This paper was converted on www.awesomepapers.org from LaTeX by an anonymous user.
Want to know more? Visit the Converter page.

Double ϕ\phi Production in p¯p\bar{p}p Reactions Near Threshold

Dayoung Lee 0009-0000-4828-3546 Department of Physics, Pukyong National University (PKNU), Busan 48513, Korea    Jung Keun Ahn 0000-0002-5795-2243 Department of Physics, Korea University, Seoul 02841, Korea    Seung-il Nam 0000-0001-9603-9775 [email protected] Department of Physics, Pukyong National University (PKNU), Busan 48513, Korea
Abstract

We use an effective Lagrangian approach to investigate the double ϕ\phi production processes in p¯p\bar{p}p reactions near the threshold. We describe a notable violation of the Okubo-Zweig-Iizuka rule in p¯pϕϕ\bar{p}p\to\phi\phi reactions near the threshold by meson and baryon exchanges with hadronic degrees of freedom. Our study includes tt- and uu-channel diagrams that incorporate nucleon ground (NN) and excited states (NN^{\ast}), as well as ff and η(2225)\eta(2225) mesons in the ss channel. The excited states of the nucleon in the tt and uu channels encompass N(1535,1/2)N^{\ast}(1535,1/2^{-}), N(1650,1/2)N^{\ast}(1650,1/2^{-}), and N(1895,1/2)N^{\ast}(1895,1/2^{-}), all of which are known to have significant coupling to strangeness. Our calculations suggest that the NN exchange in tt and uu diagrams contributes to a rapid increase in the total cross-section of p¯pϕϕ\bar{p}p\to\phi\phi reactions very close to the threshold. The diagrams involving N(1650,1/2)N^{\ast}(1650,1/2^{-}) and N(1895,1/2)N^{\ast}(1895,1/2^{-}) make a prominent contribution to the near-threshold cross sections, compared to the N(1535,1/2)N^{\ast}(1535,1/2^{-}) exchange diagram. In the ss channel, the presence of three f0f_{0} mesons (f0(2020)f_{0}(2020), f0(2100)f_{0}(2100), and f0(2200)f_{0}(2200)) and three f2f_{2} mesons (f2(1950)f_{2}(1950), f2(2010)f_{2}(2010), and f2(2150)f_{2}(2150)) leads to a distinct peaking structure in the total cross sections, while the η(2225)\eta(2225) appears to contribute negligibly. Furthermore, the Λ¯Λ\bar{\Lambda}\Lambda threshold results in a cusp structure in the total cross sections near 2231 MeV. Additionally, polarization observables offer crucial insights into the individual processes involved in the p¯pϕϕ\bar{p}p\to\phi\phi reactions.

Scalar and tensor mesons, effective Lagrangian approach, vector-meson polarizations, nucleon resonances, Ward-Takahashi identity, hidden-local symmetry, spin-density matrix elements, asymmetry, polarization.
preprint: PKNU-NuHaTh-2024

I Introduction

In the simple constituent quark model, the proton (antiproton) wave function contains only up and down quarks (antiquarks). Meanwhile, the ϕ\phi meson is nearly a pure s¯s\bar{s}{s} state. Consequently, the reaction p¯pϕϕ\bar{p}p\to\phi\phi may occur through two gluon emissions from the q¯q\bar{q}q annihilation. All three valence quarks in the proton annihilate with the corresponding three antiquarks in the antiproton to create a purely gluonic state, from which ϕϕ\phi\phi is formed. According to the Okubo-Zweig-Iizuka (OZI) rule, this process, with its disconnected quark lines, should be strongly suppressed.

On the other hand, the reaction p¯pϕϕ\bar{p}p\to\phi\phi may occur through a two-step process involving meson pairs, such as ωω\omega\omega. The ωω\omega\omega could be directly formed from the initial p¯p\bar{p}p state, and the mixing of ω\omega and ϕ\phi mesons could lead to the creation of the ϕϕ\phi\phi state. We can establish an upper limit for the total cross-section of the p¯pϕϕ\bar{p}p\to\phi\phi by comparing it to the total cross-section of the p¯pωω\bar{p}p\to\omega\omega, which is approximately 1010 nb and is expressed as σ(p¯pϕϕ)=tan4δσ(p¯pωω)10nb.\sigma(\bar{p}p\to\phi\phi)=\tan^{4}\delta\cdot\sigma(\bar{p}p\to\omega\omega)\approx 10{\rm~{}nb}. This approximation is valid if both ϕ\phi mesons were created by independent OZI-violating couplings. Here, the angle δ(=ΘiΘ)\delta(=\Theta_{i}-\Theta) represents the difference between the ideal mixing angle Θi=35.3(sinΘi=1/3)\Theta_{i}=35.3^{\circ}(\sin\Theta_{i}=1/\sqrt{3}) and the mixing angle Θ\Theta between (ϕ,ω)(\phi,\omega) mesons and the SU(3) states (ω0,ω8)(\omega_{0},\omega_{8}).

However, data from the JETSET experiment showed a significant violation of the OZI rule in the p¯pϕϕ\bar{p}p\to\phi\phi reaction JETSET:1994evm ; JETSET:1994fjp ; JETSET:1998akg . The measured cross section of this reaction is (24)μ(2-4)\,\mub for incoming antiproton momenta ranging from 1.1 to 2.0 GeV/c/c. This value is two orders higher than the expected 10 nb, attributed to the ϕ\phi-ω\omega mixing effect.

A substantial OZI rule violation could indicate the presence of intriguing new physics. This violation can occur if a resonant gluonic state like a glueball or a four-quark state containing a significant s¯s\bar{s}s admixture Ke:2018evd ; Lu:2019ira contributes to the p¯pϕϕ\bar{p}p\to\phi\phi reaction. According to lattice QCD results, the masses of the 2++2^{++} and 0+0^{-+} glueballs are predicted to be well above 2 GeV, around (2.39±0.12)(2.39\pm 0.12) and (2.56±0.12)(2.56\pm 0.12) GeV Chen:2005mg . However, some phenomenological model calculations point to the mass region near 2.0 GeV, which can be accessed by near-threshold ϕϕ\phi\phi production experiments. A theoretical study using QCD sum rules estimates the masses of the 2++2^{++} and 0+0^{-+} glueballs to be (2.0±0.1)(2.0\pm 0.1) and (2.05±0.19)(2.05\pm 0.19) GeV, respectively Narison:1996fm . In contrast, a recent QCD sum rule calculation predicts the masses of the 2++2^{++} and 0+0^{-+} glueballs to be (1.86±0.17)(1.86\pm 0.17) and (2.17±0.11)(2.17\pm 0.11) GeV Chen:2021bck .

It is suggested that strange quarks could be knocked off directly from the q¯q\bar{q}q sea of the proton and the antiproton to create a pair of ϕ\phi mesons: ϕϕ\phi\phi. The strangeness content (S01s¯s{}^{1}S_{0}~{}\bar{s}s) of the proton and antiproton might result in the production of ϕϕ\phi\phi through a shake-out or rearrangement process Ellis:1994ww . Importantly, this process does not violate the OZI rule because it involves connected quark diagrams with higher Fock-space components in the nucleon wave function: |p=xX=0|uudX+zX=0|uuds¯sX,|x|2+|z|2=1,|p\rangle=x\sum^{\infty}_{X=0}|uudX\rangle+z\sum^{\infty}_{X=0}|uud\bar{s}sX\rangle,~{}|x|^{2}+|z|^{2}=1, where XX stands for any number of glueons and light q¯q\bar{q}q pairs. The upper limit for the total cross-section of the p¯pϕϕ\bar{p}p\to\phi\phi reaction is given by σ(p¯pϕϕ)=(|z|/|x|)4σ(p¯pωω)250nb,\sigma(\bar{p}p\to\phi\phi)=(|z|/|x|)^{4}\cdot\sigma(\bar{p}p\to\omega\omega)\geq 250{\rm~{}nb}, which is larger than the value from the ϕ\phi-ω\omega mixing effect, but still much smaller compared to the experimental data.

The interaction between quarks, induced by instantons, could weaken the OZI suppression. A theoretical study Kochelev:1995kc demonstrates that the violation of the OZI rule in the p¯p\bar{p}p annihilation is a nontrivial consequence of the complex structure of the QCD vacuum, which is associated with the existence of the instantons. On the other hand, the large cross-section for the p¯pϕϕ\bar{p}p\to\phi\phi reaction may be explained by considering the hadronic rescattering mechanism. Each transition in the rescattering diagram is OZI-allowed. Lu et al. studied the role of a K¯K\bar{K}K intermediate state in a triangle diagram in the p¯pϕϕ\bar{p}p\to\phi\phi reaction Lu:1992xd . The intermediate ηη\eta\eta can also contribute to the ϕϕ\phi\phi production, as the η\eta contains s¯s\bar{s}s content. In addition, the ππK¯K\pi\pi\to\bar{K}K amplitude could make a sizable contribution. It is worth noting that the kernel B¯Bm¯m\bar{B}B\to\bar{m}m involving a baryon and antibaryon pair is possible. A full calculation involving all possible hadronic rescattering diagrams would be necessary to predict the detailed shape and magnitude of the observed spectrum.

In the context of hadronic degrees of freedom, the p¯pϕϕ\bar{p}p\to\phi\phi reaction can be described using the meson and baryon exchange diagrams. Recent theoretical calculations suggest that the N(1535)N^{\ast}(1535) exchange in the tt-channel could play a significant role and provide an essential source for bypassing the OZI rule Shi:2010un . Additionally, a more recent theoretical calculation, using an effective Lagrangian approach, indicates that the inclusion of either f0f_{0} or f2f_{2} in the ss-channel can effectively describe the bump structure near W2.2W\approx 2.2 GeV Xie:2014tra ; Xie:2007qt . These two previous work included only the N(1535)N^{\ast}(1535) exchange.

This paper details a theoretical study of the near-threshold p¯pϕϕ\bar{p}p\to\phi\phi reactions using an effective Lagrangian approach. We examine the exchange of a ground state NN and three NN^{\ast} resonances with JP=1/2J^{P}=1/2^{-} in the tt- and uu-channels (N(1650)N^{\ast}(1650), N(1895)N^{\ast}(1895), and N(1535)N^{\ast}(1535) in order of coupling strength) as well as all f0f_{0} and f2f_{2} mesons in the ss-channel. Additionally, we include a pseudoscalar meson, η(2225)\eta(2225), in the ss-channel. Our work in a coupled-channel formalism reveals that the N(1650)N^{\ast}(1650) contributes significantly to the ϕN\phi N channel, indicating that the previous work considering only the N(1535)N^{\ast}(1535) exchange may be insufficient. We determine polarization observables by the ϕϕ\phi\phi production amplitudes of different helicities for the final ϕϕ\phi\phi states. The squared absolute values of the production amplitudes determine unpolarized cross-sections. Therefore, the polarization data provides new information relevant to evaluating the resonance couplings. These observables extend our capabilities to validate the mechanisms of the reaction models used in data analyses through a combined fit of unpolarized cross-sections and polarization measurements. If further experiments confirm a significant violation of the OZI rule, an amplitude analysis of spin-dependent observables will be necessary, for which this paper lays the groundwork.

The paper is organized as follows: In Sec. II, we describe the reaction model for double ϕ\phi production in p¯p\bar{p}p reactions near the threshold. In Sec. III, we present the numerical calculation results for the total and differential cross sections. Section IV focuses on spin density matrix elements and spin correlations between two ϕ\phi mesons. Finally, Sec. V summarizes our conclusions.

II Theoretical Framework

Refer to caption
Figure 1: The relevant Feynman diagrams illustrate the (s,t,u)(s,t,u)-channel amplitudes for p¯pϕϕ\bar{p}p\to\phi\phi. Solid lines represent (anti)proton and its resonances in these diagrams, while dashed lines represent scalar and tensor mesons. The four momenta (kik_{i}) and polarizations (ϵi\epsilon_{i}) for the particles are also defined.

This section briefly introduces the theoretical framework for studying the reaction process p¯pϕϕ\bar{p}p\to\phi\phi. The relevant Feynman diagrams are provided in Fig. 1, along with the definition of the four momenta and polarization of the vector meson. The effective Lagrangians for the interaction of Yukawa vertices are defined as follows:

SNN\displaystyle\mathcal{L}_{SNN} =\displaystyle= gSNNN¯SN+h.c.,SVV=gSϕϕmϕFμνFμνS\displaystyle g_{SNN}\bar{N}SN+{\rm h.c.},\,\,\,\mathcal{L}_{SVV}=\frac{g_{S\phi\phi}}{m_{\phi}}F_{\mu\nu}F^{\mu\nu}S\,\,\, (1)
PNN\displaystyle\mathcal{L}_{PNN} =\displaystyle= fPNNMPN¯γ5(/P)N,PVV=igPVVMPϵμνρσFVμνFVρσP,\displaystyle\frac{f_{PNN}}{M_{P}}\bar{N}\gamma_{5}(\hbox to0.0pt{/\hss}\partial P)N,\,\,\,\mathcal{L}_{PVV}=\frac{ig_{PVV}}{M_{P}}\epsilon_{\mu\nu\rho\sigma}F^{\mu\nu}_{V}F^{\rho\sigma}_{V}P, (2)
TNN\displaystyle\mathcal{L}_{TNN} =\displaystyle= igTNNMNN¯(γμν+γνμ)NTμν+h.c.,TVV=gTVV2MV[gμν4FρσFρσgσρFνρFσμ]Tμν,\displaystyle-\frac{ig_{TNN}}{M_{N}}\bar{N}(\gamma_{\mu}\partial_{\nu}+\gamma_{\nu}\partial_{\mu})NT^{\mu\nu}+{\rm h.c.},\,\,\,\mathcal{L}_{TVV}=\frac{g_{TVV}}{2M_{V}}\left[\frac{g_{\mu\nu}}{4}F_{\rho\sigma}F^{\rho\sigma}-{g^{\sigma\rho}}F_{\nu\rho}F_{\sigma\mu}\right]T^{\mu\nu}, (3)
VNN\displaystyle\mathcal{L}_{VNN} =\displaystyle= gVNNN¯γμΓ5NVμ,VNN=igVNNMVN¯μγν(μVννVμ)Γ5γ5N+h.c.,\displaystyle-g_{VNN}\bar{N}\gamma_{\mu}\Gamma_{5}NV^{\mu},\,\,\,\mathcal{L}_{VNN^{\prime}}=-\frac{ig_{VNN^{\prime}}}{M_{V}}\bar{N}^{{}^{\prime}\mu}\gamma^{\nu}(\partial_{\mu}V_{\nu}-\partial_{\nu}V_{\mu})\Gamma_{5}\gamma_{5}N+{\rm h.c.}, (4)

where SS, PP, VV, TT, and (N,N)(N,N^{\prime}) denote the scalar, pseudoscalar, vector, tensor, and nucleon fields for JP=(1/2±, 3/2±)J^{P}=(1/2^{\pm},\,3/2^{\pm}), respectively, while the vector meson is given in the form of the field strength tensor Fμν=μVννVμF_{\mu\nu}=\partial_{\mu}V_{\nu}-\partial_{\nu}V_{\mu}. Note that we employ the self gauge-invariant Lagrangians for the SVVSVV and TVVTVV interaction vertices, given in Refs. Nam:2005jz ; Katz:2005ir in terms of the hidden-local symmetry (HLS) for the massive vector meson ϕ\phi. Γ5\Gamma_{5} denotes (𝟏4×4,γ5)({\bf 1}_{4\times 4},\gamma_{5}) for the parity-(+,)(+,-) nucleon states. For the NN^{\prime}, we employed the Rarita-Schwinger formalism Rarita:1941mf . By straightforwardly computing the invariant amplitudes using the interaction Lagrangians, we obtained the total amplitude, which is the sum of the following contributions illustrated in Fig. 2:

iSs\displaystyle i\mathcal{M}^{s}_{S} =\displaystyle= 2igSVVgSNNMVν¯k2[(k3k4)(ϵ3ϵ4)(k3ϵ4)(ϵ3k4)]uk1sMS2+iΓSMS×FsS,\displaystyle-\frac{2ig_{SVV}g_{SNN}}{M_{V}}\frac{\bar{\nu}_{k_{2}}\left[(k_{3}\cdot k_{4})(\epsilon_{3}\cdot\epsilon_{4})-(k_{3}\cdot\epsilon_{4})(\epsilon_{3}\cdot k_{4})\right]u_{k_{1}}}{s-M_{S}^{2}+i\Gamma_{S}M_{S}}\times F^{S}_{s}, (5)
iPs\displaystyle i\mathcal{M}^{s}_{P} =\displaystyle= igPVVfPNNMP2ν¯k2ϵμνρσk3μk4νϵ3ρϵ4σγ5/qsuk1sMP2+iMPΓP×FsP,\displaystyle\frac{ig_{PVV}f_{PNN}}{M_{P}^{2}}\frac{\bar{\nu}_{k_{2}}\epsilon_{\mu\nu\rho\sigma}k_{3\mu}k_{4\nu}\epsilon_{3\rho}\epsilon_{4\sigma}\gamma_{5}\hbox to0.0pt{/\hss}q_{s}u_{k_{1}}}{s-M_{P}^{2}+iM_{P}\Gamma_{P}}\times F^{P}_{s}, (6)
iTs\displaystyle i\mathcal{M}^{s}_{T} =\displaystyle= igTVVgTNN2MVMNν¯k2[gμν2[(k3k4)(ϵ3ϵ4)(k3ϵ4)(ϵ3k4)]gσρ(k3νϵ3ρk3ρϵ3ν)(k4σϵ4μk4μϵ4σ)]\displaystyle\frac{ig_{TVV}g_{TNN}}{2M_{V}M_{N}}\bar{\nu}_{k_{2}}\left[\frac{g_{\mu\nu}}{2}[(k_{3}\cdot k_{4})(\epsilon_{3}\cdot\epsilon_{4})-(k_{3}\cdot\epsilon_{4})(\epsilon_{3}\cdot k_{4})]-g^{\sigma\rho}(k_{3\nu}\epsilon_{3\rho}-k_{3\rho}\epsilon_{3\nu})(k_{4\sigma}\epsilon_{4\mu}-k_{4\mu}\epsilon_{4\sigma})\right] (7)
×\displaystyle\times [Gμναβ(γαk1β+γβk1α)sMT2+iΓTMT]uk1×FsT,\displaystyle\left[\frac{G^{\mu\nu\alpha\beta}\left(\gamma_{\alpha}k_{1\beta}+\gamma_{\beta}k_{1\alpha}\right)}{s-M_{T}^{2}+i\Gamma_{T}M_{T}}\right]u_{k_{1}}\times F^{T}_{s}, (8)
iN()(1/2±)t\displaystyle i\mathcal{M}^{t}_{N^{(*)}(1/2^{\pm})} =\displaystyle= igVNN()2ν¯k2Γ5[/ϵ4κVNN()2MNσμνϵ4μk4ν][/qt+MNtMN2][/ϵ3κVNN()2MNσρσϵ3ρk3σ]Γ5uk1×FcN(),\displaystyle-ig^{2}_{VNN^{(*)}}\bar{\nu}_{k_{2}}\Gamma_{5}\left[\hbox to0.0pt{/\hss}{\epsilon}_{4}-\frac{\kappa_{VNN^{(*)}}}{2M_{N}}\sigma_{\mu\nu}\epsilon_{4}^{\mu}k_{4}^{\nu}\right]\left[\frac{\hbox to0.0pt{/\hss}{q}_{t}+M_{N^{*}}}{t-M_{N^{*}}^{2}}\right]\left[\hbox to0.0pt{/\hss}{\epsilon}_{3}-\frac{\kappa_{VNN^{(*)}}}{2M_{N}}\sigma_{\rho\sigma}\epsilon_{3}^{\rho}k_{3}^{\sigma}\right]\Gamma_{5}u_{k_{1}}\times F^{N^{(*)}}_{c}, (9)
iN()(1/2±)u\displaystyle i\mathcal{M}^{u}_{N^{(*)}(1/2^{\pm})} =\displaystyle= iN()t|k3k4,tu.\displaystyle i\mathcal{M}^{t}_{N^{(*)}}|_{k_{3}\leftrightarrow k_{4},t\to u}. (10)
iN(3/2±)t\displaystyle i\mathcal{M}^{t}_{N^{\prime*}(3/2^{\pm})} =\displaystyle= gVNN2MV2ν¯k2γ5Γ5(k4μϵ4νk4νϵ4μ)γν[gμα13γμγα23MN2qtμqtα+qtμγα+qαγμ3MN]\displaystyle-\frac{g^{2}_{VNN^{\prime*}}}{M_{V}^{2}}\bar{\nu}_{k_{2}}\gamma_{5}\Gamma_{5}(k_{4\mu}\epsilon_{4\nu}-k_{4\nu}\epsilon_{4\mu})\gamma^{\nu}\left[g^{\mu\alpha}-\frac{1}{3}\gamma^{\mu}\gamma^{\alpha}-\frac{2}{3M^{2}_{N^{\prime*}}}q_{t}^{\mu}q_{t}^{\alpha}+\frac{q_{t}^{\mu}\gamma^{\alpha}+q^{\alpha}\gamma^{\mu}}{3M_{N^{\prime*}}}\right] (11)
×\displaystyle\times γβ(k3αϵ3βk3βϵ3α)γ5Γ5uk1×FcN,\displaystyle\gamma^{\beta}(k_{3\alpha}\epsilon_{3\beta}-k_{3\beta}\epsilon_{3\alpha})\gamma_{5}\Gamma_{5}u_{k_{1}}\times F_{c}^{N^{\prime*}}, (12)
iN(3/2±)u\displaystyle i\mathcal{M}^{u}_{N^{\prime*}(3/2^{\pm})} =\displaystyle= iNt|k3k4,tu.\displaystyle i\mathcal{M}^{t}_{N^{\prime*}}|_{k_{3}\leftrightarrow k_{4},t\to u}. (13)

Here, qi±j(ki±kj)q_{i\pm j}\equiv(k_{i}\pm k_{j}) and the Mandelstam variables are defined by (s,t,u)=qs,t,u2(s,t,u)=q^{2}_{s,t,u}. We also define the rank-4 tensor for the tensor-meson propagator as follows:

Gμναβ(s)\displaystyle G^{\mu\nu\alpha\beta}(s) =\displaystyle= 12(g¯μαg¯νβ+g¯μβg¯να)13g¯μνg¯αβ,g¯μν=gμν+qsμqsνs.\displaystyle\frac{1}{2}(\bar{g}^{\mu\alpha}\bar{g}^{\nu\beta}+\bar{g}^{\mu\beta}\bar{g}^{\nu\alpha})-\frac{1}{3}\bar{g}^{\mu\nu}\bar{g}^{\alpha\beta},\,\,\bar{g}^{\mu\nu}=-g^{\mu\nu}+\frac{q_{s}^{\mu}q_{s}^{\nu}}{s}. (14)

To incorporate the spatial extension of the hadrons, which is inversely proportional to a cutoff mass Λ\Lambda, and to ensure the unitarity of the scattering process, it becomes necessary to introduce phenomenological strong form factors to the amplitudes. In the present work, we use the following parameterization of the form factors, which satisfy Lorentz invariance as well as the crossing symmetry Davidson:2001rk :

FxhF(x,Mh,Λh)=Λh4Λh4+(xMh2)2.\displaystyle F^{h}_{x}\equiv F(x,M_{h},\Lambda_{h})=\frac{\Lambda^{4}_{h}}{\Lambda^{4}_{h}+(x-M_{h}^{2})^{2}}. (15)

Here, xx represents the Mandelstam variables (s,t,u)(s,t,u), and hh denotes the hadron species. Fitting available experimental data will determine the cutoff mass Λ\Lambda later in Section III.

As previously discussed, when considering the hidden-local symmetry for the ϕ\phi meson, it is essential to uphold the (extended) Ward-Takahashi (WT) identity for the total amplitude, as shown below:

iμνtotalk3μ=iμνtotalk4ν=0\displaystyle i\mathcal{M}^{\mathrm{total}}_{\mu\nu}k_{3}^{\mu}=i\mathcal{M}^{\mathrm{total}}_{\mu\nu}k_{4}^{\nu}=0 (16)

In Eq. (13), if we replace ϵ3,4\epsilon_{3,4} with k3,4k_{3,4}, we can see that the scalar-meson pole amplitude in the ss channel, as indicated by Eq. (13), satisfies the WT identity due to the self-gauge-invariant nature of the interaction Lagrangian governing the SVVSVV vertex. Similarly, the ss channel amplitude for the tensor meson, also represented in Eq. (13), automatically upholds the WT identity. Notably, we use a common form factor FcN(t,u)F^{N}_{c}(t,u) for both the tt- and uu-channel amplitudes in Eq. (13) to maintain the WT identity, resulting in iN,N,Nu+iN,N,Nt=0i\mathcal{M}^{u}_{N,N^{*},N^{\prime*}}+i\mathcal{M}^{t}_{N,N^{*},N^{\prime*}}=0 for ϵ3,4k3,4\epsilon_{3,4}\to k_{3,4}. We use the following parameterization for the common form factor, explicitly satisfying the on-shell condition:

FcN,N,N=1(1FtN,N,N)(1FuN,N,N).\displaystyle F^{N,N^{*},N^{\prime*}}_{c}=1-\left(1-F^{N,N^{*},N^{\prime*}}_{t}\right)\left(1-F^{N,N^{*},N^{\prime*}}_{u}\right). (17)

Thus, we verified that the WT identity is upheld for the total amplitude as follows:

iμνtotalk3μ=[if0μνs+if2μνs+x=t,uiNμνx+x=t,uiNμνx]k3μ=0,\displaystyle i\mathcal{M}^{\mathrm{total}}_{\mu\nu}k^{\mu}_{3}\hskip-2.84544pt=\hskip-2.84544pt\left[i\mathcal{M}^{s}_{f_{0}{\mu\nu}}\hskip-2.84544pt+i\mathcal{M}^{s}_{f_{2}{\mu\nu}}\hskip-2.84544pt+\hskip-5.69046pt\sum_{x=t,u}\hskip-2.84544pti\mathcal{M}^{x}_{N{\mu\nu}}\hskip-2.84544pt+\hskip-5.69046pt\sum_{x=t,u}\hskip-2.84544pti\mathcal{M}^{x}_{N^{*}{\mu\nu}}\right]\hskip-2.84544ptk^{\mu}_{3}=0, (18)

and iμνtotalk4ν=0i\mathcal{M}^{\mathrm{total}}_{\mu\nu}k^{\nu}_{4}=0 as well.

Refer to caption
Figure 2: A loop contribution for Λ¯Λ\bar{\Lambda}\Lambda channel opening.

In p¯p\bar{p}p scattering, other B¯B\bar{B}B channels can open an off-mass shell and decay into two ϕ\phi mesons. Hence, in the energy region from W=EthresholdW=E_{\mathrm{threshold}} to 2.52.5 GeV, a cusp corresponding to the Λ¯Λ\bar{\Lambda}\Lambda channel opening can appear at W=2MΛW=2M_{\Lambda}. To describe the cusp effectively, we consider the one-loop diagram as depicted in Fig. 2. For those Yukawa interaction vertices shown in Fig. 2., we define the following point-interaction Lagrangians to simplify the problem:

4B=g4BMN2B¯BB¯B,VBVB=gVBVBMN3B¯FμνFμνB.\displaystyle\mathcal{L}_{4B}=\frac{g_{4B}}{M^{2}_{N}}\bar{B}B\bar{B}^{\prime}B^{\prime},\,\,\,\mathcal{L}_{VBVB}=\frac{g_{VBVB}}{M^{3}_{N}}\bar{B}F_{\mu\nu}F^{\mu\nu}B. (19)

The unknown couplings g4Bg_{4B} and gVBVBg_{VBVB} will be taken as free parameters here. Straightforwardly, the amplitude for the loop diagram can be computed as follows:

iΛ¯Λ\displaystyle i\mathcal{M}_{\bar{\Lambda}\Lambda} =\displaystyle= gΛ¯Λν¯[(k3k4)(ϵ3ϵ4)(k3ϵ4)(ϵ3k4)]uFloop×d4p(2π)4Tr[(/p+MΛ)(/p+/q1+2+MΛ)][p2MΛ2][(p+q1+2)2MΛ2]GΛ¯Λ(s),\displaystyle-g_{\bar{\Lambda}\Lambda}\bar{\nu}\left[(k_{3}\cdot k_{4})(\epsilon_{3}\cdot\epsilon_{4})-(k_{3}\cdot\epsilon_{4})(\epsilon_{3}\cdot k_{4})\right]uF_{\mathrm{loop}}\times\hskip-2.84544pt\underbrace{\int\frac{d^{4}p}{(2\pi)^{4}}\frac{{\rm{Tr}}[(\hbox to0.0pt{/\hss}{p}+M_{\Lambda})(\hbox to0.0pt{/\hss}{p}+\hbox to0.0pt{/\hss}{q}_{1+2}+M_{\Lambda})]}{[p^{2}-M^{2}_{\Lambda}][(p+q_{1+2})^{2}-M^{2}_{\Lambda}]}}_{G_{\bar{\Lambda}\Lambda}(s)}, (20)

where the reduced coupling reads gΛ¯Λg4BgVBVB/MN5g_{\bar{\Lambda}\Lambda}\equiv g_{4B}g_{VBVB}/M^{5}_{N}. The amplitude above satisfies the Ward-Takahashi (WT) identity by construction. The integral representing the Λ¯Λ\bar{\Lambda}\Lambda loop, with cutoff regularization, is given by:

GΛ¯Λ(s)\displaystyle G_{\bar{\Lambda}\Lambda}(s) =\displaystyle= 4i01𝑑x[IΛ¯Λ(2)ΔIΛ¯Λ(0)]=i4π201𝑑xΔlnΔμΔ,\displaystyle 4i\int^{1}_{0}dx\left[I^{(2)}_{\bar{\Lambda}\Lambda}-\Delta I^{(0)}_{\bar{\Lambda}\Lambda}\right]=-\frac{i}{4\pi^{2}}\int^{1}_{0}dx\,\Delta\ln\frac{\Delta_{\mu}}{\Delta}, (21)

where xx indicates the Feynman-parameterization variable and

IΛ¯Λ(0)(x)116π2lnΔμΔ,IΛ¯Λ(2)(x)=Δ8π2lnΔμΔ.\displaystyle I^{(0)}_{\bar{\Lambda}\Lambda}(x)-\frac{1}{16\pi^{2}}\ln\frac{\Delta_{\mu}}{\Delta},\,\,\,\,I^{(2)}_{\bar{\Lambda}\Lambda}(x)=-\frac{\Delta}{8\pi^{2}}\ln\frac{\Delta_{\mu}}{\Delta}. (22)

Here, Δ=x(1x)s+MΛ2\Delta=-x(1-x)s+M^{2}_{\Lambda} and Δμ=x(1x)s+μ2\Delta_{\mu}=-x(1-x)s+\mu^{2}, in which μ\mu stands for a cutoff mass, corresponding to the size of two baryon masses μ2MΛ\mu\approx 2M_{\Lambda}. To prevent the unphysical increase of iΛ¯Λi\mathcal{M}_{\bar{\Lambda}\Lambda} caused by the terms involving k3,4k_{3,4}, we multiply by Floop=F(s,MN,Λloop)F_{\mathrm{loop}}=F(s,M_{N},\Lambda_{\mathrm{loop}}).

In interpreting the reaction mechanism of the reaction process, the spin-density matrix element (SDME) is one of the useful observables. For the current reaction process, there are nine independent SDMEs, considering the two ϕ\phi-meson helicities, defined similarly in the previous study Kim:2020wrd . The 0-th element of the SDME for the ϕ\phi-meson with k3k_{3} (ϕ3\phi_{3}) is as follows:

ρλϕ3λϕ30\displaystyle\rho^{0}_{\lambda_{\phi_{3}}\lambda^{\prime}_{\phi_{3}}} =\displaystyle= 12NTλp¯λpλϕ4=±1λp¯λpλϕ3λϕ4λp¯λpλϕ3λϕ4,NT=12λp¯λpλϕ3λϕ4=±1|λp¯λpλϕ3λϕ4|2,\displaystyle\frac{1}{2N_{T}}\sum_{\lambda_{\bar{p}}}\sum_{\lambda_{p}}\sum_{\lambda_{\phi_{4}}=\pm 1}\mathcal{M}_{\lambda_{\bar{p}}\lambda_{p}\lambda_{\phi_{3}}\lambda_{\phi_{4}}}\mathcal{M}^{*}_{\lambda_{\bar{p}}\lambda_{p}\lambda^{\prime}_{\phi_{3}}\lambda_{\phi_{4}}},\,\,\,N_{T}=\frac{1}{2}\sum_{\lambda_{\bar{p}}}\sum_{\lambda_{p}}\sum_{\lambda_{\phi_{3}}}\sum_{\lambda_{\phi_{4}}=\pm 1}|\mathcal{M}_{\lambda_{\bar{p}}\lambda_{p}\lambda_{\phi_{3}}\lambda_{\phi_{4}}}|^{2}, (23)
ρλϕ3λϕ34\displaystyle\rho^{4}_{\lambda_{\phi_{3}}\lambda^{\prime}_{\phi_{3}}} =\displaystyle= 1NLλp¯λpλp¯λpλϕ30λp¯λpλϕ30,NL=λp¯λpλϕ3|λp¯λpλϕ30|2,\displaystyle\frac{1}{N_{L}}\sum_{\lambda_{\bar{p}}}\sum_{\lambda_{p}}\mathcal{M}_{\lambda_{\bar{p}}\lambda_{p}\lambda_{\phi_{3}}0}\mathcal{M}^{*}_{\lambda_{\bar{p}}\lambda_{p}\lambda^{\prime}_{\phi_{3}}0},\,\,\,N_{L}=\sum_{\lambda_{\bar{p}}}\sum_{\lambda_{p}}\sum_{\lambda_{\phi_{3}}}|\mathcal{M}_{\lambda_{\bar{p}}\lambda_{p}\lambda_{\phi_{3}}0}|^{2}, (24)

In this context, λh\lambda_{h} represents the helicity of particle hh in a specific kinematic frame. We can obtain the SDMEs for the ϕ\phi-meson with k4k_{4} (ϕ4\phi_{4}) by simply swapping the subscript indices as 343\leftrightarrow 4 in Eq. (23). To compare the SDMEs with experimental data, we need to boost the kinematic frame used for the theoretical computation to the ϕ\phi-meson rest frame. This involves using different spin-quantization axes, such as the helicity, Adair, and Gottfried-Jackson (GJ) frames, as defined in Ref. Kim:2020wrd , by a Wick rotation of the reaction from (γ,ϕ)(\gamma,\phi) to (ϕi,ϕj)(\phi_{i},\phi_{j}).

III Numerical results and Discussions

In this section, we present the numerical results along with their corresponding discussions. We examine the relevant mesons contributing to the ss-channel in the current reaction process. For the scalar and tensor mesons near the threshold, we select f0(2020,2100,2200)f_{0}(2020,2100,2200) and f2(1950,2010,2150)f_{2}(1950,2010,2150), respectively. Based on experimental data from the Particle Data Group (2022) ParticleDataGroup:2022pth , the pseudoscalar meson η(2225)\eta(2225) is known to be strongly coupled to ϕϕ\phi\phi, so we include this meson in our calculations.

All the relevant numerical inputs for the mesons are listed in Table 1. Here, we show the minimized number of combined coupling constants gΦ=gΦϕϕgΦNNg_{\Phi}=g_{\Phi\phi\phi}g_{\Phi NN} for Φ=(S,P,T)\Phi=(S,P,T). This approach considers the limited experimental and theoretical information available for determining each coupling, allowing us to fit the data effectively. In contrast, Ref. ParticleDataGroup:2022pth provides the couplings for the η\eta meson as gη(ϕϕ,NN)=(4.062,0.5)g_{\eta(\phi\phi,NN)}=(-4.062,0.5).

f0(2020)f_{0}(2020) f0(2100)f_{0}(2100) f0(2200)f_{0}(2200) f2(1950)f_{2}(1950) f2(2010)f_{2}(2010) f2(2150)f_{2}(2150)
MiΓ/2M-i\Gamma/2 [MeV] 1982i2181982-i218 2095i143.52095-i143.5 2187i103.52187-i103.5 1936i2321936-i232 2011i1012011-i101 2157i762157-i76
g(S,P,T)g_{(S,P,T)} 0.1150.115 0.1-0.1
Table 1: Relevant meson coupling constants for the ss-channel contributions.

Now, we are in a position to discuss the contributions of nucleon resonances in the tt and uu channels of our numerical calculations. Xie etal.et\ al. Xie:2014tra highlighted the importance of the strangeness content within nucleons for reproducing data, such as the N(1535,1/2)N^{*}(1535,1/2^{-}). Another study by Khemchandani etal.et\ al. Khemchandani:2013nma used the coupled-channel method within the framework of chiral dynamics, specifically the chiral unitary model (ChUM), to demonstrate strong coupling of three s-wave nucleon resonances to the ϕ\phi-NN channel: N(1535,1/2)N^{*}(1535,1/2^{-}), N(1650,1/2)N^{*}(1650,1/2^{-}), and N(1895,1/2)N^{*}(1895,1/2^{-}). The resulting couplings, denoted as gϕNNg_{\phi NN^{*}}, are listed in Table 2.

Furthermore, as discussed in our previous work Nam:2021ayk , a possible pentaquark baryon, Ps(2071,3/2)P_{s}(2071,3/2^{-}), is considered as a KΣK^{*}\Sigma bound state that decays into ϕN\phi N. Its coupling has been calculated using ChUM Khemchandani:2011et and is presented in the table. Note that we set the values of the tensor-interaction strength κN\kappa_{N^{*}} to zero due to limited information, except for κϕNN\kappa_{\phi NN}, which is fixed at 1.65-1.65 Kim:2021adl . For simplicity in the computations, we use a single cutoff Λh=550\Lambda_{h}=550 MeV for all hadronic form factors and Λloop=300\Lambda_{\rm loop}=300 MeV with gΛΛ¯=2g_{\Lambda\bar{\Lambda}}=2 to reproduce the data.

NN N(1535,1/2)N^{*}(1535,1/2^{-}) N(1650,1/2)N^{*}(1650,1/2^{-}) N(1895,1/2)N^{*}(1895,1/2^{-}) Ps(2071,3/2)P_{s}(2071,3/2^{-})
MiΓ/2M-i\Gamma/2 [MeV] 938i0938-i0 1504i551504-i55 1668i281668-i28 1673i671673-i67 1801i961801-i96 1912i541912-i54 2071i72071-i7
gϕNN()g_{\phi NN^{(*)}} 1.47-1.47 1.4+i2.21.4+i2.2 4.1i2.74.1-i2.7 4.5+i5.24.5+i5.2 2.1+i1.82.1+i1.8 0.9i0.20.9-i0.2 0.14+i0.20.14+i0.2
Table 2: Relevant nucleon coupling constants for the tt- and uu-channel contributions Khemchandani:2013nma ; Khemchandani:2011et .
\topinset(a)Refer to caption-0.2cm0.5cm \topinset(b)Refer to caption-0.2cm0.5cm
\topinset(c)Refer to caption-0.2cm0.5cm     \topinset(d)Refer to caption-0.2cm0.5cm
Figure 3: (Color online) (a) Total cross sections σσpp¯ϕϕ\sigma\equiv\sigma_{p\bar{p}\to\phi\phi} as functions of WW, showing each contribution separately. Experimental data are taken from Ref. JETSET:1994evm ; JETSET:1994fjp ; JETSET:1998akg . (b) Those with and without the cusp effect in addition to the η\eta contribution. (c) Those without the ground-state nucleon (NN) contribution. (d) Angular-dependent differential cross-section dσ/dcosθd\sigma/d\cos\theta as a function of WW and cosθ\cos\theta.

In panel (a) of Fig. 3, we present the full calculations for the total cross-sections σσpp¯ϕϕ\sigma\equiv\sigma_{p\bar{p}\to\phi\phi} as functions of the center-of-mass energy WW, showing each contribution separately. The experimental data are taken from Ref. JETSET:1994evm ; JETSET:1994fjp ; JETSET:1998akg . The ground-state nucleon (NN) contribution is significant near the threshold, exhibiting a shoulder-like structure, while the nucleon-resonance (NN^{*}) contribution becomes stronger as W increases. As expected, the scalar and tensor mesons f0,2f_{0,2} are responsible for the bump structure around W2.2W\approx 2.2 GeV. Additionally, there is a small but finite contribution from the η\eta in the ss channel. Interestingly, the nontrivial structure around W=2.25W=2.25 GeV is well reproduced by the interference between the cusp effect from the ΛΛ¯\Lambda\bar{\Lambda}-loop contribution and other components. To clarify this observation, in panel (b), we show the total cross-section with and without the cusp effect. We also test the impact of the η\eta contribution at W2.25W\approx 2.25 GeV, which fails to explain the nontrivial structure.

Following a similar approach to Refs. Shi:2010un ; Xie:2014tra ; Xie:2007qt , in panel (c), we attempt to reproduce the data without the ground-state nucleon contribution by modifying the cutoff masses for the form factors, resulting in a fit-compatible with the full calculation shown in panel (a). As expected, the absence of the NN contribution causes the shoulder-like structure near the threshold to disappear in panel (c). Additionally, the curve shows better behavior in the higher-energy region beyond W=2.4W=2.4 GeV compared to panel (a). We will further explore these two scenarios, N+NN+N^{*} (full) and NN^{*} only, in detail later. In panel (d), we present the numerical results for the angular-dependent differential cross-section dσ/dcosθd\sigma/d\cos\theta as a function of WW and cosθ\cos\theta, where θ\theta denotes the scattering angle of the ϕ3\phi_{3} in the center-of-mass system for the full calculation. As shown, the angular dependence is symmetric about θ=π/2\theta=\pi/2 since identical mesons are scattered in the final state. The cross-section decreases as θ\theta approaches π/2\pi/2 from θ=0\theta=0.

\topinset(a) W=2.1W=2.1 GeVRefer to caption-0.3cm0.5cm \topinset(b) W=2.2W=2.2 GeVRefer to caption-0.3cm0.5cm \topinset(c) W=2.3W=2.3 GeVRefer to caption-0.3cm0.5cm
\topinset(d) θ=0\theta=0Refer to caption-0.3cm0.5cm \topinset(e) θ=π/4\theta=\pi/4Refer to caption-0.3cm0.5cm \topinset(f) θ=π/2\theta=\pi/2Refer to caption-0.3cm0.5cm
Figure 4: (Color online) (a-c) Angular-dependent differential cross-sections dσ/dcosθd\sigma/d\cos\theta as functions cosθ\cos\theta at different WW. (d-f) The same as functions of WW for the different angles.

To better understand the angular dependence of the present reaction process, in panels (a-c) of Fig. 4, we show the full results for dσ/dcosθd\sigma/d\cos\theta as a function of cosθ\cos\theta at different energies W=(2.12.3)W=(2.1-2.3) GeV. We also display the separate contributions in the panels. Near the threshold at W=2.1W=2.1 GeV, all contributions are nearly flat, with the ground-state nucleon contributing the most to the cross-section. As the energy increases, the NN and NN^{*} contributions become more significant, leading to non-trivial angular dependences, such as convex and concave shapes. We also observe that the meson contributions are maximized around W2.2W\approx 2.2 GeV. Note that the NN contribution primarily determines the total curves and their angular dependences. In panels (c – d), we present the full calculation results for dσ/dcosθd\sigma/d\cos\theta as functions of WW for different angles θ=(0π/2)\theta=(0-\pi/2). As already noted in panel (d) of Fig. 3, the magnitude of the cross-sections decreases mainly due to the diminishing η\eta and NN contributions as the angle increases.

\topinset(a)Refer to caption-0.3cm0.5cm \topinset(b)Refer to caption-0.3cm0.5cm
Figure 5: (Color online) (a) Forward differential cross-sections dσ/dtd\sigma/dt as functions of t-t for different WW. (b) The same as a function of t-t and WW.

In panel (a) of Fig. 5, we present the full results for the forward differential cross-sections, dσ/dtd\sigma/dt, as functions of t-t for different values of WW. As expected from Fig. 4, the curve shapes become more concave with increasing WW due to the NN contribution. To make the current numerical results more accessible, we separately fit the curves using single-exponential (dσ/dt=aeb|t|)(d\sigma/dt=ae^{-b|t|}) and a double-exponential (dσ/dt=aeb|t|+ced|t|)(d\sigma/dt=a^{\prime}e^{-b^{\prime}|t|}+c^{\prime}e^{-d^{\prime}|t|}) functions in the region below |t|<0.2GeV2|t|<0.2\rm GeV^{2}. The corresponding fit parameters are listed in Table 3. To better understand the overall tt-dependence of the cross-section, we plot it as a function of both t-t and WW. A bump structure appears around W2.2W\approx 2.2 GeV, indicating the contribution from the f0,2f_{0,2} mesons.

WW [GeV] aa bb aa^{\prime} bb^{\prime} cc^{\prime} dd^{\prime}
2.12.1 4.994.99 0.050.05 3.993.99 0.050.05 1.001.00 0.050.05
2.22.2 4.724.72 0.500.50 3.803.80 1.471.47 1.041.04 1.33-1.33
2.32.3 2.212.21 0.820.82 2.152.15 1.361.36 0.120.12 2.10-2.10
Table 3: Parameters for the single (dσ/dt=aeb|t|)(d\sigma/dt=ae^{-b|t|}) and double exponent (dσ/dt=aeb|t|+ced|t|)(d\sigma/dt=a^{\prime}e^{-b^{\prime}|t|}+c^{\prime}e^{-d^{\prime}|t|}) fits. All the parameters are in the 1/GeV21/\mathrm{GeV}^{2} unit.
\topinsetAdair ρ00λ\rho^{\lambda}_{00}Refer to caption-0.4cm0.5cm \topinsetAdair ρ10λ\rho^{\lambda}_{10}Refer to caption-0.4cm0.5cm \topinsetAdair ρ11λ\rho^{\lambda}_{1-1}Refer to caption-0.4cm0.5cm
\topinsetHelicity ρ00λ\rho^{\lambda}_{00}Refer to caption-0.4cm0.5cm \topinsetHelicity ρ10λ\rho^{\lambda}_{10}Refer to caption-0.4cm0.5cm \topinsetHelicity ρ11λ\rho^{\lambda}_{1-1}Refer to caption-0.4cm0.5cm
\topinsetGJ ρ00λ\rho^{\lambda}_{00}Refer to caption-0.4cm0.5cm \topinsetGJ ρ10λ\rho^{\lambda}_{10}Refer to caption-0.4cm0.5cm \topinsetGJ ρ11λ\rho^{\lambda}_{1-1}Refer to caption-0.4cm0.5cm
Figure 6: (Color online) Spin-density matrix elements (SDMEs) ρ00,10,11λ\rho^{\lambda}_{00,10,1-1} as functions of cosθ\cos\theta for the Adair, helicity, and Gottfried-Jackson (GJ) frames for λ=(0,4)\lambda=(0,4), which stands for the ϕ4\phi_{4} helicity (±1\pm 1,0), at W=2.2W=2.2 GeV.

Now, we turn to the discussion of the spin-density matrix elements (SDMEs) as defined in Eq. (23). The numerical results for ρ00,10,11λ\rho^{\lambda}_{00,10,1-1} are plotted in Fig. 6 as functions of cosθ\cos\theta for the full calculation, shown across different kinematic frames, namely, the Adair, helicity, and Gottfried-Jackson (GJ) frames, where λ=(0,4)\lambda=(0,4) represents the ϕ4\phi_{4} helicity at W=2.2W=2.2 GeV. According to Eq. (23), each SDME approximately follows specific helicity-flip patterns:

ρ000|01|2+|01|2,ρ004|00|2,\displaystyle\rho^{0}_{00}\propto|\mathcal{M}_{01}|^{2}+|\mathcal{M}_{0-1}|^{2},\,\,\,\,\,\,\rho^{4}_{00}\propto|\mathcal{M}_{00}|^{2}, (25)
ρ100(1101+1101),ρ1041000,\displaystyle\rho^{0}_{10}\propto\left(\mathcal{M}_{11}\mathcal{M}^{*}_{01}+\mathcal{M}_{1-1}\mathcal{M}^{*}_{0-1}\right),\,\,\,\rho^{4}_{10}\propto\mathcal{M}_{10}\mathcal{M}^{*}_{00}, (26)
ρ110(1111+1111),ρ1141010,\displaystyle\rho^{0}_{1-1}\propto\left(\mathcal{M}_{11}\mathcal{M}^{*}_{-11}+\mathcal{M}_{1-1}\mathcal{M}^{*}_{-1-1}\right),\,\,\,\rho^{4}_{1-1}\propto\mathcal{M}_{10}\mathcal{M}^{*}_{-10}, (27)

where the amplitude is defined as λ3λ4\mathcal{M}_{\lambda_{3}\lambda_{4}}. Here, we define the notation Δλ34=|λ3λ4|\Delta\lambda_{34}=|\lambda_{3}-\lambda_{4}|. From the numerical results shown in Fig. 6 and being understood by Eq. (25), we clearly observe that the single (Δλ34=1)(\Delta\lambda_{34}=1) and double (Δλ34=2)(\Delta\lambda_{34}=2) helicity-flip SDMEs become zero at cosθ=±1\cos\theta=\pm 1, indicating helicity conservation. In contrast, the Δλ34=0\Delta\lambda_{34}=0 component remains finite Kim:2019kef . We also find that ρ004\rho^{4}_{00} is not exactly unity at cosθ=±1\cos\theta=\pm 1 due to finite helicity non-conserving effects from the f2f_{2} and NN^{*} contributions. As expected, the Δλ34=2\Delta\lambda_{34}=2 contribution is very small, as seen from ρ110\rho^{0}_{1-1}. Notably, the shape of the SDMEs is primarily driven by the NN contribution, which plays a dominant role in the total cross-section.

In Fig. 7, we plot ρ000,4\rho^{0,4}_{00} as functions of WW and cosθ\cos\theta for the Adair, helicity, and Gottfried-Jackson (GJ) frames. The energy dependence of the SDMEs is shown to be quite mild. At the same time, meson contributions, such as from the f0f_{0}, introduce a small but non-trivial structure around W=2.2W=2.2 GeV for helicity-conserving cases, i.e., λ=4\lambda=4 (Δλ34=0\Delta\lambda_{34}=0). As expected, the Δλ34=0\Delta\lambda_{34}=0 contributions are significantly larger than those with Δλ34=1\Delta\lambda_{34}=1.

\topinsetAdairRefer to caption-0.4cm0.5cm \topinsetHelicityRefer to caption-0.4cm0.5cm \topinsetGJRefer to caption-0.4cm0.5cm
\topinsetAdairRefer to caption-0.4cm0.5cm \topinsetHelicityRefer to caption-0.4cm0.5cm \topinsetGJRefer to caption-0.4cm0.5cm
Figure 7: (Color online) Spin-density matrix elements (SDMEs) ρ000,4\rho^{0,4}_{00} as functions of WW and cosθ\cos\theta for the Adair, helicity, and Gottfried-Jackson (GJ) frames.
\topinset(a)Refer to caption-0.3cm0.5cm \topinset(b)Refer to caption-0.3cm0.5cm
\topinset(c)Refer to caption-0.3cm0.5cm \topinset(d)Refer to caption-0.3cm0.5cm
Figure 8: (Color online) (a) Polarized total cross-sections as functions of WW for the different combinations of ϕ3\phi_{3} and ϕ4\phi_{4} polarizations, i.e., (ϵϕ3,ϵϕ4)(\epsilon_{\phi_{3}},\epsilon_{\phi_{4}}). (b) Added and subtracted polarized cross-sections for the different polarization combinations to enhance the meson signals. (c) Polarized differential cross sections as functions of cosθ\cos\theta in the same manner as the panel (b) for W=(2.12.3)W=(2.1-2.3) GeV. (d) Polarization asymmetries in Eq. (28) as functions of cosθ\cos\theta with N+NN+N^{*} and NN^{*}.

Finally, we turn to the discussion of polarization observables, which can provide valuable insight into reaction mechanisms by examining various combinations of ϕ\phi-meson polarizations. In panel (a) of Fig. 8, we present the numerical results for polarized total cross-sections as functions of WW for different combinations of ϕ3\phi_{3} and ϕ4\phi_{4} polarizations, denoted as (ϵϕ3,ϵϕ4)(\epsilon_{\phi_{3}},\epsilon_{\phi_{4}}). The symbols \perp and \parallel indicate that the polarizations are, respectively, transverse and parallel to the reaction plane, while \odot denotes the longitudinal polarization. It is evident from the Lorentz structure of the invariant amplitudes in Eq. (13), it is clear that the amplitudes are sensitive to polarization and are reduced by certain combinations.

The polarized total cross-sections show significant contributions from NN and NN^{*} for identical polarization combinations, but these contributions decrease for different combinations. As described by Eq. (13), the f0f_{0} amplitude becomes zero for the combinations (,)(\parallel,\perp) and (,)(\parallel,\odot), whereas the η\eta amplitude remains non-zero only for (,)(\parallel,\odot). In contrast, the f2f_{2} amplitude remains finite for both combinations. This pattern is illustrated in panel (a) of Fig. 8, showing the bumps corresponding to f0,2f_{0,2} and η\eta, which suggests that meson signals can be enhanced by appropriately adding or subtracting the contributions from different polarization combinations. This approach is tested in panel (b) of Fig. 8, where the f0f_{0} and f2f_{2} contributions are more pronounced and better separated due to improved signal-to-background ratios. In panel (c), we present the angular-dependent differential cross-sections in the same manner as in panel (b) for W=(2.12.3)W=(2.1-2.3) GeV. The f2f_{2} and η\eta contributions exhibit qualitatively flat curves near zero degrees, while the f0f_{0} component shows distinctive angular dependence. Analyzing these polarized angular dependencies allows one to isolate and study specific meson properties more effectively.

As mentioned previously, Ref. Shi:2010un ; Xie:2014tra ; Xie:2007qt considered that the N(1530)N^{*}(1530) dominates the background of the present reaction process, whereas we include more NN^{*} and NN contributions. To test these two different scenarios, we suggest measuring an asymmetry characterized by the various combinations of the ϕ\phi-meson polarizations as follows:

Asymmertydσϵ3ϵ4dσϵ3ϵ4dσϵ3ϵ4+dσϵ3ϵ4,\displaystyle\mathrm{Asymmerty}\equiv\frac{d\sigma_{\epsilon_{3}\epsilon_{4}}-d\sigma_{\epsilon^{\prime}_{3}\epsilon^{\prime}_{4}}}{d\sigma_{\epsilon_{3}\epsilon_{4}}+d\sigma_{\epsilon^{\prime}_{3}\epsilon^{\prime}_{4}}}, (28)

where the ϕ\phi-meson polarizations are given by ϵ3,4=(,,)\epsilon_{3,4}=(\parallel,\perp,\odot) and dσdσ/dcosθd\sigma\equiv d\sigma/d\cos\theta. In panel (d) of Fig. 8, we show the polarization asymmetries in Eq. (28) as functions of cosθ\cos\theta for the full calculation with N+NN+N^{*} and that with NN^{*} only, respectively. As seen in panel (a) of Fig. 8, these two polarization combinations contain much information on the baryon exchanges. It turns out that the angular dependences are distinctively different for the two cases, especially at cosθ=±1\cos\theta=\pm 1 and cosθ0\cos\theta\approx 0, and these differences can be tested in experiments to pin down a reaction mechanism.

The ϕ\phi-meson polarizations are given by ϵ3,4=(,,)\epsilon_{3,4}=(\parallel,\perp,\odot), and the differential cross-section is defined as dσdσ/dcosθd\sigma\equiv d\sigma/d\cos\theta. In panel (d) of Fig. 8, we show the polarization asymmetries from Eq. (28) as functions of cosθ\cos\theta for the full calculation with N+NN+N^{*} contributions and the case with NN^{*} only. As seen in panel (a) of Fig. 8, these polarization combinations carry significant information about the baryon exchanges. The angular dependences are distinctly different between the two cases, particularly at cosθ=±1\cos\theta=\pm 1 and cosθ0\cos\theta\approx 0. These differences can be tested experimentally to identify the reaction mechanism.

IV Summary and future perspectives

This study investigates the production of two ϕ\phi mesons in antiproton-proton annihilation, focusing on reactions near the threshold energy. The process is notable for exhibiting a substantial violation of the Okubo-Zweig-Iizuka (OZI) rule, which typically suppresses reactions involving disconnected quark diagrams. Understanding this violation is essential, as it could reveal new aspects of quantum chromodynamics (QCD), including contributions from exotic gluonic states like glueballs or four-quark states. The main objective of this research is to analyze the reaction mechanisms responsible for double ϕ\phi meson production. The study aims to identify key meson and baryon exchanges and their contributions to cross-sections and polarization observables. This theoretical investigation also offers predictions for upcoming experiments, such as P104 Ahn:2024 planned at J-PARC, which will measure polarization observables for the first time in this context.

We use an effective Lagrangian approach to model the present reaction, incorporating multiple interaction channels. In the tt and uu channels, the exchange of nucleons and excited states N(1535,1650,1895,2071)N^{*}(1535,1650,1895,2071) is considered, which have significant strange quark couplings. The ss channel includes scalar f0(2020,2100,2200)f_{0}(2020,2100,2200) and tensor f2(1950,2010,2150)f_{2}(1950,2010,2150) mesons, as well as the pseudoscalar η(2225)\eta(2225). These exchanges allow the study to capture key dynamics responsible for the observed cross-sections and polarization patterns.

The numerical results show several interesting phenomena. Near the reaction threshold, various nucleon resonances dominate, leading to a rapid rise in the total cross-section. A cusp structure appears near 22312231 MeV, attributed to the Λ¯Λ\bar{\Lambda}\Lambda threshold, affecting the behavior of the cross-sections. In addition, scalar and tensor mesons like f0f_{0} mesons introduce distinct peaks in the cross-section around 2.2 GeV. These contributions highlight the interplay between baryon and meson exchanges, challenging previous theoretical models considering only the N(1535)N^{*}(1535) resonance.

The polarization observables were also analyzed using spin-density matrix elements (SDMEs), which reveal detailed patterns in the scattering angles and helicity conservation. Notably, polarization data indicate symmetry around the scattering angle θ=π/2\theta=\pi/2, as expected for identical mesons. SDME results show that helicity-conserving components are dominant, while deviations arise due to contributions from tensor mesons and excited nucleon states. These polarization patterns provide crucial information about the reaction mechanism and can serve as benchmarks for future experiments.

The study concludes that a combination of meson and baryon exchanges can explain the observed violation of the OZI rule in the present reactions. Resonances like N(1650)N^{*}(1650) and scalar/tensor mesons contribute significantly to the near-threshold dynamics. The presence of the Λ¯Λ\bar{\Lambda}\Lambda cusp and the complex polarization observables further support the need for a more detailed experimental investigation. Upcoming experiments at J-PARC will be essential for validating the theoretical predictions presented in this study.

In summary, this research provides new insights into the mechanisms behind double ϕ\phi meson production, highlighting the importance of exotic states and violation of the OZI rule in QCD. The detailed analysis of cross-sections, polarization observables, and resonance contributions offers a comprehensive framework for understanding this process, laying the groundwork for future experimental work. We emphasize that further experiments will be necessary to confirm the theoretical findings, particularly those concerning polarization and the role of excited nucleon and meson states. Related works are currently in progress and will appear elsewhere.

Acknowledgment

The authors are grateful for the insightful discussions with Sang-Ho Kim (Soongsil University), Kanchan Pradeepkumar Khemchandani (Federal University of São Paulo), and Alberto Martinez Torres (University of São Paulo). The work of S.i.N. and D.Y.L. is supported by grants from the National Research Foundation of Korea (NRF), funded by the Korean government (MSIT) (NRF-2018R1A5A1025563, 2022R1A2C1003964, 2022K2A9A1A06091761, and RS-2024-00436392).

References

  • (1) L. Bertolotto et al. [JETSET], Nuovo Cim. A 107, 2329-2337 (1994).
  • (2) L. Bertolotto et al. [JETSET], Phys. Lett. B 345, 325-334 (1995).
  • (3) C. Evangelista et al. [JETSET], Phys. Rev. D 57, 5370-5381 (1998).
  • (4) H. W. Ke and X. Q. Li, Phys. Rev. D 99, no.3, 036014 (2019).
  • (5) Q. F. Lü, K. L. Wang and Y. B. Dong, Chin. Phys. C 44, no.2, 024101 (2020).
  • (6) Y. Chen et al., Phys. Rev. D 73, 014516 (2006).
  • (7) S. Narison, Nucl. Phys. B 509, 312-356 (1998).
  • (8) H. X. Chen, W. Chen and S. L. Zhu, Phys. Rev. D 104, no.9, 094050 (2021).
  • (9) J. R. Ellis, M. Karliner, D. E. Kharzeev and M. G. Sapozhnikov, Phys. Lett. B 353, 319-328 (1995).
  • (10) N. I. Kochelev, Phys. Atom. Nucl. 59, 1643-1647 (1996).
  • (11) Y. Lu, B. S. Zou and M. P. Locher, Z. Phys. A 345, 207-209 (1993).
  • (12) J. Shi, J. P. Dai and B. S. Zou, Phys. Rev. D 84, 017502 (2011).
  • (13) J. J. Xie, L. S. Geng and X. R. Chen, Phys. Rev. C 90, no.4, 048201 (2014).
  • (14) J. J. Xie, B. S. Zou and H. C. Chiang, Phys. Rev. C 77, 015206 (2008).
  • (15) E. Katz, A. Lewandowski and M. D. Schwartz, Phys. Rev. D 74, 086004 (2006).
  • (16) S. i. Nam, A. Hosaka and H. -Ch. Kim, Phys. Lett. B 633, 483-487 (2006).
  • (17) W. Rarita and J. Schwinger, Phys. Rev. 60, 61 (1941).
  • (18) R. M. Davidson and R. Workman, Phys. Rev. C 63, 025210 (2001).
  • (19) S. H. Kim and S. i. Nam, Phys. Rev. C 101, no.6, 065201 (2020).
  • (20) R. L. Workman et al. [Particle Data Group], PTEP 2022, 083C01 (2022).
  • (21) K. P. Khemchandani, A. Martinez Torres, H. Nagahiro and A. Hosaka, Phys. Rev. D 88, no.11, 114016 (2013).
  • (22) S. i. Nam, Phys. Rev. D 103, no.5, 054040 (2021).
  • (23) K. P. Khemchandani, H. Kaneko, H. Nagahiro and A. Hosaka, Phys. Rev. D 83, 114041 (2011).
  • (24) S. H. Kim, T. S. H. Lee, S. i. Nam and Y. Oh, Phys. Rev. C 104, no.4, 045202 (2021).
  • (25) S. H. Kim and S. i. Nam, Phys. Rev. C 100, no.6, 065208 (2019).
  • (26) J.K. Ahn, J-PARC Proposal P104, Double ϕ\phi production in p¯p\bar{p}p reactions near threshold, July 2024.