
complex even above thresholdmeaning of mass and width are mixed up
Resonant daughters
2 2
2 a b a bii i
m m m m2q1 as m ; 1 1
m m mρ ρ
é ùé ùæ ö æ ö+ -ê úê ú÷ ÷ç ç® ® ¥ = = - -÷ ÷ç çê úê ú÷ ÷÷ ÷ç çè ø è øê úê úë ûë ûRe(q)
Im(q
)
threshold
86
T-Matrix Unitarity Relations
Unitarity is a basic featuresince probability has to be conserved
T is unitary if S is unitary
since
we get in addition
87
T-Matrix Dispersion Relations
Cauchy Integral on a closed contour
By choosing proper contoursand some limits one obtains the dispersion relation for Tl(s)
Satisfying this relation with an arbitraryparameterization is extremely difficultand is dropped in many approaches
88
K-Matrix Definition
T is n x n matrix representing n incoming and n outgoing channel
If the matrix K is a real and symmetricalso n x n
then the T is unitary by construction
89
K-Matrix Properties
T is then easily computed from K
T and K commute
K is the Caley transform of S
Some more properties
90
Example: ππ-Scattering
1 channel 2 channel
91
Relativistic Treatment
So far we did not care about relativistic kinematics
covariant description
or
and
with
therefore
and K is changed as well
92
Relativistic Treatment – 2 channel
S-Matrix
2 channel T-Matrix
to be compared with the non-relativistic case
93
K-Matrix Poles
Now we introduce resonancesas poles (propagators)
One may add cij a real polynomial
of m2 to account for slowly varying background(not experimental background!!!)
Width/Lifetime
For a single channel and one pole we get
94
Example: 1x2 K-Matrix
Strange effects in subdominant channels
Scalar resonance at 1500 MeV/c2, Γ=100 MeV/c2
All plots show ππ channelBlue: ππ dominated resonance (Γππ=80 MeV and ΓKK=20 MeV)
Red: KK dominated resonance (ΓKK=80 MeV and Γππ=20 MeV)
Look at the tiny phase motion in the subdominant channel
Intensity I=ΨΨ*Phase δArgand Plot
95
Example: 2x1 K-Matrix Overlapping Poles
two resonances overlapping with different (100/50 MeV/c2)widths are not so dramatic (except the strength)
The width is basically added
FWHM
FWHM
2 BWK-Matrix
96
Example: 1x2 K-Matrix Nearby Poles
Two nearby poles (1.27 and 1.5 GeV/c2)show nicely the effect of unitarization
2 BWK-Matrix
97
Example: Flatté 1x2 K-Matrix
2 channels for a single resonance at the threshold of one of the channels
with
Leading to the T-Matrix
and with
we get
98
Flatté
Examplea0(980) decaying into πη and KK
BW πηFlatte πηFlatte KK
Intensity I=ΨΨ* Phase δ
Real PartArgand Plot
99
Example: K-Matrix Parametrizations
Au, Morgan and Pennington (1987)
Amsler et al. (1995)
Anisovich and Sarantsev (2003)
100
P-Vector Definition
But in many reactions there is no scattering process but a production process, a resonance is produced with a certain strength and then decays
Aitchison (1972)
with
101
P-Vector Poles
The resonance poles are constructed as in the K-Matrix
and one may add a polynomial di again
For a single channel and a single pole
If the K-Matrix contains fake poles...for non s-channel processes modeled in an s-channel model
...the corresponding poles in P are different
102
Q-Vector
A different Ansatz with a different picture: channel n is produced and undergoes final state interaction
For channel 1 in 2 channels
103
Complex Analysis Revisited
The Breit-Wigner example
shows, that Γ(m) implies ρ(m)
but below threshold ρ(m) gets complexbecause q (breakup-momentum) gets complex,since m1+m2>m
therefore the real part of the denominator (mass term) changes
and imaginary part (width term) vanishes completely
104
Complex Analysis Revisited (cont’d)
But furthermore for each ρ(m) which is a squareroot, one has two solutions for p>0 or p<0 resp.
But the two values (w=2q/m) have some phase in betweenand are not identical
So you define a new complex plane for each solution,which are 2n complex planes, called Riemann sheetsthey are continuously connected. The borderlines are called CUTS.
105
Riemann Sheets in a 2 Channel Problem
Usual definition
sheet sgn(q1) sgn(q2)
I + +II - +III - -IV + +
This implies for the T-Matrix
Complex Energy Plane
Complex Momentum Plane
106
States on Energy Sheets
Singularities appear naturally where
Singularities might be
1 – bound states2 – anti-bound
states3 – resonances
or
artifacts due to wrong treatment of the model
107
States on Momentum Sheets
Or in the complex momentum plane
Singularities might be
1 – bound states2 – anti-bound states3 – resonances
108
Left-hand and Right-hand Cuts
The right hand CUTS (RHC) come from the open channels in an n channel problem
But also exchange processes and other effects introduce CUTS on the left-hand side (LHC)
109
N/D Method
To get the proper behavior for the left-hand cutsUse Nl(s) and Dl(s) which are correlated by dispersion relations
An example for this is the work of Bugg and Zhou (1993)
110
Nearest Pole Determines Real Axis
The pole nearest to the real axisor more clearly to a point with mass m on the real axis
determines your physics results
Far away from thresholds this works nicely
At thresholds, the world is morecomplicated
While ρ(770) in between twothresholds has a beautiful shapethe f0(980) or a0(980) have not
111
Pole and Shadows near Threshold (2 Channel)
For a real resonance one always obtains poles on sheet II and IIIdue to symmetries in Tl
Usually
To make sure that pole an shadow match and form an s-channel resonance, it is mandatory to check if the pole on sheets II and III match
This is done by artificially changingρ2 smoothly from q2 to –q2
112
Summary
I‘d like to thank the organizers
U. Wiedner and T. Bressani
for their kind invitation to Varenna and for the pressure to prepare the lecture and to write it down for later use
I also would like to thank
S.U. Chung and M.R. Pennington
for teaching me, what I hopped to have taught you!
and finally I’d like to thank R.S. Longacre, from whom I have stolen some paragraphs from his Lecture in Maryland 1991
Acknowledgements