text:
# A determination of ⟨𝐴_𝜇²⟩ and the non-perturbative vacuum energy of Yang-Mills theory in the Landau gauge

## 1 Introduction.

Recently there has been growing evidence for the existence of a condensate of mass dimension two in $`SU(N)`$ Yang-Mills theory with $`N`$ colours. An obvious candidate for such a condensate is $`A_\mu ^aA_\mu ^a`$. The phenomenological background of this type of condensate can be found in . However, if one first considers simpler models such as massless $`\lambda \varphi ^4`$ theory or the Gross-Neveu model  and the role played by their quartic interaction in the formation of a (local) composite quadratic condensate and the consequent *dynamical mass generation* for the originally massless fields , it is clear that the *possibility* exists that the quartic gluon interaction gives rise to a quadratic composite operator condensate in Yang Mills theory and hence a dynamical mass for the gluons. The formation of such a dynamical mass is strongly correlated to a lower value of the vacuum energy. In other words the causal perturbative Yang Mills vacuum is unstable. From this viewpoint, mass generation in connection with gluon pairing has already been discussed a long time ago in, for example, . There the analogy with the BCS superconductor and its gap equation was examined. It was shown that the zero vacuum is tachyonic in nature and the gluons achieve a mass due to a non-trivial solution of the gap equation. Moreover, recent work using lattice regularized Yang Mills theory has indicated the existence of a non-zero condensate, $`A_\mu ^aA_\mu ^a`$, . There the authors invoked the operator product expansion, (OPE), on the gluon propagator as well as on the effective coupling $`\alpha _s`$ in the Landau gauge. Their work was based on the perception that, even in the relatively high energy region ($`10`$GeV), a discrepancy existed between the expected perturbative behaviour and the lattice results. It was shown that, within the momentum range accessible to the OPE, that this discrepancy could be solved with a $`1/q^2`$ power correction***The $`\frac{1}{q^4}`$ power correction due to the $`G_{\mu \nu }^2`$ condensate is too weak at such energies to be the cause of the discrepancy.. They concluded that a non-vanishing dimension two condensate must exist. Further, the results of  give some evidence that instantons might be the mechanism behind the low-momentum contribution to condensate. As has been argued in , only the low-momentum content of the squared vector potential is accessible with the OPE. Moreover, they argue that there are also *short-distance* non-perturbative contributions to $`A_\mu ^2`$.

It is no coincidence the Landau gauge is used for the search for a dimension two condensate. Naively, the operator $`A_\mu ^2`$ is not gauge-invariant. Although this does not prevent the condensate $`A_\mu ^2`$ showing up in gauge variant quantities like the gluon propagator, we should instead consider the gauge-invariant operator $`(VT)^1\mathrm{min}_Ud^4x\left(A_\mu ^U\right)^2`$, where $`VT`$ is the space-time volume and $`U`$ is an arbitrary gauge transformation in order to assign some physical meaning to the operator. Clearly from its structure this operator is non-local and thus is difficult to handle. However, when we impose the Landau gauge, it reducesAlthough this equality is somewhat disturbed by Gribov ambiguities . In this paper Gribov copies are neglected since we will work in the perturbative Landau gauge and sum a certain class of bubble diagrams in this particular gauge. It is a pleasant feature of the Landau gauge that $`A_\mu ^2`$ can be given a gauge invariant meaning. In another gauge, the bubbles will no longer correspond to $`A_\mu ^2`$ and the correspondence with $`A_\mu ^2_{\mathrm{min}}`$ is more of academic interest. to the local operator $`A_\mu ^2`$. Moreover, it has been shown that $`A_\mu ^2`$ is (on-shell) BRST invariant . Another motivation for studying $`A_\mu ^2`$ is the perceived connection between the gluon propagator and confinement. (See  and references therein.) More precisely, the gluon propagator exhibits an infrared suppression, as has been reported in many lattice simulations,  and using the Schwinger-Dyson approach, . A dynamical gluon mass might serve as an indication for such a suppression. An attempt has already been made to explain confinement by a dual Ginzburg-Landau model or an effective string theory, in the Landau gauge, with the help of $`A_\mu ^2`$ . The fact that $`A_\mu ^2`$ might be central to confinement, is supported by the observation that it undergoes a phase transition due to the monopole condensation in three dimensional compact QED .

From these various analyses the importance of $`A_\mu ^2`$ must have become clear. Therefore, the aim of this article is to provide some *analytical* evidence that gluons do condense. To our knowledge,  is the only paper which effectively calculates $`A_\mu ^2`$, without referring to lattice regularization. In  the standard way of calculating the effective potential for a particular quantity was followed, and all the problems concerning the fact that the considered quantity was a composite operator were elegantly solved.

In a previous paper , we have discussed the $`2PPI`$ expansion for the Gross-Neveu model and found results close to the exact values for the Gross-Neveu mass gap and the vacuum energy. The $`2PPI`$ expansion does not rely on the effective action formalism of . Instead it is directly based on the path integral and the topology of its Feynman diagrammatical expansion. In this paper we will discuss how to apply it to $`SU(N)`$ Yang-Mills theories in the Landau gauge. Of course, it is not our aim to provide a complete picture of $`A_\mu ^2`$ but rather give further evidence for its existence since it lowers the vacuum energy.

## 2 The $`2PPI`$ expansion.

The $`SU(N)`$ Yang Mills Lagrangian in $`d`$-dimensional Euclidean space time is given by

$$(A_\mu ,\xi ,\overline{\xi })=\frac{1}{4}G_{\mu \nu }^aG_{\mu \nu }^a+_{gauge+F.P.}$$
(2.1)
where $`G_{\mu \nu }^a`$ is the gluon field strength, $`1`$ $``$ $`a`$ $``$ $`N^21`$, $`_{gauge+F.P.}`$ implements the Landau gauge and its corresponding Faddeev-Popov part and $`\xi `$ and $`\overline{\xi }`$ denote the ghosts and anti-ghost fields respectively. Issues concerning the counterterm part of (2.1) will be discussed later. First, we consider the diagrammatical expansion for the vacuum energy which we denote by $`E`$. As is well known, this is a series consisting of one particle irreducible, $`(1PI)`$, diagrams. These $`1PI`$ diagrams can be divided into two disjoint classes:

* those diagrams not falling apart into two separate pieces when two lines meeting at the same point $`x`$ are cut, which we call 2-point-particle-irreducible, ($`2PPI`$); (an example is given in Fig. 1)
* those diagrams falling apart into two separate pieces when two lines meeting at the same point $`x`$ are cut which we call 2-point-particle-reducible, ($`2PPR`$), while $`x`$ is called the $`2PPR`$ insertion point; (an example is given in Fig. 2).

We may now resum this series of $`2PPR`$ and $`2PPI`$ graphs, where the propagators are the usual massless ones, by retaining only the $`2PPI`$ graphs, whereby the $`2PPR`$ insertions, or bubbles, are resummed into an effective $`(\text{mass})^2`$ $`m_{2PPI}^2\overline{m}^2`$. The bubble graph gluon polarization is then given by

$`\mathrm{\Pi }_{\mu \nu }^{ab}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{g^2}{2}}[f_{eab}f_{ecd}(A_\mu ^cA_\nu ^dA_\mu ^dA_\nu ^c)+f_{eac}f_{edb}(A_\mu ^dA_\nu ^cA_\rho ^cA_\rho ^d\delta _{\mu \nu })`$ (2.2)
$`+f_{ead}f_{ebc}(\delta _{\mu \nu }A_\rho ^cA_\rho ^dA_\mu ^cA_\nu ^d)]`$
where $`f_{abc}`$ are the $`SU(N)`$ structure constants. We define the vacuum expectation value of $`A_\mu ^2`$ as

$$\mathrm{\Delta }=A_\mu ^aA_\mu ^a.$$
(2.3)
The global $`SU(N)`$ symmetry can then be used to show that

$$A_\mu ^aA_\nu ^b=\frac{\delta ^{ab}\delta _{\mu \nu }}{d\left(N^21\right)}\mathrm{\Delta }$$
(2.4)
Substitution of (2.4) in (2.2) yields

$$\mathrm{\Pi }_{\mu \nu }^{ab}=g^2\frac{N}{N^21}\frac{d1}{d}\delta ^{ab}\delta _{\mu \nu }\mathrm{\Delta }$$
(2.5)
which results in an effective mass, $`\overline{m}`$, running in the $`2PPI`$ propagators, given by

$$\overline{m}^2=g^2\frac{N}{N^21}\frac{d1}{d}\mathrm{\Delta }.$$
(2.6)
If we let $`E_{2PPI}`$ be the sum of the $`2PPI`$ vacuum bubbles, calculated with the effective $`2PPI`$ propagator, then this $`E_{2PPI}`$ is *not* equal to the vacuum energy $`E`$, because simply removing all $`2PPR`$ insertions is too naive. For instance, there is a double counting problem which is already visible in the $`2PPR`$ diagram of Fig. 2 where each bubble can be seen as a $`2PPR`$ insertion on the other one. However, we can resolve this ambiguity. A dimensional argument results in

$$E=E_{2PPI}+cg^2\mathrm{\Delta }^2$$
(2.7)
where $`c0`$ will accomodate the double counting. To determine the appropriate value of $`c`$, we use the path integral which gives

$`{\displaystyle \frac{E}{g^2}}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4g}}f_{abc}\left(_\mu A_\nu ^a_\nu A_\mu ^a\right)A_\mu ^bA_\nu ^c{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2g}}f_{abc}_\mu \overline{\xi }^a\xi ^cA_\mu ^b`$ (2.8)
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}f_{abc}f_{ade}A_\mu ^bA_\nu ^cA_\mu ^dA_\nu ^e.`$
The first two terms contribute unambiguously to the $`2PPI`$ part. For the last term, we rewrite

$`A_\mu ^bA_\nu ^cA_\mu ^dA_\nu ^e`$ $`=`$ $`A_\mu ^bA_\nu ^cA_\mu ^dA_\nu ^e+A_\mu ^bA_\mu ^dA_\nu ^cA_\nu ^e`$ (2.9)
$`+A_\mu ^bA_\nu ^eA_\nu ^cA_\mu ^d+A_\mu ^bA_\nu ^cA_\mu ^dA_\nu ^e_{2PPI}.`$
Using (2.4) and the properties of the structure constants $`f_{abc}`$, we obtain

$`{\displaystyle \frac{E}{g^2}}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4g}}f_{abc}\left(_\mu A_\nu ^a_\nu A_\mu ^a\right)A_\mu ^bA_\nu ^c_{2PPI}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2g}}f_{abc}_\mu \overline{\xi }^a\xi ^cA_\mu ^b_{2PPI}`$ (2.10)
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}f_{abc}f_{ade}A_\mu ^bA_\nu ^cA_\mu ^dA_\nu ^e_{2PPI}+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}{\displaystyle \frac{N}{N^21}}{\displaystyle \frac{d1}{d}}\mathrm{\Delta }^2`$
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{E_{2PPI}}{g^2}}+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}{\displaystyle \frac{N}{N^21}}{\displaystyle \frac{d1}{d}}\mathrm{\Delta }^2.`$
From (2.7), we derive

$`{\displaystyle \frac{E}{g^2}}={\displaystyle \frac{E_{2PPI}}{g^2}}+{\displaystyle \frac{E_{2PPI}}{\overline{m}^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{\overline{m}^2}{g^2}}+c\mathrm{\Delta }^2+2cg^2\mathrm{\Delta }{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Delta }}{g^2}}.`$ (2.11)
Combining (2.6), (2.10) and (2.11) gives

$`{\displaystyle \frac{E_{2PPI}}{\overline{m}^2}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{N}{N^21}}{\displaystyle \frac{d1}{d}}\mathrm{\Delta }+g^2{\displaystyle \frac{N}{N^21}}{\displaystyle \frac{d1}{d}}{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Delta }}{g^2}}\right)={\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}{\displaystyle \frac{N}{N^21}}{\displaystyle \frac{d1}{d}}\mathrm{\Delta }^2.`$ (2.12)
Then a simple diagrammatical argument gives

$`{\displaystyle \frac{E_{2PPI}}{\overline{m}^2}}={\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Delta }}{2}}.`$ (2.13)
which is a local gap equation, summing the bubble graphs into $`\overline{m}^2`$. Using this together with (2.12) finally gives

$`c={\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}{\displaystyle \frac{N}{N^21}}{\displaystyle \frac{d1}{d}}.`$ (2.14)
It is easy to show that the following equivalence holds

$$\frac{E_{2PPI}}{\overline{m}^2}=\frac{\mathrm{\Delta }}{2}\frac{E}{\overline{m}^2}=0.$$
(2.15)
To summarize, we have summed the bubble insertions into an effective $`(\text{mass})^2`$, $`\overline{m}^2`$. The vacuum energy is expressed by

$`E=E_{2PPI}{\displaystyle \frac{g^2}{4}}{\displaystyle \frac{N}{N^21}}{\displaystyle \frac{d1}{d}}\mathrm{\Delta }^2.`$ (2.16)
We stress the fact that (2.16) is *only meaningful if* the gap equation (2.15) is satisfied. This means we cannot consider $`\overline{m}`$ or $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ as a real variable on which $`E`$ depends. It is a quantity which has to obey its gap equation, otherwise the $`2PPI`$ expansion loses its validity. This also means that $`E(\overline{m})`$, or equivalently $`E(\mathrm{\Delta })`$, is not a function depending on $`\overline{m}`$ ($`\mathrm{\Delta }`$), in contrast$`V(\phi )`$ also makes sense if $`\frac{dV}{d\phi }0`$. with the usual concept of an effective potential $`V(\phi )`$ which is a function of the constant field $`\phi `$.

In order to ensure the usefulness of the $`2PPI`$ formalism for actual calculations, we should prove it can be fully renormalized with the counterterms available from the original (bare) Lagrangian, (2.1). However, it is sufficient to say that all our derived formulae remain valid and are finite when the counterterms are included. This also implies the $`2PPI`$ mass $`\overline{m}`$ is renormalized and gives rise to a finite, physical mass§§§$`m_{\text{phys}}`$ is the pole of the gluon propagator., $`m_{\text{phys}}`$. Furthermore, no new counterterms are needed to remove the vacuum energy divergences. The renormalizability of the $`2PPI`$ expansion has been discussed in detail in  in the case of the Gross-Neveu model. Since the arguments for Yang Mills theory are completely analogous, we refer to  for technical details concerning the renormalization.

Another point worth emphasising here, is the renormalization group equation, (RGE), for $`E`$. The first diagram of $`E_{2PPI}`$ is given by the O-bubble. Using the $`\overline{\text{MS}}`$ renormalization scheme in dimensional regularization in $`d`$ dimensions, we find

$`E={\displaystyle \frac{3}{4}}{\displaystyle \frac{N^21}{16\pi ^2}}\overline{m}^4\left(\mathrm{ln}{\displaystyle \frac{\overline{m}^2}{\overline{\mu }^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{5}{6}}\right){\displaystyle \frac{1}{4\overline{g}^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{d}{d1}}{\displaystyle \frac{N^21}{N}}\overline{m}^4.`$ (2.17)
Since $`E`$ is a physical quantity, it should not depend on the subtraction scale $`\overline{\mu }`$. This is expressed by the RGE

$`\overline{\mu }{\displaystyle \frac{dE}{d\overline{\mu }}}=\left(\overline{\mu }{\displaystyle \frac{}{\overline{\mu }}}+\overline{\beta }(\overline{g}^2){\displaystyle \frac{}{\overline{g}^2}}+\overline{\kappa }(\overline{g}^2)\overline{m}^2{\displaystyle \frac{}{\overline{m}^2}}\right)E=0`$ (2.18)
where $`\overline{\beta }(\overline{g}^2)`$ governs the scaling behaviour of the coupling constant

$`\overline{\beta }(\overline{g}^2)=\overline{\mu }{\displaystyle \frac{\overline{g}^2}{\overline{\mu }}}=2\left(\beta _0\overline{g}^4+\beta _1\overline{g}^6+\overline{\beta }_2\overline{g}^8+\mathrm{}\right)`$ (2.19)
and $`\overline{\kappa }(\overline{g}^2)`$ is the anomalous dimension of $`\overline{m}^2`$

$`\overline{\mu }{\displaystyle \frac{\overline{m}^2}{\overline{\mu }}}`$ $`=`$ $`\left({\displaystyle \frac{\overline{\beta }(\overline{g}^2)}{\overline{g}^2}}+\overline{\gamma }_{A_\mu ^2}(\overline{g}^2)\right)\overline{m}^2\overline{\kappa }(\overline{g}^2)\overline{m}^2`$ (2.20)
$`\overline{\gamma }_{A_\mu ^2}(\overline{g}^2)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\overline{\mu }}{\overline{\mathrm{\Delta }}}}{\displaystyle \frac{\overline{\mathrm{\Delta }}}{\overline{\mu }}}=\gamma _0\overline{g}^2+\overline{\gamma }_1\overline{g}^4+\overline{\gamma }_2\overline{g}^6+\mathrm{}.`$ (2.21)
The coefficients can be found in  for $`\overline{\beta }`$ and in  for $`\overline{\gamma }_{A_\mu ^2}`$,

$`\beta _0`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{11}{3}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{N}{16\pi ^2}}\right)\beta _1={\displaystyle \frac{34}{3}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{N}{16\pi ^2}}\right)^2\overline{\beta }_2={\displaystyle \frac{2857}{54}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{N}{16\pi ^2}}\right)^3`$ (2.22)
$`\gamma _0`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{35}{6}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{N}{16\pi ^2}}\right)\overline{\gamma }_1={\displaystyle \frac{449}{24}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{N}{16\pi ^2}}\right)^2\overline{\gamma }_2=\left[{\displaystyle \frac{75607}{864}}{\displaystyle \frac{9\zeta (3)}{16}}\right]\left({\displaystyle \frac{N}{16\pi ^2}}\right)^3.`$
When we combine all this information and determine $`\overline{\mu }\frac{dE}{d\overline{\mu }}`$ up to lowest order in $`\overline{g}^2`$, we find

$$\overline{\mu }\frac{dE}{d\overline{\mu }}0.$$
(2.24)
Apparently, it seems that $`E`$ does not obey its RGE. However, this is not a contradiction because of the demand that the gap equation (2.15) *must* be satisfied. The gap equation implies that $`\mathrm{ln}\frac{\overline{m}^2}{\overline{\mu }^2}\frac{1}{\overline{g}^2}+\text{constants}`$. The consequence is that all leading logarithms contain terms of order unity. Hence, we cannot show that the RGE for $`E`$ is obeyed order by order. The same phenomenon extends to higher orders. In other words, knowledge of $`\overline{\mu }\frac{dE}{d\overline{\mu }}`$ up to a certain order $`n`$, would require knowledge of *all* leading and subleading log terms to order $`n`$, to show explicitly that $`\overline{\mu }\frac{dE}{d\overline{\mu }}`$ $`=`$ $`0`$. We must therefore be careful not to interpret the non-vanishing of the RGE as a reason to introduce a “non-perturbative” $`\beta `$-function, as is sometimes done, .

## 3  Results.

Up to 2-loop order in the $`2PPI`$ expansion (see Fig. 3), we find in the $`\overline{\text{MS}}`$ scheme

$`E(\overline{\mathrm{\Delta }})`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{3}{16}}{\displaystyle \frac{\overline{g}^2N}{N^21}}\overline{\mathrm{\Delta }}^2+{\displaystyle \frac{27}{64}}{\displaystyle \frac{\overline{g}^4N^2}{16\pi ^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{\overline{\mathrm{\Delta }}^2}{N^21}}\left(\mathrm{ln}{\displaystyle \frac{\frac{3}{4}\frac{\overline{g}^2N}{N^21}\overline{\mathrm{\Delta }}}{\overline{\mu }^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{5}{6}}\right)+{\displaystyle \frac{9}{16}}{\displaystyle \frac{\overline{g}^6N^3}{\left(16\pi ^2\right)^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{\overline{\mathrm{\Delta }}^2}{N^21}}`$
$`\times \left[{\displaystyle \frac{31}{2}}\left(\mathrm{ln}{\displaystyle \frac{\frac{3}{4}\frac{\overline{g}^2N}{N^21}\overline{\mathrm{\Delta }}}{\overline{\mu }^2}}\right)^2+{\displaystyle \frac{259}{8}}\mathrm{ln}{\displaystyle \frac{\frac{3}{4}\frac{\overline{g}^2N}{N^21}\overline{\mathrm{\Delta }}}{\overline{\mu }^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{1043}{32}}+{\displaystyle \frac{891}{16}}s_2{\displaystyle \frac{63}{8}}\zeta (2)\right]`$
where $`\zeta (n)`$ is the Riemann zeta function,

$$s_2=\frac{4}{9\sqrt{3}}𝒞\mathrm{}_2\left(\frac{\pi }{3}\right)0.2604341$$
(3.2)
and $`𝒞\mathrm{}_2(x)`$ is the Clausen function. We have computed the relevant two loop vacuum bubble diagrams to the finite part using the massive gluon and massless ghost propagators which are respectively

$$\frac{1}{p^2+\overline{m}^2}\left[\delta _{\mu \nu }\frac{p_\mu p_\nu }{p^2}\right]\text{and}\frac{1}{p^2}$$
(3.3)
in the Landau gauge. The expressions for the general massive and massless two loop bubble integrals were derived from the results of  and implemented in the symbolic manipulation language Form, . It is easy to check that solving the gap equation $`\frac{E}{\overline{\mathrm{\Delta }}}`$ $`=`$ $`0`$, with $`\overline{\mu }^2`$ set equal to $`\frac{3}{4}\frac{\overline{g}^2N}{N^21}\overline{\mathrm{\Delta }}`$ to kill potentially large logarithms, gives no solution at 1-loop or 2-loop, apart from the trivial one $`\overline{\mathrm{\Delta }}`$ $`=`$ $`0`$. This does not imply $`A_\mu ^2`$ does not exist but that the $`\overline{\text{MS}}`$ scheme might not be the best choice for the $`2PPI`$ expansion. To address this we first remove the freedom existing in how the mass parameter $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ is renormalized by replacing $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ by a renormalization scheme and scale independent quantity $`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Delta }}`$. This can be accommodated byBarred quantities refer to the $`\overline{\text{MS}}`$ scheme, otherwise any other massless renormalization scheme is meant.

$$\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Delta }}=\overline{f}\left(\overline{g}^2\right)\overline{\mathrm{\Delta }}$$
(3.4)
with

$$\overline{\mu }\frac{\overline{f}}{\overline{\mu }}=\overline{\gamma }_{A_\mu ^2}\left(\overline{g}^2\right)\overline{f}.$$
(3.5)
A change in massless renormalization scheme corresponds to relations of the form

$`\overline{g}^2`$ $`=`$ $`g^2\left(1+b_0g^2+b_1g^4+\mathrm{}\right)`$ (3.6)
$`\overline{\mathrm{\Delta }}`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{\Delta }\left(1+d_0g^2+d_1g^4+\mathrm{}\right)`$ (3.7)
$`\overline{f}(\overline{g}^2)`$ $`=`$ $`f(g^2)\left(1+f_0g^2+f_1g^4+\mathrm{}\right).`$ (3.8)
With these, it is easily checked that (3.4) is renormalization scheme and scale independent. The explicit solution of (3.5) reads

$`\overline{f}\left(\overline{g}^2\right)`$ $`=`$ $`\left(\overline{g}^2\right)^{\frac{\gamma _0}{2\beta _0}}\{1+{\displaystyle \frac{\overline{g}^2}{2}}({\displaystyle \frac{\beta _1\gamma _0}{\beta _0^2}}+{\displaystyle \frac{\overline{\gamma }_1}{\beta _0}})+{\displaystyle \frac{\overline{g}^4}{4}}[{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}({\displaystyle \frac{\beta _1\gamma _0}{\beta _0^2}}+{\displaystyle \frac{\overline{\gamma }_1}{\beta _0}})^2`$ (3.9)
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{\gamma _0\left(\frac{\beta _1^2}{\beta _0^2}\frac{\overline{\beta }_2}{\beta _0}\right)}{\beta _0}}{\displaystyle \frac{\beta _1\overline{\gamma }_1}{\beta _0^2}}+{\displaystyle \frac{\overline{\gamma }_2}{\beta _0}}]+𝒪\left(\overline{g}^6\right)\}.`$
Since the gap equation is still a series expansion in $`\frac{g^2N}{16\pi ^2}`$ and we hope to find (at least qualitatively) acceptable results, $`\frac{g^2N}{16\pi ^2}`$ should be small. We will therefore choose to renormalize the coupling constant in such a scheme so that $`E`$ is of the form

$$E=\frac{3}{16}\left(g^2\right)^{1\frac{\gamma _0}{\beta _0}}\frac{N}{N^21}\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Delta }}^2\left(1+\frac{g^2N}{16\pi ^2}E_1^1L+\left(\frac{g^2N}{16\pi ^2}\right)^2\left(E_2^1L+E_2^2L^2\right)+\mathrm{}\right)$$
(3.10)
where

$$L=\mathrm{ln}\frac{\frac{3}{4}\left(g^2\right)^{1\frac{\gamma _0}{2\beta _0}}\frac{N}{N^21}\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Delta }}}{\overline{\mu }^2}.$$
(3.11)
Otherwise, we remove all the terms of the form $`\left(\frac{g^2N}{16\pi ^2}\right)^n\times \text{constant}`$, and only keep the terms that contain a power of the logarithm $`L`$. This is always possible by calculating the $`\overline{\text{MS}}`$ value of $`E`$ as in (3) and using (3.6) to change the coupling constant renormalization by a suitable choice for the coefficients $`b_i`$. In other words the 1-loop $`\overline{\text{MS}}`$ contribution to $`E`$ allows one to determine $`b_0`$. Once $`b_0`$ is fixed, the 2-loop $`\overline{\text{MS}}`$ contribution to $`E`$ can be used to fix $`b_1`$, and so on for the higher order contributions. We note that the gap equation (2.15) is translated into $`\frac{E}{\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Delta }}}`$ $`=`$ $`0`$ since $`\overline{m}^2\overline{\mathrm{\Delta }}\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Delta }}`$. In this gap equation, we will set $`\overline{\mu }^2`$ $`=`$ $`\frac{3}{4}\left(g^2\right)^{1\frac{\gamma _0}{2\beta _0}}\frac{N}{N^21}\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Delta }}`$ so that all logarithms vanish. In other words $`L`$ $`=`$ $`0`$. Notice that one cannot set $`\overline{\mu }^2`$ $`=`$ $`\frac{3}{4}\left(g^2\right)^{1\frac{\gamma _0}{2\beta _0}}\frac{N}{N^21}\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Delta }}`$ in the expression (3.10) and use the RGE for $`E`$ to sum the logarithms when $`\frac{dE}{d\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Delta }}}=0`$ is solved. As already explained in the previous section, the RGE for $`E`$ is not obeyed order by order, see also . Once a solution $`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Delta }}_{}`$ of the gap equation is found, then we will always have

$$E_{\text{vac}}=\frac{3}{16}\left(g^2\right)^{1\frac{\gamma _0}{\beta _0}}\frac{N}{N^21}\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Delta }}_{}^2.$$
(3.12)
If the constructed value for $`\frac{g^2N}{16\pi ^2}`$ is small enough, then we can trust, at least qualitatively, the results we will obtain. Now we are ready to rewrite (3) in terms of $`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Delta }}`$. After a little algebra, one finds

$`E`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{3}{16}}\left(g^2\right)^{1\frac{\gamma _0}{\beta _0}}{\displaystyle \frac{N}{N^21}}\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Delta }}^2\{1+[{\displaystyle \frac{9N}{64\pi ^2}}({\displaystyle \frac{5}{6}}+L)2c_1c_4]g^2`$
$`+[{\displaystyle \frac{3N^2}{256\pi ^4}}(c_3+{\displaystyle \frac{259}{8}}L{\displaystyle \frac{31}{2}}L^2)2b_0c_1c_1^22c_2+({\displaystyle \frac{9N}{64\pi ^2}}({\displaystyle \frac{5}{6}}+L)2c_1)c_4`$
$`c_5+{\displaystyle \frac{9N}{64\pi ^2}}(({\displaystyle \frac{5}{6}}+L)b_0+c_1+2({\displaystyle \frac{5}{6}}+L)c_1+b_0(1{\displaystyle \frac{\gamma _0}{2\beta _0}}))]g^4+𝒪\left(g^6\right)\}`$
with

$`c_1`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{\beta _1\gamma _0}{\beta _0^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{\overline{\gamma }_1}{\beta _0}}\right)`$ (3.14)
$`c_2`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{8}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{\beta _1\gamma _0}{\beta _0^2}}+{\displaystyle \frac{\overline{\gamma }_1}{\beta _0}}\right)^2{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{\gamma _0\left(\frac{\beta _1^2}{\beta _0^2}\frac{\overline{\beta }_2}{\beta _0}\right)}{\beta _0}}\right)+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{\beta _1\overline{\gamma }_1}{\beta _0^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{\overline{\gamma }_2}{\beta _0}}\right)`$ (3.15)
$`c_3`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1043}{32}}{\displaystyle \frac{63}{8}}\zeta (2)+{\displaystyle \frac{891}{16}}s_2`$ (3.16)
$`c_4`$ $`=`$ $`b_0\left(1{\displaystyle \frac{\gamma _0}{\beta _0}}\right)`$ (3.17)
$`c_5`$ $`=`$ $`b_1\left(1{\displaystyle \frac{\gamma _0}{\beta _0}}\right)b_0^2{\displaystyle \frac{\gamma _0}{2\beta _0}}\left(1{\displaystyle \frac{\gamma _0}{\beta _0}}\right).`$ (3.18)
Next, we determine $`b_0`$ and $`b_1`$ so that (3) reduces to

$`E`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{3}{16}}\left(g^2\right)^{1\frac{\gamma _0}{\beta _0}}\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Delta }}^2{\displaystyle \frac{N}{N^21}}\{1+g^2{\displaystyle \frac{9N}{64\pi ^2}}L+g^4[{\displaystyle \frac{3N^2}{256\pi ^4}}({\displaystyle \frac{259}{8}}L{\displaystyle \frac{31}{2}}L^2)`$ (3.19)
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{9N}{64\pi ^2}}(b_0+c_4+2c_1)L]+𝒪\left(g^6\right)\}.`$
We find that $`b_0`$ is

$$b_0=\frac{409}{2288}\frac{N}{\pi ^2}.$$
(3.20)
We do not list the value for $`b_1`$ since it is no longer required. From the $`\beta `$-function we find the two loop expression for the coupling constant is

$`g^2(\overline{\mu })`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\beta _0\mathrm{ln}\frac{\overline{\mu }^2}{\mathrm{\Lambda }^2}}}{\displaystyle \frac{\beta _1}{\beta _0}}{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{ln}\mathrm{ln}\frac{\overline{\mu }^2}{\mathrm{\Lambda }^2}}{\beta _0^2\mathrm{ln}^2\frac{\overline{\mu }^2}{\mathrm{\Lambda }^2}}}`$ (3.21)
where $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ is the scale parameter of the corresponding massless renormalization scheme. We will express everything in terms of the $`\overline{\text{MS}}`$ scale parameter $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_{\overline{\text{MS}}}`$. In , it was shown that

$$\mathrm{\Lambda }=\mathrm{\Lambda }_{\overline{\text{MS}}}e^{\frac{b_0}{2\beta _0}}.$$
(3.22)
We will also derive a value for the $`\frac{\alpha _s}{\pi }G_{\mu \nu }^2`$ condensate from the trace anomaly

$$\mathrm{\Theta }_{\mu \mu }=\frac{\beta (g)}{2g}\left(G_{\rho \sigma }^a\right)^2.$$
(3.23)
This anomaly allows us to deduce for $`N`$ $`=`$ $`3`$ the following relation between the vacuum energy and the gluon condensate

$$\frac{\alpha _s}{\pi }G_{\mu \nu }^2=\frac{32}{11}E_{\text{vac}}.$$
(3.24)
At 1-loop order, the results for $`N`$ $`=`$ $`3`$ are

$`{\displaystyle \frac{g^2N}{16\pi ^2}}|_{\text{1-loop}}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{8}{9}}`$ (3.25)
$`\sqrt{\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Delta }}}|_{\text{1-loop}}`$ $``$ $`1.004\mathrm{\Lambda }_{\overline{\text{MS}}}233\text{MeV}`$ (3.26)
$`E_{\text{vac}}|_{\text{1-loop}}`$ $``$ $`0.0074\mathrm{\Lambda }_{\overline{\text{MS}}}^40.00002\text{GeV}^4`$ (3.27)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{\alpha _s}{\pi }}G_{\mu \nu }^2|_{\text{1-loop}}`$ $``$ $`0.02\mathrm{\Lambda }_{\overline{\text{MS}}}^40.00007\text{GeV}^4`$ (3.28)
while the scale parameter $`\overline{\mu }^2(184\text{MeV})^2`$. We have used $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_{\overline{\text{MS}}}`$ $``$ $`233\text{MeV}`$ which was the value reported in . We see that the 1-loop expansion parameter is quite large and we conclude that we should go to the next order where the situation is improved. We find

$`{\displaystyle \frac{g^2N}{16\pi ^2}}|_{\text{2-loop}}`$ $``$ $`0.131`$ (3.29)
$`\sqrt{\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Delta }}}|_{\text{2-loop}}`$ $``$ $`2.3\mathrm{\Lambda }_{\overline{\text{MS}}}536\text{MeV}`$ (3.30)
$`E_{\text{vac}}|_{\text{2-loop}}`$ $``$ $`0.63\mathrm{\Lambda }_{\overline{\text{MS}}}^40.002\text{GeV}^4`$ (3.31)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{\alpha _s}{\pi }}G_{\mu \nu }^2|_{\text{2-loop}}`$ $``$ $`1.84\mathrm{\Lambda }_{\overline{\text{MS}}}^40.005\text{GeV}^4.`$ (3.32)
with $`\overline{\mu }^2(347\text{MeV})^2`$. Although there is a sizeable difference between 1-loop and 2-loop results, the relative smallness of the 2-loop expansion parameter, indicates that the 2-loop values are qualitatively trustworthy. It is well known that in order to find reliable perturbative results, one must go beyond 1-loop, and even beyond 2-loop approximations. Therefore, one should not attach a firm quantitative meaning to the numerical values. Let us compare our results with what was found elsewhere with different methods. A combined lattice fit resulted in $`\sqrt{A_\mu ^2}`$ $``$ $`1.64\text{GeV}`$, . We cannot really compare this with our result for $`\sqrt{\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Delta }}}`$, since the lattice value was obtained with the OPE at a scale $`\mu `$ $`=`$ $`10\text{GeV}`$ in a specific renormalization scheme (MOM). However, it is satisfactory that (3.30) is at least of the same order of magnitude. More interesting is the comparison with what was found in  with the local composite operator formalism for $`A_\mu ^2`$. In the $`\overline{\text{MS}}`$ scheme at 2-loop order, it was found that $`\frac{\overline{g}^2N}{16\pi ^2}0.141247`$ while $`E_{\text{vac}}`$ $``$ $`\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}0.789}\mathrm{\Lambda }_{\overline{\text{MS}}}^4`$ which is in quite good agreement with our results. An estimate of the tree level gluon mass of $`500\text{MeV}`$ was also given in  which compares well with the lattice value of $`600\text{MeV}`$ of . With the $`2PPI`$ method, one does not really have the concept of a tree level mass. Instead, the determination of $`m_{\text{phys}}`$ would need the calculation of the highly non-trivial 2-loop $`2PPI`$ mass renormalization graphs which is beyond the scope of this article.

In conclusion we note that the perturbative Yang-Mills vacuum is unstable and lowers its value through a non-perturbative mass dimension two gluon condensate $`A_\mu ^2`$. We have omitted quark contributions in our analysis but it is straighforward to extend the $`2PPI`$ expansion to QCD with quarks included. Indeed an idea of the effect they have could be gained by an extension of .

Acknowledgement. This work was supported in part by Pparc through a research studentship, (REB).


format: text

text:
# 1 Introduction

## 1 Introduction

In our previous papers  we have presented the arguments in favour of that the Kaluza-Klein picture of the world has been been observed in the experiments at very low energies where the nucleon-nucleon dynamics has been studied. In particular we have found that geniusly simple formula for KK excitations provided by Kaluza-Klein approach gives an excellent description for the mass spectrum of two-nucleon system. Surely, this was quite an event and, certainly, this very nice fact inspired us to study the other two-particle hadronic systems in this respect.

Recently there is a large amount of data concerning resonance states of two-pion system . The modern strong interaction theory formulated in terms of known QCD Lagrangian do not allow us at present time to make an appreciable breakthrough in the problem of calculating the masses of compound systems mainly because this problem is a significantly non-perturbative one. Therefore, great efforts have been undertaken to develop various kinds (semi)phenomenological models for systematics of experimentally observed resonance states.

We have performed an analysis of experimental data on mass spectrum of the resonance states of two-pion system and compared them with Kaluza-Klein picture. The results of this analysis have been presented here.

## 2 Kaluza-Klein picture and KK excitations in two-pion system

It is well known that the basic idea of the Kaluza-Klein scenario may be applied to any model in Quantum Field Theory (see for the details e.g. the excellent review articles  and many references therein). As example, let us consider the simplest case of (4+d)-dimensional model of scalar field with the action

$$S=d^{4+d}z\sqrt{𝒢}\left[\frac{1}{2}\left(_M\mathrm{\Phi }\right)^2\frac{m^2}{2}\mathrm{\Phi }^2+\frac{G_{(4+d)}}{4!}\mathrm{\Phi }^4\right],$$
(1)
where $`𝒢=det|𝒢_{MN}|`$, $`𝒢_{MN}`$ is the metric on $`_{(4+d)}=M_4\times K_d`$, $`M_4`$ is pseudo-Euclidean Minkowski space-time, $`K_d`$ is a compact internal $`d`$-dimensional space with the characteristic size $`R`$. Let $`\mathrm{\Delta }_{K_d}`$ be the Laplace operator on the internal space $`K_d`$, and $`Y_n(y)`$ are ortho-normalized eigenfunctions of the Laplace operator

$$\mathrm{\Delta }_{K_d}Y_n(y)=\frac{\lambda _n}{R^2}Y_n(y),$$
(2)
and $`n`$ is a (multi)index labeling the eigenvalue $`\lambda _n`$ of the eigenfunction $`Y_n(y)`$. $`d`$-dimensional torus $`T^d`$ with equal radii $`R`$ is an especially simple example of the compact internal space of extra dimensions $`K_d`$. The eigenfunctions and eigenvalues in this special case look like

$$Y_n(y)=\frac{1}{\sqrt{V_d}}\mathrm{exp}\left(i\underset{m=1}{\overset{d}{}}n_my^m/R\right),$$
(3)
$$\lambda _n=|n|^2,|n|^2=n_1^2+n_2^2+\mathrm{}n_d^2,n=(n_1,n_2,\mathrm{},n_d),\mathrm{}n_m\mathrm{},$$

where $`n_m`$ are integer numbers, $`V_d=(2\pi R)^d`$ is the volume of the torus.

To reduce the multidimensional theory to the effective four-dimensional one we wright a harmonic expansion for the multidimensional field $`\mathrm{\Phi }(z)`$

$$\mathrm{\Phi }(z)=\mathrm{\Phi }(x,y)=\underset{n}{}\varphi ^{(n)}(x)Y_n(y).$$
(4)
The coefficients $`\varphi ^{(n)}(x)`$ of the harmonic expansion (4) are called Kaluza-Klein (KK) excitations or KK modes, and they usually include the zero-mode $`\varphi ^{(0)}(x)`$, corresponding to $`n=0`$ and the eigenvalue $`\lambda _0=0`$. Substitution of the KK mode expansion into action (1) and integration over the internal space $`K_d`$ gives

$$S=d^4x\sqrt{g}\{\frac{1}{2}\left(_\mu \varphi ^{(0)}\right)^2\frac{m^2}{2}(\varphi ^{(0)})^2+\frac{g}{4!}(\varphi ^{(0)})^4+$$
(5)
$$+\underset{n0}{}[\frac{1}{2}\left(_\mu \varphi ^{(n)}\right)\left(^\mu \varphi ^{(n)}\right)^{}\frac{m_n^2}{2}\varphi ^{(n)}\varphi ^{(n)}]+\frac{g}{4!}(\varphi ^{(0)})^2\underset{n0}{}\varphi ^{(n)}\varphi ^{(n)}\}+\mathrm{}.$$

For the masses of the KK modes one obtains

$$m_n^2=m^2+\frac{\lambda _n}{R^2},$$
(6)
and the coupling constant $`g`$ of the four-dimensional theory is related to the coupling constant $`G_{(4+d)}`$ of the initial multidimensional theory by the equation

$$g=\frac{G_{(4+d)}}{V_d},$$
(7)
where $`V_d`$ is the volume of the compact internal space of extra dimensions $`K_d`$. The fundamental coupling constant $`G_{(4+d)}`$ has dimension $`[\text{mass}]^d`$. So, the four-dimensional coupling constant $`g`$ is dimensionless one as it should be. Eqs. (6,7) represent the basic relations of Kaluza-Klein scenario. Similar relations take place for other types of multidimensional quantum field theoretical models. From four-dimensional point of view we can interpret each KK mode as a particle with the mass $`m_n`$ given by Eq. (6). We see that in according with Kaluza-Klein scenario any multidimensional field contains an infinite set of KK modes, i.e. an infinite set of four-dimensional particles with increasing masses, which is called the Kaluza-Klein tower. Therefore, an experimental observation of series KK excitations with a characteristic spectrum of the form (6) would be an evidence of the existence of extra dimensions.

We have applied the main issues of Kaluza-Klein approach to our analysis of the structure of proton-proton total cross section at very low energies and calculated the fundamental scale (size) $`R`$ of the compact internal extra space. One obtained by this way

$$\frac{1}{R}=41.481\text{MeV}\text{or}R=24.1GeV^1=\mathrm{4.75\hspace{0.17em}10}^{13}\text{cm}.$$
(8)
It turned out the fundamental scale has a clear physical meaning: This scale corresponds to the scale of distances where the strong Yukawa forces in strength come down to the electromagnetic forces . After that we have built the Kaluza-Klein tower of KK excitations by the formula

$$M_n=2\sqrt{m_p^2+\frac{n^2}{R^2}},(n=1,2,3,\mathrm{})$$
(9)
and compared it with the observed irregularities in the mass spectrum of diproton system. The result of the comparison has been presented in extended Table 1 of ref. . It was established that the Kaluza-Klein tower of KK excitations built by the calculated fundamental scale was in a good correspondence with the experimentally observed picture of irregularities in the mass spectrum of two-nucleon system.

Now, let us build the Kaluza-Klein tower of KK excitations for two-pion system by the formula

$$M_n^{\pi ^1\pi ^2}=\sqrt{m_{\pi ^1}^2+\frac{n^2}{R^2}}+\sqrt{m_{\pi ^2}^2+\frac{n^2}{R^2}},(n=1,2,3,\mathrm{}),$$
(10)
where $`\pi ^i(i=0,+,)=\pi ^0,\pi ^+,\pi ^{}`$ and $`R`$ is the same fundamental scale (Eq. 8) calculated early from the analysis of nucleon-nucleon dynamics at low energies. Kaluza-Klein tower such built is shown in Table 1 where the comparison with experimentally observed mass spectrum of two-pion system is also presented.

We have used Review of Particle Physics  and recent review article of Crystal Barrel Collaboration  (see also many references therein) where the experimental data on mass spectrum of the resonance states of two-pion system have been extracted from. As it is seen from Table 1, there is a quite remarkable correspondence of the calculated KK excitations for two-pion system with the experimentally observed mass spectrum of the resonance states of two-pion system, which we consider as an additional strong evidence of Kaluza-Klein picture of the world.

Actually, we also see that there are three empty cells in the Table: $`M_1(282291)`$, $`M_2(317325)`$ and $`M_{13}(11121114)`$. We did not find an experimental confirmation of these states. Probably such two-pion resonance states exist but we don’t know these data. Tnat’s why any experimental information in this respect would gratefully be acknowledged.111Recently we found the references  (some of them is an old enough) which allowed us to fill the cells 1 and 2.

Some known experimental information concerning resonance states in two-pion system is collected in separate tables: Table 2 – Table 22.

We can learn from these tables that many different two-pion resonances with the different quantum numbers may occupy one and the same storey in KK tower. This is a peculiarity of the systematics provided by Kaluza-Klein picture. Kaluza-Klein scenario in the considered simplest case predict only masses of KK excitations and do not give any information on quantum numbers of corresponding resonance states. The later information on quantum numbers exceptionally depends on the physical process and the details of a dynamics of the given physical process where KK excitations have been observed. In particular, this also concerns the details (geometrical structures and shapes) of generic compact internal extra space222In the case of generic compact internal extra space KK excitations are generally degenerated..

Of course, we would like to especially emphasize with a pleasure that $`\sigma `$-meson ($`M_\sigma 430MeV`$, see discussion in ), $`f_2(0^+2^{++})`$-mesons ($`M_{f_2}=1272\pm 8MeV`$  and $`M_{f_2}=2175\pm 20MeV`$ ) investigated by IHEP group under direction of Yu.D. Prokoshkin accurately agree with the calculated values and excellently incorporated in the scheme of systematics provided by Kaluza-Klein picture.

## 3 Conclusion

The central point of Kaluza-Klein approach is related to the existence of a new fundamental scale characterizing a size of compact internal extra space. In previous article  we have calculated this fundamental scale and shown that geniusly simple formula (9) provided by Kaluza-Klein approach gives an excellent description for the mass spectrum of two-nucleon system . It has also been established that the experimental data obtained at low energies where the nucleon-nucleon dynamics has been studied reveal a special sort of (super)symmetry between fermionic(dibaryonic) and bosonic states predicted by Kaluza-Klein scenario.

In this note we have presented additional arguments in favour of Kaluza and Klein picture of the world. In fact, we have shown that formula (10) provided by Kaluza-Klein approach with the fundamental scale early calculated (Eq. 8) gives an excellent description for the mass spectrum of two-pion system.

Of course, it would be very desirable to state new experiments to search a further justification of the systematics provided by Kaluza and Klein picture of the world. We believe that this is a quite promising subject of the investigations in particle and nuclear physics.


text:
# 𝐷⁺_𝑠→𝜋⁺𝜋⁺𝜋⁻ decay: the 1³𝑃₀𝑠𝑠̄ component in scalar-isoscalar mesons

## 1 Introduction

The meson yields in the decay $`D_s^+\pi ^+\pi ^+\pi ^{}`$  evoked immediately a great interest and now they are actively discussed (see  and references therein). The matter is that in this decay the production of strange quarkonium is dominant, $`D_s^+\pi ^+s\overline{s}`$, with a subsequent transition $`s\overline{s}f_J\pi ^+\pi ^{}`$. Therefore, the reaction $`D_s^+\pi ^+\pi ^+\pi ^{}`$ may serve us as a tool for the estimation of $`s\overline{s}`$ components in the $`f_J`$ mesons. This possibility is particularly important in context of the determination of quark content of the $`f_0`$ mesons, for the classification of $`q\overline{q}`$ scalar-isoscalar states is a key problem in the search for exotics.

In the $`D_s^+`$ decay the production of $`f_0`$ mesons proceeds mainly via spectator mechanism, Fig. 1a: this very mechanism implements the transition $`s\overline{s}f_0`$. Besides, the spectator mechanism provides a strong production of the $`\varphi (1020)`$ meson. To evaluate the $`s\overline{s}`$ components in $`f_0`$ mesons, we use the process $`D_s^+\pi ^+\varphi (1020)`$ as a standard: we consider the ratio $`D_s^+\pi ^+f_0/D_s^+\pi ^+\varphi (1020)`$, where the uncertainty related to the coupling $`c\pi ^+s`$ is absent.

Calculation of the transition of Fig. 1a is performed in the spectral integration technique, this technique was intensively used for the study of weak decays of $`D`$ and $`B`$ mesons, see  and references therein. The cuttings of the triangle diagram related to the double spectral integrals are shown in Fig. 1b.

In addition, the $`\pi ^+f_0`$ production can originate from the $`W`$-annihilation process of Figs. 1c,d. It is a relatively weak transition, nevertheless we take it into account, and the reaction $`D_s^+\pi ^+\rho ^0`$ serves us as a scale to determine the $`W`$-annihilation coupling $`c\overline{s}u\overline{d}`$. Let us emphasize that the processes shown in Fig. 1 are of the leading order in terms of the $`1/N_c`$ expansion rule.

In Section 2 we present the data set used for the analysis and write down the amplitudes for the spectator and $`W`$-annihilation processes. The results of calculations are presented and discussed in Section 3. In this Section we demonstrate that (i) the $`W`$-annihilation contributes weakly to the $`f_J`$-meson production, and (ii) the $`1^3P_0`$-state dominates the transition $`s\overline{s}f_0`$, while the production of the $`2^3P_0s\overline{s}`$-component is relatively suppressed, so the transition $`D_s^+\pi ^+s\overline{s}\pi ^+f_0`$ is in fact a measure for the $`1^3P_0s\overline{s}`$-component in scalar–isoscalar mesons.

In Conclusion we sum up what the data on the decay $`D_s^+\pi ^+\pi ^+\pi ^{}`$ tell us, in particular with respect to the identification of the lightest scalar $`q\overline{q}`$ nonet.

## 2 Data set and the amplitudes for the spectator and $`W`$-annihilation mechanisms

In this Section we present the data used in the analysis and write formulae for the spectator and $`W`$-annihilation mechanisms , Fig. 1a and Figs. 1c,d, respectively.

### 2.1 The data set

In the recently measured spectra from the reaction $`D_s^+\pi ^+\pi ^+\pi ^{}`$ , the relative weight of channels $`\pi ^+f_0(980)`$ and $`\pi ^+\rho ^0(770)`$ is evaluated,

$$BR\left(\pi ^+f_0(980)\right)=57\%\pm 9\%,BR\left(\pi ^+\rho ^0(770)\right)=6\%\pm 6\%,$$
(1)
and the ratio of yields,

$$\mathrm{\Gamma }(D_s^+\pi ^+\pi ^+\pi ^{})/\mathrm{\Gamma }(D_s^+\pi ^+\varphi (1020))=0.245\pm 0.028_{0.012}^{+0.019}$$
(2)
is measured. These values are the basis to determine relative weight of the $`s\overline{s}`$ component in the $`f_0(980)`$.

Besides, in ref.  the bump in the wave $`(IJ^{PC}=00^{++})`$ is seen at $`1434\pm 18`$ MeV with the width $`173\pm 32`$ MeV; this should be a contribution from the nearly located resonances $`f_0(1300)`$, $`f_0(1500)`$ and the broad state $`f_0(12001600)`$. Relative weight of this bump is equal to:

$$BR\left(\pi ^+(f_0(1300)+f_0(1500)+f_0(12001600))\right)=26\%\pm 11\%.$$
(3)
This magnitude allows us to determine the total weight of the $`1^3P_0s\overline{s}`$ component in the states $`f_0(1300)`$, $`f_0(1500)`$, $`f_0(12001600)`$.

Now the data of FOCUS collaboration  on the decay $`D_s\pi ^+f_0(980)`$ are available. These data are compatible with those of , so we do not use them in our estimates, and we base on the ratios $`\pi ^+f_0/\pi ^+\varphi `$ measured in .

In addition, the production of $`f_2(1270)`$ is seen in : $`BR\left(\pi ^+f_2(1270)\right)=20\%\pm 4\%`$ that makes it necessary to include tensor mesons into the calculation machinery.

### 2.2 Decay amplitudes and partial widths

The spin structure of the amplitude depends on the type of the produced meson — it is different for scalar $`(f_0)`$, vector $`(\varphi ,\omega ,\rho )`$ or tensor $`(f_2)`$ mesons. Let us denote the momenta of the produced scalar $`(S)`$, vector $`(V)`$ and tensor $`(T)`$ mesons by $`p_M`$ where $`M=S,V,T`$; the $`D_s`$-meson momentum is referred as $`p`$.

The production amplitude is written as

$$A(D_s\pi ^+M)=\widehat{O}_M(p,p_M)A_M(q^2),$$
(4)
where the spin operators $`\widehat{O}_M(p,p_M)`$ for scalar, vector and tensor mesons read as follows:

$$\widehat{O}_S(p,p_S)=1,\widehat{O}_V(p,p_V)=p_{V\mu },\widehat{O}_T(p,p_T)=\frac{p_{T\mu }p_{T\nu }}{p_T^2}\frac{1}{3}g_{\mu \nu }^{}.$$
(5)
The momenta $`p_V`$ and $`p_T`$ are orthogonal to the $`D_s`$-meson momentum $`p`$:

$$p_{V\mu }=g_{\mu \mu ^{}}^{}p_{V\mu ^{}},p_{T\mu }=g_{\mu \mu ^{}}^{}p_{T\mu ^{}},g_{\mu \mu ^{}}^{}=g_{\mu \mu ^{}}\frac{p_\mu p_\mu ^{}}{p^2}.$$
(6)
In the spectral integration technique, the invariant production amplitude $`A_M(q^2)`$ is calculated as a function of $`q^2=(pp_M)^2=m_\pi ^2`$.

In terms of the spin-dependent operators $`\widehat{O}_M(p,p_M)`$, partial width for the transition $`D_s^+\pi ^+M`$ reads:

$$m_{D_s}\mathrm{\Gamma }(D_s^+\pi ^+M)=\left|F_M(q^2=m_\pi ^2)\right|^2\left(\widehat{O}_M(p,p_M)\right)^2\frac{\sqrt{p_M^2}}{8\pi m_{D_s}},$$
(7)
where

$$\left(\widehat{O}_S(p,p_S)\right)^2=1,\left(\widehat{O}_V(p,p_V)\right)^2=p_{V\mu }^2,\left(\widehat{O}_T(p,p_T)\right)=\frac{2}{3}.$$
(8)
In (7), the value $`\sqrt{p_M^2}`$ is equal to the center-of-mass relative momentum of mesons in the final state; it is determined by the magnitudes of the meson masses as follows:

$$\sqrt{p_M^2}=\sqrt{[m_{D_s}^2(m_M+m_\pi )^2][m_{D_s}^2(m_Mm_\pi )^2]}/2m_{D_s}.$$

### 2.3 Amplitudes for the spectator and $`W`$-annihilation processes in the light-cone variables

In the leading order of the $`1/N_c`$ expansion, there exist two types of processes which govern the decays $`D_s^+\pi ^+f_0`$, $`\pi ^+f_2`$, $`\pi ^+\varphi /\omega `$, $`\pi ^+\rho ^0`$. They are shown in Figs. 1a,c,d. We refer to the process of Fig. 1a as a spectator one, while that shown in Fig. 1c,d is called the $`W`$-annihilation process. The transition $`s\overline{s}meson`$ is a characteristic feature of the spectator mechanism, it contributes to the production of isoscalar mesons: $`D_s^+\pi ^+f_0,\pi ^+f_2,\pi ^+\varphi ,\pi ^+\omega `$, whereas $`\rho ^0`$ cannot be produced within spectator mechanism. The $`W`$-annihilation contributes to the production of mesons with both $`I=1`$ and $`I=0`$, $`D_s^+\pi ^+f_0,\pi ^+f_2,\pi ^+\varphi ,\pi ^+\omega `$ and $`D_s\pi ^+\rho ^0`$. Therefore, the latter reaction, $`D_s\pi ^+\rho ^0`$, allows us to evaluate relative weight of the effective coupling constant for $`W`$-annihilation, thus giving a possibility to estimate the $`W`$-annihilation contribution to the channels of interest: $`D_s^+\pi ^+f_0`$, $`\pi ^+f_2`$, $`\pi ^+\varphi `$. This estimate tells us that the $`W`$-annihilation is relatively weak that agrees with conventional evaluations, see, for example, .

The amplitudes for the spectator production of mesons (Fig. 1a) and for $`W`$-annihilation (Figs. 1c,d) can be calculated in terms of double spectral integral representation developed for the quark three-point diagrams in . The calculation scheme for the diagram of Fig. 1a in the spectral integration technique is as follows. We consider the relevant energy-off-shell diagram shown in Fig. 1b for which the momentum of the $`c\overline{s}`$ system, $`P=k_1+k_2`$, obeys the requirement $`P^2s>(m_c+m_s)^2`$, while the $`s\overline{s}`$ system, with the momentum $`P^{}=k_1^{}+k_2`$, satisfies the constraint $`P^2s^{}>4m_s^2`$, here $`m_{s,c}`$ are the masses of the constituent $`s,c`$ quarks which are taken to be $`m_s=500`$ MeV and $`m_c=1500`$ MeV. The next step consists in the calculation of double discontinuity of the triangle diagram (cuttings I and II in Fig. 1b) which correspond to real processes, and the double discontinuity is the integrand of double dispersion representation.

The double dispersion integrals may be rewritten in terms of the light-cone variables, by introducing the light-cone wave functions for the $`D_s^+`$-meson and produced mesons $`f_0,f_2,\varphi ,\omega ,\rho ^0`$: the calculations performed here are done by using these variables.

Our calculations have been carried out in the limit of negligibly small pion mass, $`m_\pi 0`$, that is a reasonable approach, for in the ratio $`D_s\pi ^+f_J/D_s\pi ^+\varphi `$ the uncertainties related to this limit are mainly cancelled.

#### 2.3.1 Spectator-production form factor

The form factor for the spectator process given by the triangle diagram of Fig. 1a reads:

$$F_M^{(spectator)}(q^2)=\frac{G_{spectator}}{16\pi ^3}\underset{0}{\overset{1}{}}\frac{dx}{x(1x)^2}d^2k_{}\psi _{D_s}(s)\psi _M(s^{})S_{D_s\pi M}(s,s^{},q^2).$$
(9)
Here $`G_{spectator}`$ is the vertex for the decay transition $`c\pi ^+s`$; the light-cone variables $`x`$ and $`𝐤_{}`$ refer to the momenta of quarks in the intermediate states. The energies squared for initial and final quark states ($`c\overline{s}`$ and $`s\overline{s}`$) are written in terms of the light-cone variables as follows:

$$s=\frac{m_c^2+k_{}^2}{1x}+\frac{m_s^2+k_{}^2}{x},s^{}=\frac{m_s^2+(𝐤_{}+x𝐪_{})^2}{x(1x)}.$$
(10)
The limit of the negligibly small pion mass corresponds to $`𝐪_{}0`$; in (9) this limit is attained within numerical calculation of $`F_M^{(spectator)}(q^2)`$ at small negative $`q^2`$.

In the spectral integration technique, wave functions of the initial and final states are determined as ratios of vertices to the dispersion-relation denominators, $`\psi _{D_sc\overline{s}}(s)=G_{D_sc\overline{s}}(s)/(sm_{D_s}^2)`$ and $`\psi _{Ms\overline{s}}(s^{})=G_{Ms\overline{s}}(s^{})/(s^{}m_M^2)`$, see  for details.

In our calculations, the $`D_s^+`$-meson wave functions and $`s\overline{s}`$ component are parametrized as follows:

$$\psi _{D_s=c\overline{s}}(s)=C_D\mathrm{exp}(b_Ds),\psi _M(s^{})=C_M\mathrm{exp}(b_Ms^{}),$$
(11)
where $`C_D`$ and $`C_M`$ are the normalization constants for the wave functions and $`b_D`$ and $`b_M`$ characterize the mean radii squared of the $`c\overline{s}`$ and $`s\overline{s}`$ systems, $`R_{D_s}^2`$ and $`R_M^2`$. In the approximation (11), the mean radii squared are the only parameters for the description of quark wave functions. Based on the results of the analysis of the radiative decays  we put $`R_M^2`$ for $`f_0(980)`$, $`\varphi (1020)`$ and $`f_2(1270)`$ to be of the order of the pion radius squared, $`R_M^2R_\pi ^2=10`$ GeV-2, that corresponds to the following wave function parameters for $`s\overline{s}`$ components (in GeV units):

$$b_{f_0(980)}=1.25,b_{\varphi (1020)}=2.50,b_{f_2(1270)}=1.25,$$
(12)
$$C_{f_0(980)}=98.92,C_{\varphi (1020)}=374.76,C_{f_2(1270)}=68.85.$$

Recall that in  the mean radius squared was defined through the $`Q^2`$-dependence of meson form factor at small momentum transfers, $`F_M(Q^2)1Q^2R_M^2/6`$, and the normalization factor $`C_M`$ is given by $`F_M(0)=1`$, that actually represents the convolution $`\psi _M\psi _M=1`$.

For the $`D_s^+`$-meson, the charge radius squared $`R_{D_s}^2`$ is of the order of $`3.5÷5.5`$ GeV-2  that corresponds to

$$b_{D_s}(0.70÷1.50)\mathrm{GeV}^2,\mathrm{C}_{\mathrm{D}_\mathrm{s}}(157.6÷7205.4)\mathrm{GeV}^2.$$
(13)
One should keep in mind that the $`D_s^+`$-meson charge radius squared is determined by two form factors, $`F_c(Q^2)`$ and $`F_{\overline{s}}(Q^2)`$, when the photon interacts with $`c`$ and $`\overline{s}`$ quarks: $`2F_c(Q^2)/3+F_{\overline{s}}(Q^2)/31R_{D_s}^2Q^2/6`$.

The factor $`S_{D_s\pi M}(s,s^{},q^2)`$ is defined by the spin structure of the quark loop in the diagram of Fig. 1b. Corresponding trace of the three-point quark loop is equal to:

$$\widehat{S}_M=\mathrm{Tr}\left[\widehat{Q}_M(\widehat{k}_2+m_s)i\gamma _5(\widehat{k}_1+m_c)i\gamma _5(\widehat{k}_1^{}+m_s)\right],$$
(14)
where $`i\gamma _5`$ stands for the $`D_s`$-meson and pion vertices, and $`\widehat{Q}_M`$ is the spin operator for the transition $`(s\overline{s}mesonM)`$ which is defined for scalar, vector and tensor mesons as follows:

$`\widehat{Q}_S`$ $`=`$ $`1,`$
$`\widehat{Q}_V`$ $`=`$ $`\gamma _\mu ^{},`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\widehat{Q}_T`$ $`=`$ $`k_\mu ^{}\gamma _\nu ^{}+k_\nu ^{}\gamma _\mu ^{}{\displaystyle \frac{2}{3}}\widehat{k}^{}g_{\mu \nu }^{}.`$ (15)
Here $`k^{}=(k_1^{}k_2)/2`$ and $`\gamma _\mu ^{}=g_{\mu \nu }^{}\gamma _\nu `$, where $`g_{\mu \nu }^{}=g_{\mu \nu }P_\mu ^{}P_\mu ^{}^{}/P^2`$. The operator $`\widehat{Q}_T`$ stands for the production of $`f_2`$-mesons belonging to the basic $`1^3P_2q\overline{q}`$ multiplet.

With these definitions, the factor $`\widehat{S}_{D_s\pi M}(s,s^{},q^2)`$ can be calculated through normalized convolution of the quark-loop operator (14) with the spin operator of the amplitude given by (5) but determined in the space of internal momenta, by substituting $`pP`$ and $`p_MP^{}`$, namely,

$$S_{D_s\pi M}(s,s^{},q^2)=\frac{\left(\widehat{S}_M\widehat{O}_M(P,P^{})\right)}{\left(\widehat{O}_M(P,P^{})\right)^2}.$$
(16)
Let us emphasize once again, that we calculate the integrand of the spectral integral for the energy-off-shell process of Fig. 1b. Because of that, the invariant spin-dependent structure $`S_{D_s\pi M}(s,s^{},q^2)`$ should be calculated through (16) with the energy-off-shell operators $`\widehat{O}_M(P,P^{})`$ and mass-on-shell constituents. The spin factors determined by (16) read:

$`S_{D_s\pi f_0}(s,s^{},q^2)`$ $`=`$ $`2(sm_s2m_c^2m_sm_cs^{}+4m_cm_s^2+q^2m_s2m_s^3),`$
$`S_{D_s\pi \varphi /\omega }(s,s^{},q^2)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{8s^{}}{\lambda }}(sm_c^2sm_cm_ssq^2m_c^4+2m_c^3m_sm_c^2s^{}`$
$`+`$ $`m_c^2q^2+m_cs^{}m_sm_cq^2m_s2m_cm_s^3+m_s^4),`$
$`S_{D_s\pi f_2}(s,s^{},q^2)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{8s^{}}{\lambda }}(sm_c^2sm_cm_ssq^2m_c^4+2m_c^3m_sm_c^2s^{}`$ (17)
$`+`$ $`m_c^2q^2+m_cs^{}m_sm_cq^2m_s2m_cm_s^3+m_s^4)`$
$`\times `$ $`(s2m_c^2s^{}+q^2+2m_s^2),`$
where $`\lambda =(s^{}s)^22q^2(s^{}+s)+q^4`$. In the performed calculations we have used the moment-expansion technique, for the details see the review paper  and references therein.

#### 2.3.2 $`W`$-annihilation form factor

The right-hand side three-point block of Fig. 1c,d which describes the transitions of the $`u\overline{d}`$ system into mesons $`\pi ^+M`$ can be also calculated with the formulae similar to (9). One has:

$$F_M^{(W)}(q^2)=\frac{1}{16\pi ^3}\underset{0}{\overset{1}{}}\frac{dx}{x(1x)^2}d^2k_{}\frac{G_w}{sm_{D_s}^2i0}\psi _M(s^{})S_{D_s(u\overline{d})\pi M}(s,s^{},q^2).$$
(18)
For the transition $`D_s^+u\overline{d}`$ we use the dispersion relation description, and vertex $`G_W`$ is treated as energy-independent factor.

The spin factor $`S_{D_s(u\overline{d})\pi M}(s,s^{},q^2)`$ is determined by the triangle graph of Fig. 1c,d, with light quarks in the intermediate state. Therefore,

$$\widehat{S}_M^{(W)}=\mathrm{Tr}\left[\widehat{Q}_M(\widehat{k}_2+m)i\gamma _5(\widehat{k}_1+m)i\gamma _5(\widehat{k}_1^{}+m)\right],$$
(19)
where $`m=350`$ MeV, and $`\widehat{Q}_M`$ is given by (15). Furthermore, the spin factors $`S_{D_s(u\overline{d})\pi M}(s,s^{},q^2)`$ is calculated with the use of (16). For scalar, vector and tensor mesons, respectively, they are equal to

$`S_{D_s(u\overline{d})\pi f_0}(s,s^{},q^2)`$ $`=`$ $`2m(ss^{}+q^2),`$
$`S_{D_s(u\overline{d})\pi \varphi /\omega }(s,s^{},q^2)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{8ss^{}q^2}{\lambda }},`$
$`S_{D_s(u\overline{d})\pi f_2}(s,s^{},q^2)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{8ss^{}q^2}{\lambda }}(ss^{}+q^2).`$ (20)
The transition amplitude defined by Eq. (18) is complex-valued.

## 3 Calculations and results

Here we write down the amplitudes used for the calculation of the decay processes — corresponding results are presented below.

### 3.1  Amplitudes for decay channels $`\pi ^+f_0(980)`$, $`\pi ^+\varphi (1020)`$,
$`\pi ^+f_2(1270)`$, $`\pi ^+\rho ^0`$

Taking into account two decay processes, spectator and $`W`$-annihilation, we write the transition amplitude as follows:

$$A(D_s\pi ^+M)=\xi _M^{(spectator)}F_M^{(spectator)}(0)+\xi _M^{(W)}F_M^{(W)}(0),$$
(21)
where the factors $`\xi ^{(spectator)}`$ and $`\xi ^{(W)}`$ are determined by flavour content of isoscalar mesons. In terms of the quarkonium states $`s\overline{s}`$ and $`n\overline{n}=(u\overline{u}+d\overline{d})/\sqrt{2}`$, we define flavour wave functions of isoscalar mesons as

$`\varphi (1020)`$ $`:`$ $`n\overline{n}\mathrm{sin}\phi _V+s\overline{s}\mathrm{cos}\phi _V,`$
$`f_0(980)`$ $`:`$ $`n\overline{n}\mathrm{cos}\phi [f_0(980)]+s\overline{s}\mathrm{sin}\phi [f_0(980)],`$
$`f_2(1270)`$ $`:`$ $`n\overline{n}\mathrm{cos}\phi _T+s\overline{s}\mathrm{sin}\phi _T.`$ (22)
that serves us for the determination of coefficients in (21):

$`D_s^+`$ $``$ $`\pi ^+\varphi (1020):\xi _\varphi ^{spectator}=\mathrm{cos}\phi _V,\xi _\varphi ^W=\sqrt{2}\mathrm{sin}\phi _V,`$
$`D_s^+`$ $``$ $`\pi ^+f_0(980):\xi _{f_0(980)}^{spectator}=\mathrm{sin}\phi [f_0(980)],\xi _{f_0(980)}^W=\sqrt{2}\mathrm{cos}\phi [f_0(980)],`$
$`D_s^+`$ $``$ $`\pi ^+f_2(1270):\xi _{f_2(1270)}^{spectator}=\mathrm{sin}\phi _T,\xi _{f_2(1270)}^W=\sqrt{2}\mathrm{cos}\phi _T.`$ (23)
For $`\varphi (1020)`$, which is dominantly the $`s\overline{s}`$ state, we fix mixing angle in the interval $`|\phi _V|4^{}`$.

The production of $`\pi ^+\rho ^0`$ is due to the direct mechanism only:

$$D_s^+\pi ^+\rho ^0:\xi _\rho ^{(spectator)}=0,\xi _\rho ^{(W)}=\sqrt{2}.$$
(24)
### 3.2 Evaluation of the ratio $`G_W/G_{spectator}`$

To evaluate the ratio $`G_W/G_{spectator}`$ we use the reaction $`D_s^+\pi ^+\rho ^0`$, with the experimental constraint $`\mathrm{\Gamma }(\pi ^+\rho ^0)/\mathrm{\Gamma }(\pi ^+\varphi )0.032`$. By using maximal value of $`\mathrm{\Gamma }(\pi ^+\rho ^0)/\mathrm{\Gamma }(\pi ^+\varphi )=0.032`$ we get the following ratios $`F_M^{(W)}(0)/F_M^{(spectator)}(0)`$ for scalar, vector and tensor mesons at $`R_{D_s}^2=4.5`$ GeV-2:

$`{\displaystyle \frac{\sqrt{2}F_S^{(W)}(0)}{F_S^{(spectator)}}}`$ $`=(0.28+i0.75)10^3,`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{\sqrt{2}F_V^{(W)}(0)}{F_V^{(spectator)}}}`$ $`=(0.5+i15.1)10^2,`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{\sqrt{2}F_T^{(W)}(0)}{F_T^{(spectator)}}}`$ $`=(0.26+i1.35)10^3.`$ (25)
This evaluation tells us that the $`W`$-annihilation contribution is comparatively small, and one may neglect it when the reactions $`D_s^+\pi ^+f_0`$ and $`D_s^+\pi ^+f_2`$ are studied.

### 3.3 Evaluation of relative weights of the $`1^3P_0s\overline{s}`$ and $`2^3P_0s\overline{s}`$ states for the decay $`D_s^+\pi ^+f_0`$

In the region 1000–1500 MeV one can expect the existence of scalar-isoscalar states which belong to the basic and first radial-excitation $`q\overline{q}`$-nonets, $`1^3P_0`$ and $`2^3P_0`$. Here we estimate relative weights of the states $`1^3P_0s\overline{s}`$ and $`2^3P_0s\overline{s}`$ in the transitions $`D_s^+\pi ^+s\overline{s}\pi ^+f_0`$.

The form factor for the production of radial-excitation state is given by (9), with a choice of the wave function as follows:

$$\psi _{M(rad.excit.)}(s^{})=C_{rad.excit.}(d_{rad.excit.}s^{}1)\mathrm{exp}(b_{rad.excit.}s^{}),$$
(26)
Two parameters in (26) can be determined by the normalization and orthogonality conditions, $`\psi _{M(rad.excit.)}\psi _{M(rad.excit.)}=1`$ and $`\psi _{M(rad.excit.)}\psi _{M(basic)}=0`$, while the third one can be related to the mean radius squared, $`R_{rad.excit.}^2`$. In our estimates we keep $`R_{rad.excit.}^2`$ to be of the order of pion radius squared, or larger, $`1R_{rad.excit.}^2/R_\pi ^21.5`$. To be precise, we present as an example the wave function parameters (in GeV units) for $`2^3P_0s\overline{s}`$ state with $`R_{rad.excit.}^2=11.3`$ GeV-2:

$$b_{rad.excit.}=1.75,C_{rad.excit.}=938.5,d_{rad.excit.}=0.60.$$
(27)
In Fig. 2 we show the ratios

$$\frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }\left(D_s^+\pi ^+(2^3P_0s\overline{s})\right)}{\mathrm{\Gamma }\left(D_s^+\pi ^+(1^3P_0s\overline{s})\right)}$$

for different values of radius square of the $`(2^3P_0s\overline{s})`$ component, $`R^2(f_0^{rad.excit.})`$, in the interval $`3.5\begin{array}{c}<\hfill \\ \hfill \end{array}R_{D_s}^2\begin{array}{c}<\hfill \\ \hfill \end{array}5.5`$ GeV-2.

From the point of view of the calculation technique, a suppression of the production of the $`2^3P_0s\overline{s}`$ state in the process of Fig. 1a is due to the existence of zero in the wave function $`\psi _{M(rad.excit.)}`$, see (26). As a result, the convolution of wave functions $`\psi _{D_s}\psi _{M(rad.excit.)}`$ occurred to be considerably less than the convolution $`\psi _{D_s}\psi _M`$.

So, the production of the radial-excitation state $`D_s^+\pi ^+(2^3P_0s\overline{s})`$ is relativelly suppressed, by the factor of the order of $`1/30`$. This means that by measuring $`f_0`$-resonances one measures actually the yield of the $`1^3P_0s\overline{s}`$ state.

### 3.4 The decay $`D_s^+\pi ^+f_0(980)`$

The channel $`D_s^+\pi ^+f_0(980)`$ dominates the decay $`D_s^+\pi ^+\pi ^+\pi ^{}`$, it comprises $`57\%\pm 9\%`$. Taking into account the branching ratio $`BR\left(f_0(980)\pi ^+\pi ^{}\right)53\%`$  and the ratio of yields (2), we have:

$$\frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }\left(D_s^+\pi ^+f_0(980)\right)}{\mathrm{\Gamma }\left(D_s^+\pi ^+\varphi (1020)\right)}=0.275(1\pm 0.25).$$
(28)
Calculations performed with formulae (9), (18) and (21) allow one to fulfill this ratio with

$$35^{}|\phi |55^{},$$
(29)
keeping the charge radius of the $`D_s^+`$-meson in the interval $`3.5\mathrm{GeV}^2R_{D_s}^25.5\mathrm{GeV}^2`$, see Fig. 3a.

The data on radiative decays $`f_0(980)\gamma \gamma `$ and $`\varphi (1020)\gamma f_0(980)`$ tell us that the mixing angle $`\phi `$ can be either $`\phi =48^{}\pm 6^{}`$ or $`\phi =83^{}\pm 4^{}`$ . The constraint (29) shows that the $`D_s^+`$-meson decay prefers the solution with negative mixing angle, thus supporting the $`f_0(980)`$ to be dominantly flavour-octet state. The analysis of hadronic spectra in terms of the K-matrix approach  also points to the flavour-octet origin of the $`f_0(980)`$.

### 3.5 The decay $`D_s^+\pi ^+f_2(1270)`$

Taking into account $`BR[f_2(1270)\pi ^+\pi ^{}]57\%`$, one has

$$\frac{\pi ^+f_2(1270)}{\pi ^+\varphi (1020)}=0.09(1\pm 0.2).$$
(30)
The values of $`\phi _T`$, which satisfy the ratio (30), are shown in Fig. 3b. With $`R_{D_s}^23.5÷5.5\mathrm{GeV}^2`$ we have $`|\phi _T|20^{}40^{}`$, that does not contadict the data both on hadronic decays and the radiative decay $`f_2(1270)\gamma \gamma `$ which give $`\phi _T020^{}`$. Therefore, the production of $`f_2(1270)`$ in $`D_s^+\pi ^+\pi ^+\pi ^{}`$ agrees reasonably with the weight of $`s\overline{s}`$ component measured in other reactions.

### 3.6 Bump near $`1430`$ MeV:
the decays $`D_s^+\pi ^0\left(f_0(1300)+f_0(1500)+f_0(12001600)\right)`$

In the region 1300–1500 MeV two comparatively narrow resonances $`f_0(1300)`$, $`f_0(1500)`$ and the broad state $`f_0(12001600)`$ are located (for more detail see  and references therein). These resonances are the mixtures of quarkonium states from the multiplets $`1^3P_0`$ and $`2^3P_0`$ and scalar gluonium $`gg`$:

$$1^3P_0s\overline{s},1^3P_0n\overline{n},2^3P_0s\overline{s},2^3P_0n\overline{n},gg.$$
(31)
We denote the probabilities for the $`f_0`$ resonance to have $`1^3P_0s\overline{s}`$ and $`2^3P_0s\overline{s}`$ components as $`\mathrm{sin}^2\phi [f_0]`$ and $`\mathrm{sin}^2\phi _{rad.excit.}[f_0]`$, respectively. Then the amplitude for the production of the $`S`$-wave $`\pi ^+\pi ^{}`$ state due to decays of $`f_0(1300)`$, $`f_0(1500)`$ and $`f_0(12001600)`$ reads:

$$A\left(D_s^+\pi ^+(\pi ^+\pi ^{}[1430\mathrm{M}\mathrm{e}\mathrm{V}])_S\right)=\underset{n}{}\frac{m_n\sqrt{\mathrm{\Gamma }(D_s^+\pi ^+f_0(n))}\sqrt{\mathrm{\Gamma }_n(f_0\pi ^+\pi ^{})}}{m_n^2sim_n\mathrm{\Gamma }_n}.$$
(32)
Here we are summing over the resonances $`n=f_0(1300),f_0(1500),f_0(12001600)`$, with the following parameters  (in GeV units):

$`f_0(1300):`$ $`m=1.300,\mathrm{\Gamma }/2=0.12,`$
$`f_0(1500):`$ $`m=1.500,\mathrm{\Gamma }/2=0.06,`$
$`f_0(12001600):`$ $`m=1.420,\mathrm{\Gamma }/2=0.508.`$ (33)
$`\mathrm{\Gamma }\left(D_s^+\pi ^+f_0(n)\right)`$ is determined by Eqs. (9) and (21).

The peak which is seen in the $`\pi ^+\pi ^{}`$ $`S`$-wave near 1430 MeV is determined by both $`s\overline{s}`$ components in $`f_0(1300)`$ and $`f_0(1500)`$ and relative phases of the amplitudes of $`f_0(1300)`$ and $`f_0(1500)`$ which govern the interference with the background given by $`f_0(12001400)`$. According to the analysis of hadronic decays , the mixing angles of these states are in the intervals

$`25^{}\begin{array}{c}<\hfill \\ \hfill \end{array}`$ $`\phi [f_0(1300)]`$ $`\begin{array}{c}<\hfill \\ \hfill \end{array}15^{},`$ (50)
$`3^{}\begin{array}{c}<\hfill \\ \hfill \end{array}`$ $`\phi [f_0(1500)]`$ $`\begin{array}{c}<\hfill \\ \hfill \end{array}18^{},`$ (67)
$`28^{}\begin{array}{c}<\hfill \\ \hfill \end{array}`$ $`\phi [f_0(12001600)]`$ $`\begin{array}{c}<\hfill \\ \hfill \end{array}38^{}.`$ (84)
Different variants of the calculation of the $`\pi ^+\pi ^{}`$ spectra near 1400 MeV are shown in Fig. 4 for the values of mixing angles in the intervals (84). The following parameters were used in the calculation of the transitions $`D_s^+\pi ^+1^3P_0s\overline{s}\pi ^+(\pi ^+\pi ^{})_S`$:

$`(1)`$ $`\phi [f_0(1300)]=7^{},\phi [f_0(1500)]=7^{},\phi [f_0(12001600)]=37^{},`$ (85)
$`(2)`$ $`\phi [f_0(1300)]=25^{},\phi [f_0(1500)]=17^{},\phi [f_0(12001600)]=37^{},`$
$`(3)`$ $`\phi [f_0(1300)]=17^{},\phi [f_0(1500)]=17^{},\phi [f_0(12001600)]=37^{}.`$
The variants (1) and (2) in Fig. 4a reproduce well the bump observed in the $`D_s^+\pi ^+\pi ^+\pi ^{}`$ decay: the relative weight of the bump for variants (1), (2) is of the order of $`15\%÷20\%`$ that agrees with measured weight of the peak . The variant (3) demonstrates that with the same signs of mixing angles for $`f_0(1300)`$ and $`f_0(1500)`$ the calculated curve gives a dip, not bump, near 1400 MeV.

In Fig. 4 one can also see the results of the calculation performed for the radial excitation state $`2^3P_0s\overline{s}`$ (curves (4), (5)). For transitions $`D_s^+\pi ^+2^3P_0s\overline{s}\pi ^+(\pi ^+\pi ^{})_S`$ the following angles are used:

$`(4)`$ $`\phi _{rad.excit.}[f_0(1300)]=7^{},\phi _{rad.excit.}[f_0(1500)]=7^{},`$
$`\phi _{rad.excit.}[f_0(12001600)]=37^{},`$
$`(5)`$ $`\phi _{rad.excit.}[f_0(1300)]=25^{},\phi _{rad.excit.}[f_0(1500)]=17^{},`$ (86)
$`\phi _{rad.excit.}[f_0(12001600)]=37^{}.`$
These curves illustrate well the suppression rate of the production of the $`2^3P_0s\overline{s}`$ in the decay $`D_s^+\pi ^+\pi ^+\pi ^{}`$.

The decay $`D_s^+\pi ^+\pi ^+\pi ^{}`$ was discussed in  from the point of view of determination of the quark structure of the resonances produced — let us stress the differences in the obtained results. In the paper  the hypothesis of the four-quark structure of $`f_0(980)`$ is advocated: to explain a large yield of $`f_0(980)`$ within the four-quark model one needs to assume that the decay $`D_s^+\pi ^+\pi ^+\pi ^{}`$ goes with a strong violation of the $`1/N_c`$ expansion rules. Recall that in terms of the $`1/N_c`$ expansion the processes shown in Fig. 1a,c,d dominate; it is not clear why these rules, though working well in other decay processes, are violated in $`D_s^+\pi ^+\pi ^+\pi ^{}`$. From the point of view of Ref. , the yield of $`s\overline{s}`$ state is seen only at larger masses, such as the 1400-MeV bump or higher.

In papers  the spectator mechanism shown in Fig. 1a is considered as a dominant one: the authors conclude that $`s\overline{s}`$ component dominates the resonance $`f_0(980)`$ — here our conclusions are similar. However, the interpretation of the bump around 1430 MeV differs from ours. Our calculations show that the production of $`2^3P_0s\overline{s}`$ component is suppressed, so the bump at 1430 is a manifestation of the $`1^3P_0s\overline{s}`$ component, while it was stated in  that the component $`2^3P_0s\overline{s}`$ is responsible for this bump.

Let us emphasize again that, according to our calculations, relative suppression of the production of $`2^3P_0s\overline{s}`$ component is due to the use of realistic wave functions of radial-excitation states, see (26): the existence of a zero in the wave function results in a suppression of the convolution $`\psi _{D_s}\psi _{2^3P_0s\overline{s}}`$.

## 4 Conclusion

The performed calculations allow one to trace out the destiny of the $`s\overline{s}`$ component in the dominating process $`D_s^+\pi ^++s\overline{s}\pi ^++f_0`$ of Fig. 1a. We show that this transition is realized mainly due to the $`1^3P_0s\overline{s}`$ state while the production of radial-excitation state, $`2^3P_0s\overline{s}`$, is suppressed by factor $`1/30`$ or more. Therefore, the reaction $`D_s^+\pi ^++f_0`$ is a measure of the $`1^3P_0s\overline{s}`$ component in the $`f_0`$ mesons.

The data of Ref.  tell us that $`1^3P_0s\overline{s}`$ is dispersed as follows: about $`2/3`$ of this state is hold by the $`f_0(980)`$ and the last $`1/3`$ is shared between the states with masses in the region 1300–1500 MeV which are $`f_0(1300)`$, $`f_0(1500)`$ and broad state $`f_0(12001600)`$. This result is quite recognizable as concern the percentage of the $`f_0`$-states produced in the decay $`D_s^+\pi ^+\pi ^+\pi ^{}`$: $`BR\left(\pi ^+f_0(980)\right)=57\%\pm 9\%`$ and $`BR\left(\pi ^+f_0(bumpat\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}1430}MeV)\right)=26\%\pm 11\%`$. The performed calculations demonstrate that nothing prevents this straightforward interpretation. In other words,
(i) the spectator mechanism $`D_s^+\pi ^++s\overline{s}\pi ^++f_0`$ dominates,
(ii) the production of the $`2^3P_0`$ states is suppressed, and
(iii) the interference of the states $`f_0(1300)`$, $`f_0(1500)`$, $`f_0(12001600)`$ may organize a bump with the mass $`1400`$ MeV and width $`200`$ MeV.

The data  cannot provide us with more scrupulous information about the weight of $`1^3P_0s\overline{s}`$ component in the resonances $`f_0(1300)`$, $`f_0(1500)`$ and $`f_0(1750)`$ and the broad state $`f_0(14001600)`$. To get such information, one needs to carry out a combined analysis of the decay $`D_s^+\pi ^+\pi ^+\pi ^{}`$ and hadron reactions with the production of investigated resonances. The performed investigation of the reaction $`D_s^+\pi ^+\pi ^+\pi ^{}`$ is quite in line with the $`K`$-matrix analysis of hadronic reactions  that tells us that in scalar–isoscalar sector the lowest $`1^3P_0q\overline{q}`$ state is the flavour octet while the flavour singlet is a heavier one.

The authors thank A.V. Anisovich and A.V. Sarantsev for useful discussions. The paper is supported by RFFI grant N 01-02-17861.