text:
# First close-to-threshold measurement of the analyzing power 𝑨_𝒚 in the reaction 𝑝⃗𝑝→𝑝𝑝𝜂

## 1 Introduction

Triggered by an extensive database on $`\eta `$ meson production in $`NN`$ collisions through measurements of total bergdolt:93 ; chiavassa:94 ; calen:96 ; calen:97 ; hibou:98 ; smyrski:00  as well as differential cross sections calen:99 ; tatischeff:00 ; moskal:01-2 ; abdelbary:02 ; moskal:02-2  lots of theoretical investigations have been performed in this field of physics over the last years. Several one meson exchange models – differing mainly in the assumptions for the production mechanism – reproduce the existing data quite well so that additional measurements are needed. Polarisation observables – analysing powers or spin correlation coefficients – present a powerful tool because they are sensitive to the influence of higher partial waves.

## 2 Experiment

The measurement was performed at the internal facility COSY-11 brauksiepe:96 ; moskal:01  at the COler SYnchrotron COSY maier:97nim  in Jülich with a beam momentum of p$`{}_{beam}{}^{}=2.096`$GeV/c corresponding to an excess energy of $`Q=40`$MeV. The reaction takes place in a cluster target dombrowski:97  mounted in front of a COSY dipole magnet. A set of drift chambers and a time-of-flight measurement with scintillation detectors allows for a four momentum determination of positively charged ejectiles. An identification of the unregistered meson succeeds with the missing mass method (see Figure 1).

Besides a clear signal from the $`\eta `$ meson there is a broad background due to multi pion reactions. The rising shape of this background results from the acceptance behaviour of the detection system. A subtraction of the background with a polynomial fit allows the determination of the number of $`\eta `$-events. An efficiency correction for the polar and azimuthal angle of the relative proton-proton momentum in the pp-rest system was applied. This is necessary for an extraction of interference terms from contributing partial waves. The detailed analysing procedure is described in winter:02-2 ; winter:02-1-en .

## 3 Results

For later purposes, Figure 2 depicts the definition of the used polar- $`(\theta )`$ and azimuthal angle $`(\phi )`$. The indices $`p`$ and $`q`$ refer to the pp rest-system and the $`\eta `$ meson in the CMS, respectively. The angle $`\theta _p`$ is chosen such, that $`0\theta _p\pi /2`$. This choice guarantees that all observables are invariant under the transformation $`\stackrel{}{p}\stackrel{}{p}`$ as required by the identity of the two protons in the final state.

The determination of the analysing power needs the knowledge of the averaged beam polarisation P↑,↓ for the cycles with spin up and down, respectively, the relative time-integrated luminosity $`_{rel}:=_{}𝑑t_{}/_{}𝑑t_{}`$ and the number of events N↑,↓.

Via a simultaneous measurement of the $`\stackrel{}{\text{p}}`$p-elastic scattering at the internal experiment EDDA albers:97 ; altmeier:00  the beam polarisation was determined for two time blocks (see table 1). The slight increase between the two blocks was caused by improved tuning of the beam with respect to polarisation.

The relative luminosity was extracted from the comparison of the measured angular distribution of the elastically scattered protons with the distribution known from literature albers:97 ; altmeier:00 .

In order to account for the detection efficiency the data has been corrected on an event-by-event basis by the weighting factors determined via Monte-Carlo simulations winter:02-2 ; winter:02-1-en . Using a GEANT-3 code, $`10^7`$ events were generated and for each event a detection system response was calculated. The simulated data sample was analysed with the same programme which is used for the analysis of the experimental data.

The determined averaged values $`\overline{A}_y(\mathrm{cos}\theta _q^{})`$ of the analysing power for the $`\stackrel{}{p}ppp\eta `$ reaction are presented in table 3 as a function of the center of mass polar angle $`\mathrm{cos}\theta _q^{}`$ of the $`\eta `$ meson. Explicitely, $`\overline{A}_y(\mathrm{cos}\theta _q^{})`$ is defined via

$`\overline{A}_y(\mathrm{cos}\theta _q^{}):=`$ (2)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{d^2\sigma }{d\mathrm{\Omega }_pd\mathrm{\Omega }_q}(\xi )A_y(\xi )d\mathrm{cos}\theta _pd\phi _pd\phi _q^{}/\frac{d\sigma }{d\mathrm{cos}\theta _q^{}}},`$
where $`\xi `$ denotes the set of the five variables which kinematically completely describe the exit channel, namely $`(\theta _p,\phi _p,\theta _q^{},\phi _q^{},E_{pp})`$. The kinetic energy $`E_{pp}`$ of the two final protons in their CM system is given by $`E_{pp}=\sqrt{s_{12}}2m_p`$ with $`\sqrt{s_{12}}=2\sqrt{\stackrel{}{p}^2+m_p^2}`$ as the energy in the pp subsystem. $`\theta _q^{}`$ and $`\phi _q^{}`$ denote the angles of the $`\eta `$ meson in the CMS.

For the derivation of these values for the analysing power $`\overline{A}_y(\mathrm{cos}\theta _q^{})`$, we used an ansatz for the spin-dependent cross section as already applied in case of $`\stackrel{}{p}\stackrel{}{p}pp\pi ^0`$ reaction meyer:01 . With the inclusion of the efficiency correction, an integration gives (details can be reviewed in winter:02-2 ):

$`{\displaystyle \frac{d^2\sigma }{d\mathrm{\Omega }_pd\mathrm{\Omega }_q}(\xi )A_y(\xi )d\mathrm{cos}\theta _pd\phi _p}=`$ (3)
$`2\pi \left(G_1^{y0}\mathrm{sin}\theta _q^{}+(H_1^{y0}+I^{y0})\mathrm{sin}2\theta _q^{}\right)\mathrm{cos}\phi _q^{},`$
where $`G_1^{y0},H_1^{y0}`$ and $`I^{y0}`$ described in meyer:01  correspond to the explicit interference terms (PsPp), (Pp)2 and (SsSd) of the partial wave amplitudes. Here, the relative angular momentum of the two outgoing protons in their rest system is denoted by capital letters $`l_p=S,P,D\mathrm{}`$, the one of the $`\eta `$ meson in the CMS by small letters $`l_q=s,p,d\mathrm{}`$.

With the equations (2) and (3), it can be shown that an extraction of the interference terms $`G_1^{y0}`$ and $`H_1^{y0}+I^{y0}`$ is possible from the experimental data via

$`G_1^{y0}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\pi ^2}}{\displaystyle \underset{\mathrm{cos}\theta _q^{}}{}}{\displaystyle \frac{d\sigma }{d\mathrm{cos}\theta _q^{}}}\overline{A}_y\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{cos}\theta _q^{}`$
$`H_1^{y0}+I^{y0}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{2}{\pi ^2}}{\displaystyle \underset{\mathrm{cos}\theta _q^{}}{}}{\displaystyle \frac{d\sigma }{d\mathrm{cos}\theta _q^{}}}\overline{A}_y\mathrm{cos}\theta _q^{}\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{cos}\theta _q^{}.`$
and results in

$$G_1^{y0}=(0.003\pm 0.004)\mu \text{b}$$

and

$$H_1^{y0}+I^{y0}=(0.005\pm 0.005)\mu \text{b}.$$

## 4 Comparison with theory

Figure 3 shows a comparison of the data (triangles) with two model predictions taken from faeldt:01  (dotted line) and nakayama:02  (solid and dashed lines) for $`Q=10`$MeV and 37 MeV.

While Fäldt and Wilkin faeldt:01  conclude a dominant $`\rho `$ meson exchange for the underlying production mechanism, the authors of reference nakayama:02  find a dominance of $`\pi `$ and $`\eta `$-exchange (solid line). The dashed curve represents a reduction of their full model to a vector dominance model with an exclusion of $`\pi `$ and $`\eta `$-exchange. It seems that the data favours slightly the vector dominance exchange models.

The observable structure of the experimental values show a slight deviation from the $`\mathrm{sin}\theta _q^{}\mathrm{cos}\theta _q^{}`$-dependence of both models. This deviation indicates a non-vanishing value of $`G_1^{y0}`$. As this corresponds to the (PpPs)-term, an influence of the P-wave must be suspected but right now the experimental result for $`G_1^{y0}`$ is compatible with zero. A non-zero $`G_1^{y0}`$ would imply that $`H_1^{y0}`$ – describing the (Pp)2 interference – should have a non negligible contribution, too. For further detailed studies the data are not yet precise enough to disentangle the sum of $`H_1^{y0}`$ and $`I^{y0}`$. Therefore, new data at $`Q=37`$ MeV has been taken in September 2002 in order to reduce the error bars by more than a factor of 2. The data analysis is currently in progress but it is already obvious that the much higher statistics and polarisation of $`P80\%`$ will enable to achieve a significant increase in precision.

Furthermore, additional measurements are scheduled in the first half of 2003 at $`Q=2,10`$ and $`25`$MeV for tests on the predictions of the different models for the energy dependence of $`A_y(\theta _q^{})`$.

## 5 Acknowledgements

This work was partly supported by the European Community – Access to Research Infrastructure action of the Improving Human Potential Programme.


format: text

text:
# I Experimental input of measured branching fractions.

ANL-HEP-PR-03-005-Rev

EFI-03-04-Rev

hep-ph/0302094

March 2003

NEW PHYSICS CONTRIBUTIONS TO THE $`B\varphi K_S`$ DECAY 111Submitted to Phys. Rev. D.

Cheng-Wei Chiang

High Energy Physics Division, Argonne National Laboratory, Argonne, IL 60440

and

Enrico Fermi Institute, University of Chicago, Chicago, IL 60637

Jonathan L. Rosner

Enrico Fermi Institute and Department of Physics

University of Chicago, Chicago, IL 60637

ABSTRACT

> Recent measurements of the time-dependent $`CP`$ asymmetry of the $`B\varphi K_S`$ decay give results whose central values differ from standard model expectations. It is shown how such data can be used to identify new physics contributions in a model-independent manner. In general, a sizeable new amplitude with nontrivial weak and strong phases would be required to explain current data. Improvement in the quality of data will allow one to form a more definite conclusion.

I. INTRODUCTION

It has been suggested to look for discrepancies among the time-dependent $`CP`$ asymmetries of different $`B`$ decay modes as a means to detect new physics . Since the $`BJ/\psi K_S`$ decay is a tree-dominated process in the standard model (SM), its $`CP`$ asymmetry $`𝒮_{J/\psi K_S}`$ is believed to be less affected by new physics and to give information on $`\mathrm{sin}2\beta `$. Although the $`CP`$ asymmetry of the $`B\varphi K_S`$ mode is also expected to give the same $`\mathrm{sin}2\beta `$ within the SM, this process is, however, particularly sensitive to new physics contributions because it is a purely penguin loop-mediated process in the SM. The SM pollution from a small $`u`$-penguin with the weak phase $`\gamma `$ has been studied in Ref.  and it is found that the deviation of $`𝒮_{\varphi K_S}`$ from $`\mathrm{sin}2\beta `$ is of $`𝒪(\overline{\lambda }^2)5\%`$, where $`\overline{\lambda }𝒪(0.2)`$ is a parameter close in magnitude to the Wolfenstein parameter $`\lambda 0.22`$ . Therefore, a large deviation of $`𝒮_{\varphi K_S}`$ from its SM prediction would signal contributions from physics beyond the SM.

As argued by Fleischer and Mannel , even if one ignores rescattering effects, contributions from new physics at a TeV scale to $`\mathrm{\Delta }I=0`$ operators could be of the same order as the SM ones, while new $`\mathrm{\Delta }I=1`$ operators are suppressed by $`\overline{\lambda }`$. With rescattering effects taken into account, both the new $`\mathrm{\Delta }I=1`$ operators and the SM pollution will be enhanced by about $`\overline{\lambda }`$. In any case, both of the $`\mathrm{\Delta }I=0,1`$ operators from the new TeV-scale physics can be more significant in comparison with the above-mentioned SM pollution.

The world average of $`\mathrm{sin}2\beta `$ as measured from the golden mode $`BJ/\psi K_S`$, $`\mathrm{sin}2\beta =0.734\pm 0.054`$ , agrees well with constraints obtained from other experiments. Recently both the BaBar and Belle groups have also reported measurements of time-dependent $`CP`$ asymmetries in the $`B\varphi K_S`$ decay. $`𝒮_{\varphi K_S}`$ (the coefficient of $`\mathrm{sin}\mathrm{\Delta }mt`$ in flavor-tagged decays) is found to be about $`2.7\sigma `$ away from $`𝒮_{J/\psi K_S}`$, while $`𝒜_{\varphi K_S}`$ (the coefficient of $`\mathrm{cos}\mathrm{\Delta }mt`$) is $`1\sigma `$ away from $`0`$. If this situation continues as the data precision improves, it would be of interest to know the magnitude and phase of possible new physics contributions to the $`\varphi K_S`$ mode.

Instead of separating the new physics contributions into $`\mathrm{\Delta }I=0`$ and $`\mathrm{\Delta }I=1`$ parts as done in Ref. , we will simplify the discussion by considering the combined amplitude from such effects along with the smaller SM pollution amplitude. This enables us to obtain useful information from the three observables $`𝒮_{\varphi K_S}`$, $`𝒜_{\varphi K_S}`$, and the ratio $`R`$ between the sum of squared amplitudes extracted from the measured $`B^0(\overline{B}^0)\varphi K^0(\overline{K}^0)`$ branching ratios and a “standard” squared amplitude, such as the SM predicted value or experimentally measured $`B^\pm K^{}\pi ^\pm `$ branching ratio. The algebraic structure of the problem then becomes very similar to that studied by several authors  for $`B\pi \pi `$. We try to find in a model-independent way the allowed magnitude and phases of the new amplitude and some generic properties associated with it. Such an analysis is useful in helping us narrow down new physics models  consistent with observed data.

The paper is organized as follows. Sec. II introduces a decomposition of decay amplitudes in terms of topological contributions. The formalism for time-dependent CP asymmetries is discussed in Sec. III. We present numerical analyses for two separate cases of new physics in Secs. IV and V. In Sec. VI, we summarize our results.

II. TOPOLOGICAL AMPLITUDE ANALYSIS

In the framework of the SM, both the $`\varphi K^0`$ and $`\varphi K^\pm `$ modes receive important contributions from QCD and EW penguin graphs, with the former having a dominant effect. Useful information about the QCD penguin contribution can be obtained from the $`K^0\pi ^\pm `$ decay mode using flavor-$`SU(3)`$ symmetry . It should be noted that a tiny annihilation diagram also exists in both the $`\varphi K^\pm `$ and $`K^0\pi ^\pm `$ decay modes. From the arguments of both dynamical suppression and the fact that no asymmetry is observed between the $`K^0\pi ^\pm `$ modes, we shall ignore the annihilation amplitude in these charged decays. In this case, both the neutral and charged $`\varphi K`$ modes have the same decay amplitudes. We will then average over the branching ratios of these two sets of modes using their associated errors as the weights for our analysis.

Let’s write down the amplitudes of the relevant modes in terms of independent topological components as

$`𝒜(\varphi K^0)`$ $`=`$ $`pe^{i(\varphi _{SM}+\delta _p)}+se^{i(\varphi _{SM}+\delta _s)},`$ (1)
$`𝒜(K^0\pi ^+)`$ $`=`$ $`pe^{i(\varphi _{SM}+\delta _p)},`$ (2)
in the SM. In the above two equations, the $`p`$ part denotes the QCD penguin contribution which also contains a negligible color-suppressed EW penguin amplitude, and the $`s`$ part denotes the EW penguin contribution along with a small flavor-$`SU(3)`$-singlet amplitude, as expected from the OZI rule. The variables $`p`$ and $`s`$ are absolute values of the respective amplitudes and therefore are non-negative by definition. The weak phase $`\varphi _{SM}`$ satisfying $`e^{2i\varphi _{SM}}=V_{tb}V_{ts}^{}/(V_{tb}^{}V_{ts})`$ is the same for both the $`p`$ and $`s`$ parts. Finally, $`\delta _p`$ and $`\delta _s`$ are the associated strong phases. Note that to simplify the notation given in Ref. , we omit from these amplitudes the subscript $`P`$ indicating that the spectator quark ends up in the pseudoscalar meson in the final state and the prime that denotes $`\mathrm{\Delta }S=1`$ transitions.

It should be noted that we explicitly assume flavor $`SU(3)`$ symmetry in Eqs. (1) and (2) in order to relate the amplitude for the $`K^0\pi ^+`$ mode to the penguin part in the $`\varphi K`$ process in later analysis. The $`SU(3)_F`$ breaking effect will be characterized by the factor $`[f_\varphi F^{BK}(m_\varphi ^2)]/[f_K^{}F^{B\pi }(m_K^{}^2)]1.2`$. We will simply treat this extra factor as $`1`$ in our analysis.

New physics can give rise to new operators that contribute to the decays of the above processes. We will distinguish two cases in later discussions: (i) only the $`\varphi K`$ modes receive the new contributions while the $`K^0\pi ^\pm `$ modes are purely SM processes; and (ii) both types of decay modes receive the same contributions from new physics. Case (i) could happen, for example, when new physics enters the $`bs`$ EW penguin only. In this case, we add an extra amplitude $`ne^{i(\varphi _n+\delta _n)}`$ to Eq. (1). Case (ii) could happen when new physics modifies the $`bs`$ QCD penguin. In that case we add the new amplitude to both Eq. (1) and Eq. (2). In general, the new amplitude $`ne^{i(\varphi _n+\delta _n)}`$ is a combination of $`\mathrm{\Delta }I=0`$ and $`\mathrm{\Delta }I=1`$ ones that may contribute at different strengths . A more careful job can in principle be done by separating the new amplitude into those with different isospins and studying new physics contributions in each piece. However, one would find that there are not enough observables among the decay modes to solve for all the parameters in the amplitudes.

III. TIME-DEPENDENT $`CP`$ ASYMMETRIES

In this section, we review the general analysis of time-dependent $`CP`$ asymmetry of pure $`B^0`$ and $`\overline{B}^0`$ decays into a $`CP`$ eigenstate $`f_{CP}`$. Let’s define the asymmetry as

$$a_{f_{CP}}(t)\frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }\left(\overline{B}_{\mathrm{phys}}^0(t)f_{CP}\right)\mathrm{\Gamma }\left(B_{\mathrm{phys}}^0(t)f_{CP}\right)}{\mathrm{\Gamma }\left(\overline{B}_{\mathrm{phys}}^0(t)f_{CP}\right)+\mathrm{\Gamma }\left(B_{\mathrm{phys}}^0(t)f_{CP}\right)}.$$
(3)
In our case, $`f_{CP}=\varphi K_S`$. Denote

$$\lambda _{\varphi K_S}=\eta _{\varphi K_S}\left(\frac{q}{p}\right)_B\left(\frac{p}{q}\right)_K\frac{\overline{𝒜}(\varphi \overline{K}^0)}{𝒜(\varphi K^0)},$$
(4)
where $`\eta _{\varphi K_S}=1`$ is the $`CP`$ eigenvalue of the $`\varphi K_S`$ state,

$$\left(\frac{q}{p}\right)_B=\frac{V_{tb}^{}V_{td}}{V_{tb}V_{td}^{}}\text{and}\left(\frac{p}{q}\right)_K=\frac{V_{cs}V_{cd}^{}}{V_{cs}^{}V_{cd}}$$
(5)
are factors that account for the mixing effects in neutral $`B`$ and $`K`$ meson systems, respectively, and

$`𝒜(\varphi K^0)`$ $``$ $`K^0||B^0=ae^{i(\varphi _a+\delta _a)}+be^{i(\varphi _b+\delta _b)},`$ (6)
$`\overline{𝒜}(\varphi \overline{K}^0)`$ $``$ $`\overline{K}^0||\overline{B}^0=ae^{i(\varphi _a+\delta _a)}+be^{i(\varphi _b+\delta _b)},`$ (7)
where $`a,b`$ are chosen to be positive, $`\varphi _{a,b}\{\pi ,\pi \}`$ and $`\delta _{a,b}\{0,2\pi \}`$ are the associated weak and strong phases, respectively. The above amplitudes are invariant under the transformations $`\varphi _{a,b}\varphi _{a,b}\pm m\pi ,\delta _{a,b}\delta _{a,b}m\pi `$ and $`\varphi _{a,b}\varphi _{a,b}\pm m\pi ,\delta _{a,b}\delta _{a,b}\pm m\pi `$ for $`m𝐙`$. Here the separation of the total amplitude into two parts is done in accord with the nature of the problem. The ratio of the amplitudes in Eqs. (6) and (7) is then

$$\frac{\overline{𝒜}(\varphi \overline{K}^0)}{𝒜(\varphi K^0)}=e^{2i\varphi _a}\frac{1+re^{i(\varphi \delta )}}{1+re^{i(\varphi +\delta )}},$$
(8)
where

$$rb/a0,\varphi \varphi _a\varphi _b,\mathrm{and}\delta \delta _a\delta _b.$$
(9)
The $`CP`$ asymmetry can then be written as

$$a_{\varphi K_S}(t)=𝒜_{\varphi K_S}\mathrm{cos}(\mathrm{\Delta }Mt)+𝒮_{\varphi K_S}\mathrm{sin}(\mathrm{\Delta }Mt),$$
(10)
where $`\mathrm{\Delta }M`$ is the mass difference between the two physical $`B`$ meson states, and

$`𝒜_{\varphi K_S}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{|\lambda _{\varphi K_S}|^21}{|\lambda _{\varphi K_S}|^2+1}},`$ (11)
$`𝒮_{\varphi K_S}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{2\mathrm{Im}\lambda _{\varphi K_S}}{|\lambda _{\varphi K_S}|^2+1}}.`$ (12)
New physics will affect the $`CP`$ asymmetry observables through the parameter $`\lambda _{\varphi K_S}`$. Therefore, it may come in at two places: the mixing matrix and/or the decay amplitudes. As emphasized in Ref. , new physics effects on the mixing part will be universal and do not change the SM predicted pattern of $`CP`$ asymmetries in different modes; their effects on the decay amplitudes, however, are non-universal so that the $`CP`$ asymmetries can vary from channel to channel. Since current $`\mathrm{sin}2\beta `$ measurements from other decay modes, such as $`J/\psi K_S`$, $`\eta ^{}K_S`$, etc, seem to agree with one another and with the unitarity triangle constraints obtained from other processes pretty well, it is plausible to assume that any strange behavior in the $`\varphi K_S`$ mode is mostly due to new physics contributions in the amplitudes. In this case, we will use the SM mixing factors in Eq. (4) and obtain

$$\lambda _{\varphi K_S}=e^{2i\beta _{\mathrm{eff}}}\frac{1+re^{i(\varphi \delta )}}{1+re^{i(\varphi +\delta )}},$$
(13)
where

$$e^{2i\beta _{\mathrm{eff}}}=\left(\frac{q}{p}\right)_B\left(\frac{p}{q}\right)_Ke^{2i\varphi _a}.$$
(14)
Within the SM, $`\varphi _a\pi `$ and one obtains the effective weak phase $`\beta _{\mathrm{eff}}`$ coinciding with $`\beta `$ in the unitarity triangle. However, if new physics modifies the phase $`\varphi _a`$, then $`\beta _{\mathrm{eff}}`$ will in general differ from what the SM expects. If one writes $`\varphi _a=\varphi _{SM}+\varphi `$ with $`\varphi _{SM}`$ being the phase expected in the SM and $`\varphi `$ being the deviation, then $`\beta _{\mathrm{eff}}=\varphi _{SM}+\varphi `$ (mod $`\pi `$).

We will be exclusively dealing with the decays of a $`B`$ meson into a final state with one pesudoscalar meson ($`P`$) and one vector meson ($`V`$). The invariant amplitude $`𝒜`$ of such a process is conventionally related to its partial width in the following way:

$$\mathrm{\Gamma }(BPV)=\frac{(p^{})^3}{8\pi m_B^2}|𝒜(BPV)|^2,$$
(15)
where $`p^{}`$ is the $`3`$-momentum of each final particle in the rest frame of the $`B`$ meson, and $`m_B`$ is the mass of the decaying $`B`$ meson. Note that $`p^{}`$ is raised to its third power to appropriately account for the P-wave kinematic factor.

IV. NEW PHYSICS ONLY IN $`\varphi K`$ SYSTEM

In this section, we will discuss the case when new physics only enters the $`\varphi K`$ system but not the $`K^{}\pi `$ system. Since the $`p`$ and $`s`$ parts of the $`\varphi K`$ decay amplitudes have the same weak phase $`\varphi _{SM}`$, we can combine them into a single $`v`$ part and write, including the new physics part,

$$𝒜(\varphi K^0)=ve^{i(\varphi _{SM}+\delta _v)}+ne^{i(\varphi _n+\delta _n)}=ve^{i(\varphi _{SM}+\delta _v)}\left[1+re^{i(\varphi +\delta )}\right],$$
(16)
where $`r=n/v`$, $`\varphi =\varphi _{SM}\varphi _n`$, and $`\delta =\delta _v\delta _n`$. Since here we assume that the $`K^0\pi ^\pm `$ modes are not affected by the new physics, we can use them to obtain reliable information on $`p`$, the magnitude of the QCD penguin. The effective Hamiltonian approach indicates that there is a small relative strong phase between the $`p`$ and $`s`$ amplitudes in the SM . The relative strong phase obtained in this approach comes purely from short-distance physics . In general, there are nonperturbative strong phases from soft gluon exchanges in the final-state particles that may be different between the two types of penguin diagrams. For simplicity and definiteness, we will take $`\delta _v=\delta _p\delta _s\pi 0`$ since the overall strong phase will not matter, and consider maximal destructive interference between the QCD and EW penguins, in accord with the effective Hamiltonian analysis. The additional $`\pi `$ in the above strong phase relation does not really have a strong interaction origin but simply comes from the charge coupling of the final-state $`s`$ quark with the $`Z`$ boson in the EW penguin. Therefore, the $`s`$ part has a $`180^{}`$ phase from the $`p`$ part within the SM. Under this assumption, $`v=ps`$ can be computed once we know the prediction of the ratio $`s/p`$ in the SM. We will also mention consequences of imperfect destructive interference between these two types of amplitudes.

A. Observables

One observable in the $`\varphi K`$ system is the ratio

$$R\frac{|𝒜^{\mathrm{exp}}(B^0\varphi K^0)|^2+|𝒜^{\mathrm{exp}}(\overline{B}^0\varphi \overline{K}^0)|^2}{2|𝒜^{\mathrm{SM}}(B^0\varphi K^0)|^2}=1+2r\mathrm{cos}\varphi \mathrm{cos}\delta +r^2.$$
(17)
The numerator in the above definition is the sum of measured branching ratios of $`B^0\varphi K^0`$ and $`\overline{B}^0\varphi \overline{K}^0`$. As described before, we will actually take the weighted average of the neutral and charged modes. The denominator is the theoretical prediction for the same branching ratio sum within the SM. In terms of $`R`$ and Eq. (13), we obtain

$`R𝒮_{\varphi K_S}`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{sin}2\beta +2r\mathrm{cos}\delta \mathrm{sin}(2\beta \varphi )+r^2\mathrm{sin}2(\beta \varphi ),`$ (18)
$`R𝒜_{\varphi K_S}`$ $`=`$ $`2r\mathrm{sin}\varphi \mathrm{sin}\delta .`$ (19)
Now we have three observables $`R`$, $`𝒮_{\varphi K_S}`$, and $`𝒜_{\varphi K_S}`$ that allow us to solve for the three parameters $`r`$, $`\varphi `$, and $`\delta `$. As the value of $`R`$ may vary owing to the interference between $`p`$ and $`s`$, we will estimate the SM contribution and also search the allowed parameter space by varying $`R`$ over a reasonable range.

The self-tagging modes $`B^\pm \varphi K^\pm `$ can provide additional statistical power to the determination of $`𝒜_{\varphi K_S}`$ if we assume that $`𝒜(B^+\varphi K^+)=𝒜(B^0\varphi K^0)`$ as we have done above. In that case one finds just

$$A_{CP}\frac{|𝒜(\varphi K^{})|^2|𝒜(\varphi K^+)|^2}{|𝒜(\varphi K^{})|^2+|𝒜(\varphi K^+)|^2}=𝒜_{\varphi K_S}=2r\mathrm{sin}\varphi \mathrm{sin}\delta /R$$
(20)
for the time-integrated CP rate asymmetry. The BaBar Collaboration  has recently reported $`A_{CP}=0.039\pm 0.086\pm 0.011`$. We shall not use this value in our averages but in principle it can greatly reduce the error on $`𝒜_{\varphi K_S}`$.

B. Numerical studies

In this subsection, we will use the measured values of $`𝒜_{\varphi K_S}`$, $`𝒮_{\varphi K_S}`$, and $`R`$ with some theoretical input from the SM to find the allowed ranges of $`r`$, $`\varphi `$, and $`\delta `$. Solving for $`r`$ in Eq. (17) in terms of $`R`$, $`\varphi `$, and $`\delta `$, one obtains two solutions

$`r_1`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{cos}\varphi \mathrm{cos}\delta \sqrt{\mathrm{cos}^2\varphi \mathrm{cos}^2\delta +R1},\text{(Solution I)}`$
$`r_2`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{cos}\varphi \mathrm{cos}\delta +\sqrt{\mathrm{cos}^2\varphi \mathrm{cos}^2\delta +R1}.\text{(Solution II)}`$ (21)
First, it is seen that Solution I is not allowed for $`R>1`$ because $`r_1`$ has to be positive. Therefore, we see that $`r_1<1`$.

In the effective Hamiltonian approach, the EW penguin is found to be of considerable importance, with the ratio $`|s/p|`$ predicted to be between $`10\%`$ and $`11\%`$ using the results given in Ref. . On the other hand, the $`B^+K^0\pi ^+`$ decay mode involves only $`p`$, ignoring a small annihilation diagram that also contributes to the $`\varphi K^+`$ mode. Using its branching ratio, we obtain $`|p|=(1.42\pm 0.14)\times 10^8`$. Combining the above results and assuming maximal destructive interference between $`p`$ and $`s`$, the SM predicts $`|𝒜^{\mathrm{SM}}(\varphi K)|=(1.27\pm 0.13)\times 10^8`$. To improve the statistics, we take the weighted average for the branching ratios of the neutral and charged $`\varphi K`$ modes as given in Table I and obtain $`|𝒜^{\mathrm{exp}}(\varphi K)|=(1.27\pm 0.04)\times 10^8`$ after removing the kinematic factors. Therefore, we obtain an estimate of

$$R=\left|\frac{𝒜^{\mathrm{exp}}(\varphi K)}{𝒜^{\mathrm{SM}}(\varphi K)}\right|^20.99\pm 0.21.$$
(22)
If a nontrivial relative strong phase exists between $`p`$ and $`s`$, the central value of the resulting $`R`$ will become smaller. In the case of maximal constructive interference between $`p`$ and $`s`$, $`R`$ could be as low as $`0.5`$.

We will use the $`CP`$ asymmetry observables measured by the BaBar and Belle groups  as given in Table II for our analysis. Replacing $`r`$ in Eqs. (18) and (19) by one of the above solutions, it is then possible to find on the $`\varphi `$-$`\delta `$ plane regions that are consistent with the measured values $`𝒜_{\varphi K_S}=0.19\pm 0.30`$, $`𝒮_{\varphi K_S}=0.38\pm 0.41`$ , and the additional requirement that $`r0`$ by definition. The fact that $`𝒜_{\varphi K_S}`$ is negative at the $`1\sigma `$ level gives the following possibilities: (i) $`\pi \varphi <0`$ and $`0\delta <\pi `$; and (ii) $`0\varphi <\pi `$ and $`\pi \delta <2\pi `$.

In Fig. 1, we only show a set of representative solutions in the range $`\pi \varphi 0`$, $`0\delta \pi `$ for $`R=0.8,1.0`$ and $`1.2`$. It is noticed that Solution I does not exist when $`R>0.8`$. Therefore, we only show those for Solution II. As shown in Section III, solutions in other regions on the $`\varphi `$-$`\delta `$ plane can be obtained by the translations $`\varphi \varphi \pm \pi `$ and $`\delta \delta \pm \pi `$. As $`R`$ increases, the allowed regions of Solution II become larger.

In Fig. 2, we plot the allowed ranges of $`r`$ for $`0R1.4`$. The dark region in plot (a) corresponds to Solution I, and that in plot (b) to Solution II. It is seen from the plots that to satisfy the constraints of measured data, $`r`$ has to be at least about $`0.4`$ for either solution. This corresponds to a new physics amplitude with a magnitude of at least about $`0.45\times 10^8`$. It is also found that for Solution I, $`R`$ has to be less than about 0.8. Therefore, the current value of $`R`$ favors Solution II. If we take the value $`R=1`$, Solution II has a wide range for $`r`$: $`0.40<r<0.90`$ and $`1.05<r<1.96`$.

The fact that $`r`$ has to be greater than a minimum can be readily understood. Should $`r`$ be too small, then new physics \[the $`n`$ part in Eq. (16)\] does not have enough weight to change $`R𝒮_{\varphi K_S}`$ from that extracted from the $`J/\psi K_S`$ mode to the measured one as the modification is of $`𝒪(r)`$ according to Eq. (18). As mentioned in the beginning, $`r𝒪(1)`$ means that the new amplitude has the same order of size as the SM contribution. This would point to the possibility of new physics at the TeV scale or below.

The sensitivity of $`𝒮_{\varphi K_S}`$ and $`𝒜_{\varphi K_S}`$ to the weak and strong phases $`\varphi `$ and $`\delta `$ for a value of $`R`$ close to the central one is illustrated in Fig. 3. Here each curve for a given $`\varphi `$ intersects the axis $`𝒜_{\varphi K_S}=0`$ at either $`\delta =0`$ or $`\delta =\pi `$, while curves with $`𝒜_{\varphi K_S}<0`$ are related to those with $`𝒜_{\varphi K_S}>0`$ and the same value of $`𝒮_{\varphi K_S}`$ by the transformation $`\varphi \pi +\varphi `$, $`\delta \pi \delta `$. The plotted cross shows the present status of the data summarized in Table II. The ranges of $`\delta `$ and $`\varphi `$ are restricted in general by the requirement that the argument $`\mathrm{cos}^2\varphi \mathrm{cos}^2\delta +R1`$ of the square roots in Eqs. (S0.Ex1) be non-negative. Because of the special value of $`R`$, we are able to draw curves for essentially any value of $`\varphi `$ by varying $`\delta `$. Therefore, the constraints come merely from $`𝒮_{\varphi K_S}`$ and $`𝒜_{\varphi K_S}`$.

Assuming the central values of $`𝒮_{\varphi K_S}`$ and $`𝒜_{\varphi K_S}`$ stay the same in future experiments but the errors are improved by a factor of 3, we find that the allowed regions become smaller. This is demonstrated in Fig. 4.

We find that the variation of $`\mathrm{sin}2\beta `$ within its experimental range makes little difference in the allowed solutions. The general behavior and regions presented in Figs. 1 and 2 remain the same.

V. NEW PHYSICS IN $`\varphi K`$ and $`K^{}\pi `$ SYSTEMS

In this section, we consider the situation of new physics entering both the $`\varphi K`$ and $`K^{}\pi `$ systems. Since the new physics contribution $`ne^{i(\varphi _n+\delta _n)}`$ is to be added to both Eqs. (1) and (2), we combine the $`p`$ and $`n`$ parts into a single $`q`$ part as follows

$`𝒜(\varphi K^0)`$ $`=`$ $`qe^{i(\varphi _q+\delta _q)}+se^{i(\varphi _{SM}+\delta _s)}=qe^{i(\varphi _q+\delta _q)}\left[1+r^{}e^{i(\varphi +\delta )}\right],`$ (23)
$`𝒜(K^0\pi ^+)`$ $`=`$ $`qe^{i(\varphi _q+\delta _q)},`$ (24)
where $`qe^{i(\varphi _q+\delta _q)}=pe^{i(\varphi _{SM}+\delta _p)}+ne^{i(\varphi _n+\delta _n)}`$, $`r^{}=s/q`$, $`\varphi =\varphi _q\varphi _{SM}`$, and $`\delta =\delta _q\delta _s`$. As mentioned in the previous section, $`\varphi _{SM}\pi `$ and $`\delta _s\pi `$, one thus should use $`(\varphi _q,\delta _q)(\varphi +\pi ,\delta +\pi )`$ to obtain the weak and strong phases associated with the $`q`$ part when interpreting our following plots drawn on the $`\varphi `$-$`\delta `$ plane.

A. Observables

In this case, we use the observable

$`R^{}`$ $``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{|𝒜^{\mathrm{exp}}(B^0\varphi K^0)|^2+|𝒜^{\mathrm{exp}}(\overline{B}^0\varphi \overline{K}^0)|^2}{|𝒜^{\mathrm{exp}}(B^+K^0\pi ^+)|^2+|𝒜^{\mathrm{exp}}(B^{}\overline{K}^0\pi ^{})|^2}}`$ (25)
$`=`$ $`1+2r^{}\mathrm{cos}\varphi \mathrm{cos}\delta +r^{}{}_{}{}^{2},`$
Note that in spite of the similarity in the forms between $`R^{}`$ and $`R`$ defined in the previous section, they are actually very different. Using Eq. (25), we have

$`R^{}𝒮_{\varphi K_S}`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{sin}2\beta _{\mathrm{eff}}+2r^{}\mathrm{cos}\delta \mathrm{sin}(2\beta _{\mathrm{eff}}\varphi )+r^{}{}_{}{}^{2}\mathrm{sin}2(\beta _{\mathrm{eff}}\varphi )`$ (26)
$`=`$ $`\mathrm{sin}2(\beta +\varphi )+2r^{}\mathrm{cos}\delta \mathrm{sin}(2\beta +\varphi )+r^{}{}_{}{}^{2}\mathrm{sin}2\beta ,`$
$`R^{}𝒜_{\varphi K_S}`$ $`=`$ $`2r^{}\mathrm{sin}\varphi \mathrm{sin}\delta ,`$ (27)
where $`\beta _{\mathrm{eff}}=\beta +\varphi `$ is used. Here one quickly realizes that we also have only three parameters, $`r^{}`$, $`\varphi `$, and $`\delta `$ for which to solve.

As in the previous case, the self-tagging rate asymmetry for $`B^\pm \varphi K^\pm `$ provides additional statistical power for the measurement of $`𝒜_{\varphi K_S}`$, since

$$A_{CP}=2r^{}\mathrm{sin}\varphi \mathrm{sin}\delta /R^{}.$$
(28)
B. Numerical studies

Solving $`r^{}`$ in Eq. (25) in terms of $`R^{}`$, $`\varphi `$, and $`\delta `$, one obtains two solutions

$`r_1^{}`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{cos}\varphi \mathrm{cos}\delta \sqrt{\mathrm{cos}^2\varphi \mathrm{cos}^2\delta +R^{}1},\text{(Solution I)}`$
$`r_2^{}`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{cos}\varphi \mathrm{cos}\delta +\sqrt{\mathrm{cos}^2\varphi \mathrm{cos}^2\delta +R^{}1}.\text{(Solution II)}`$ (29)
First, as in the previous case, Solution I is not allowed for $`R^{}>1`$ because $`r_1^{}`$ has to be positive. Therefore, we see that $`r_1^{}<1`$.

We extract the amplitude for the $`K^{}\pi `$ mode from Table I to be $`|𝒜^{\mathrm{exp}}(K^{}\pi )|=(1.42\pm 0.14)\times 10^8`$. Combined with the weighted average of the $`\varphi K`$ mode amplitude size given in the previous section, $`|𝒜^{\mathrm{exp}}(\varphi K)|=(1.25\pm 0.05)\times 10^8`$, we find $`R^{}=0.79\pm 0.17`$. In Fig. 5, we show a set of representative solutions in the range $`\pi \varphi 0`$, $`0\delta \pi `$. We take $`R^{}=0.6,0.8`$ and $`1.0`$. It is seen that both solutions have two allowed regions except for Solution I at $`R^{}=1.0`$. As $`R^{}`$ increases, the allowed regions become larger for Solution II.

In Fig. 6, we also draw the allowed ranges of $`r^{}`$ for $`0R^{}1.2`$. The dark region in plot (a) corresponds to Solution I, and that in plot (b) to Solution II. It is seen from the plots that to satisfy the constraints of measured data, $`r^{}`$ can go down to almost $`0`$ for $`R^{}1`$. If we take the value $`R^{}=0.8`$, Solution I has $`0.16<r^{}<0.44`$ while Solution II has a wider range $`0.47<r^{}<0.97`$ and $`1.20<r^{}<1.76`$. In the standard model, one expects $`r^{}0.1`$, $`\varphi =\pm \pi `$, $`\delta \pm \pi `$ in accord with the expected contribution (mentioned previously) of the electroweak penguin amplitude.

If it turns out that $`r^{}1`$, that means the $`n`$ part and the $`p`$ part interfere to give an amplitude larger in size, agreeing with the fact that $`R^{}`$ will be about $`1`$. However, if $`r^{}𝒪(1)`$, then there is a cancellation between $`n`$ and $`p`$ such that the combined amplitude of the two becomes comparable to the $`SU(3)_F`$-singlet amplitude. Either situation would tell us the new physics contribution is important.

The sensitivity of $`𝒮_{\varphi K_S}`$ and $`𝒜_{\varphi K_S}`$ to the weak and strong phases $`\varphi `$ and $`\delta `$ in Solutions I and II for the case in which new physics enters through the penguin amplitude into both $`B\varphi K`$ and $`B^+K^0\pi ^+`$ is illustrated in Fig. 7. As in Fig. 3, each curve for a given $`\varphi `$ intersects the axis $`𝒜_{\varphi K_S}=0`$ at either $`\delta =0`$ or $`\delta =\pi `$, while curves with $`𝒜_{\varphi K_S}<0`$ are related to those with $`𝒜_{\varphi K_S}>0`$ and the same value of $`𝒮_{\varphi K_S}`$ by $`\varphi \pi +\varphi `$, $`\delta \pi \delta `$. Contrary to Fig. 3, not all values of $`\varphi `$ and $`\delta `$ are allowed for making a curve with a given value of $`R^{}<1`$.

It is interesting to notice that for the large-$`r^{}`$ solution (Solution II), the curves for values of $`\varphi `$ and $`\pm \pi \varphi `$ overlap, leading to the appearance of continuity. This is because both curves are part of a common ellipse, obtained by solving Eqs. (25), (26), and (27):

$`\left({\displaystyle \frac{R^{}𝒮_{\varphi K_S}(\mathrm{cos}2\varphi +R^{}1)\mathrm{sin}2\beta }{r_x}}\right)^2+\left({\displaystyle \frac{R^{}𝒜_{\varphi K_S}}{r_y}}\right)^2=\mathrm{cos}^2\varphi +R^{}1,`$ (30)
where $`r_x=2\mathrm{sin}\varphi \mathrm{cos}2\beta `$, and $`r_y=2\mathrm{sin}\varphi `$. These ellipses have their centers at coordinates $`([\mathrm{cos}2\varphi +R^{}1]\mathrm{sin}2\beta /R^{},0)`$. One immediately sees that the above elliptic equation is invariant under the transformation $`\varphi \pi \varphi `$. Since no explicit choice of solutions of $`r`$ in Eq. (29) is made for deriving Eq. (30), it is valid for either solution. This is why each curve associated with $`\varphi `$ in Fig. 7(a) is actually a portion of the corresponding curve associated with $`\pi \varphi `$ in Fig. 7(b). The curves for both solutions are truncated (although not seen in the plot for Solution II because of the overlap) because of the conditions $`\mathrm{cos}^2\varphi \mathrm{cos}^2\delta +R^{}10`$, $`r_1^{}0`$.

Again, we find that if the experimental precision of $`𝒮_{\varphi K_S}`$ and $`𝒜_{\varphi K_S}`$ can be improved by a factor of $`3`$ with their current central values, then the allowed regions are considerably restricted. The variation of $`\mathrm{sin}2\beta `$ within its experimental range also does not affect the general behavior and regions presented in this section.

VI. SUMMARY

We have shown how to estimate the magnitude and weak and strong phases of any new physics contribution which might account for the deviation of the CP asymmetry parameters in $`B\varphi K^0`$ from their standard-model values. We find that it is useful to compare the overall rate for this process either with that predicted in the standard model (a ratio $`R`$) or with that for $`B^+K^0\pi ^+`$ (a ratio $`R^{}`$), which is expected to be dominated by the penguin amplitude in the standard model.

It is observed from our analysis that an amplitude with considerable size, nontrivial weak and/or strong phases from new physics is required to fit the current experimental results. For example, in the case that new physics contributes to the $`\varphi K`$ modes but not the $`K^{}\pi `$ mode, the ratio of the new amplitude to the SM contribution has to be $`>0.4`$, independent of the value of $`R`$.

Current experimental data indicate that the size $`r`$ or $`r^{}`$ of a new physics amplitude relative to that of the standard model could well be of $`𝒪(1)`$ for a wide range of $`R`$ or $`R^{}`$. Such $`𝒪(1)`$ parameters could indicate new physics at about the TeV scale. Of course, these extra contributions would need the right strong and weak phases in order to explain the current data. Considerable refinement of the rate and asymmetry measurements in $`B\varphi K^0`$ is necessary before the amplitude can be pinpointed satisfactorily, however.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

C.-W. C. would like to thank R. Briere and H. C. Huang for experimental information. This work was supported in part by the United States Department of Energy, High Energy Physics Division, under Contract Nos. DE-FG02-90ER-40560 and W-31-109-ENG-38.


text:
# Multiwavelength studies of the Seyfert 1 galaxy NGC7469. I - Far UV observations with FUSE

## 1 Introduction

The Seyfert 1 galaxy NGC 7469 is one of a handful of bright, nearby active galactic nuclei (AGN) that has been intensively studied at multiple wavelengths and monitored extensively in the X-ray, UV, and optical bands (Wanders et al. (1997); Nandra et al. (1998); Collier et al. (1998); Kriss et al. 2000a ). ASCA X-ray spectra (Reynolds (1997); George et al. (1998)) were modeled with absorption edges of O vii and O viii indicative of a warm absorber, and Hubble Space Telescope Faint Object Spectrograph observations show associated UV absorption lines in Ly$`\alpha `$, N v and C iv. Such X-ray and UV absorption is common in Seyfert 1s, occurring in tandem in roughly half the population (Reynolds (1997); George et al. (1998); Crenshaw et al. (1999)). The X-ray and UV absorbing gas components thus appear to be related, but it is not yet clear whether this is the consequence of a more general phenomenon linking the gas visible at both wavelengths, or if the absorption arises in the same gas with identical physical conditions in both the X-ray and the UV. At high resolution, both the X-ray and the UV absorption is kinematically complex (Kaastra et al. (2001); Kaspi et al. (2000); Kaspi et al. (2002); Crenshaw et al. (1998); Crenshaw et al. (1999); Mathur et al. (1999); Kriss et al. 2000b ). Generally only some of the UV absorption lines have velocities and physical conditions similar to those seen in the X-ray.

The locations of both the X-ray and the UV absorbing media are also highly uncertain. If the outflowing gas originates in the accretion disk, then it may be relatively close to the central engine (e.g., Königl & Kartje (1994); Murray et al. (1995)) and interior to the broad emission-line region. On the other hand, if the absorbing gas is a thermal wind driven off the obscuring torus (Krolik & Kriss (1995); Krolik & Kriss (2001)), then it will lie at distances of roughly 1 pc, be external to the broad-line region, but probably interior to the narrow-line region. Studies of the X-ray absorption variability (NGC 3516; Netzer et al. (2002)) show that at least some of the gas does lie at distances approaching 1 pc. Variability of UV absorption in NGC 4151 suggests distances of tens of parsecs for the absorbing gas (Espey et al. (1998)), and even greater distances for the associated UV absorption seen in some quasars (Hamann et al. (1995); Hamann et al. (1997)).

Using the Far Ultraviolet Spectroscopic Explorer (FUSE), we obtained high-resolution UV spectra below 1200 Å covering the O vi $`\lambda \lambda 1032,1038`$ resonance doublet and the high-order Lyman lines. The O vi doublet provides a key link to the X-ray band since high energy transitions from the same ion can be viewed with XMM-Newton. This permits us to directly compare the kinematics and the column densities measured in both wavelength regions as a crucial test for establishing the link between X-ray and UV absorbing gas in Seyferts. XMM-Newton observations of NGC 7469 are discussed in a companion paper (Blustin et al. (2003)).

## 2 Observations

FUSE observes the far-ultraviolet wavelength range from 912–1187 Å using four independent optical channels. In each channel a primary mirror gathers light for a Rowland-circle spectrograph. Two-dimensional photon-counting detectors record the dispersed spectra. Two of the optical trains use LiF coatings on the optics to cover the 990–1187 Å wavelength range. The other two channels cover shorter wavelengths down to 912 Å using SiC-coated optics. See Moos et al. (2000) for a full description of FUSE and its in-flight performance.

We observed NGC 7469 with FUSE on 1999 December 6 through the 30′′-square low-resolution apertures. Data were obtained on 22 consecutive orbits for a total integration time of 37,803 s. Unfortunately the SiC channels were not properly aligned; the only detectable flux was in the LiF channels. The time-tagged data were processed using v1.8.7 of the FUSE calibration pipeline. Sahnow et al. (2000) describe the standard FUSE data processing steps. We added an additional customized step to normalize and subtract a flat background image from each detector segment. The resulting extracted spectra were merged into a linearized spectrum with 0.05 Å bins. While this rebinning process introduces some correlated error, since each of these bins holds $`7`$ original pixels, the resulting bins are more than 80% statistically independent. Poisson errors and data quality flags are propagated through the data reduction process along with the science data.

To firmly establish the zero-point of our wavelength scale, we compare the positions of low-ionization Galactic absorption lines from species such as Ar i, Fe ii, O i and $`\mathrm{H}_2`$ to the Galactic 21 cm H i velocity as measured by Murphy et al. (unpublished). This requires a shift of $`0.32`$ Å to be applied to our wavelengths to place them in a heliocentric reference frame. We estimate that the flux scale is accurate to $``$10%, and that wavelengths are accurate to $``$15 km s-1.

The full merged spectrum is shown in the top panel of Fig. 1. Numerous Galactic absorption features obscure much of the spectrum, so we have constructed a simple model of the interstellar absorption to remove them from the spectrum. We assume a Galactic H i column of $`4.4\times 10^{20}\mathrm{cm}^2`$ at a heliocentric velocity of $`9`$ km s-1 with a Doppler width of 10 km s-1. Heavy elements are included at solar abundances following the depletion pattern typical of warm gas toward $`\zeta `$ Oph (Savage & Sembach (1996)). Matching the molecular hydrogen absorption requires one component with gas at 50 K and a $`\mathrm{H}_2`$ column density of $`1\times 10^{20}\mathrm{cm}^2`$, and a second component with a temperature of 300 K and a total column density of $`1\times 10^{17}\mathrm{cm}^2`$. We show the spectrum of NGC 7469 corrected for this foreground absorption in the lower panel of Fig. 1. Strong, broad O vi emission dominates the spectrum. Weaker broad emission lines of C iii $`\lambda `$977, N iii $`\lambda `$991, and He ii $`\lambda 1085`$ are also visible, as well as several unidentified emission features. The low broad bump on the red wing of O vi is also present in the FUSE spectrum of Mrk 509 (Kriss et al. 2000b ) as well as in the spectra of low-redshift quasars observed using the Hubble Space Telescope (Laor et al. (1995)). Based on FUSE observations of a large sample of low-redshift AGN, Kriss et al. (2003) have identified this as blended emission due to S iv $`\lambda \lambda 1062,1072`$.

At the high resolution of FUSE, absorption features intrinsic to NGC 7469 are also discernible. Fig. 2 shows the Ly$`\beta `$ and O vi region of the spectrum in 0.05 Å bins. Here one can see two absorption systems due to the O vi $`\lambda \lambda `$1032,1038 resonance doublet in the blue wing of the broad O vi emission line. The Ly$`\beta `$ absorption associated with these systems is weak, if present at all, and severely blended with foreground Galactic absorption. Similarly, no Ly$`\gamma `$ or C iii $`\lambda `$977 absorption is visible at shorter wavelengths.

## 3 Analysis

To measure the emission and absorption line properties of NGC 7469, we model the spectrum using the IRAF task specfit (Kriss (1994)). We use a reddened power law in $`f_\lambda `$ to describe the continuum emission. For extinction, we use a Cardelli et al. (1989) curve with $`R_V=3.1`$ and E(B$``$V)=0.069 (Schlegel et al. (1998)). To model the continuum, we use regions of the spectrum free of both emission and absorption lines covering the full observed wavelength range. The best-fit, extinction-corrected continuum has the form $`f_\lambda =(1.34\pm 0.02)\times 10^{13}(\lambda /1000\mathrm{\AA })^{1.25\pm 0.10}\mathrm{ergs}\mathrm{s}^1\mathrm{cm}^2\mathrm{\AA }^1`$.

To model the O vi emission and absorption, we fix the continuum parameters as determined above and restrict our subsequent fits to the 1033.0–1060.3 Å wavelength range. As one can see from the models shown in Fig. 2, the O vi emission line profile requires both broad and narrow components. We model these with Gaussian line profiles. The narrow component is only cleanly visible near the peak of the red component of the O vi doublet; strong foreground Galactic $`\mathrm{H}_2`$ absorption obscures the corresponding feature near the blue peak. Although we can only clearly see part of the red portion of the narrow doublet, our baseline model assumes that they are optically thin with a 2:1 intensity ratio. (Tests using other assumptions are described in our discussion of the absorption line fits below.) The broad component is also treated as a doublet with two blended Gaussians having a 2:1 intensity ratio. For each narrow and broad doublet, we require the widths to be identical and the wavelengths to have the same ratio as their laboratory values. The C iii $`\lambda 977`$, N iii $`\lambda 991`$, S iv $`\lambda \lambda 1062,1072`$, and He ii $`\lambda 1085`$ emission lines are all modeled as single Gaussian emission lines. The two components of the S iv doublet have identical widths, a fixed flux ratio of 1:1, and wavelengths fixed at the ratio of their laboratory value. In addition, we include a single Gaussian emission line at the location of the unidentified emission feature at 1031 Å. Table 1 gives the best-fit parameters for these emission lines.

We model absorption lines in the NGC 7469 spectrum using Voigt profiles. For the intrinsic absorbers, we permit the absorption to partially cover the source. That is, for a covering fraction $`f_c`$, the transmittance at a given wavelength, $`t(\lambda )`$, has the form $`t(\lambda )=1+f_c(e^{\tau (\lambda )}1)`$, where $`\tau (\lambda )`$ is the optical depth at that wavelength. The intrinsic absorption lines are clustered into two complexes that we designate as #1 (at a relative systemic velocity of $`569\mathrm{km}\mathrm{s}^1`$) and #2 (at velocity $`1898\mathrm{km}\mathrm{s}^1`$). Each of these complexes is modeled with four separate blended absorption lines. The O vi lines in each component are treated as doublets with their wavelengths fixed at the ratio of their laboratory values, their optical depths fixed at a 2:1 ratio, and their velocity widths forced to be the same. For the corresponding Ly$`\beta `$ lines, we fix their wavelengths at the ratio of their laboratory values to those of the O vi lines and force them to have the same velocity widths. Covering fractions vary freely within each complex. The individual O vi lines within a complex are forced to have the same velocity widths and the same covering fractions. (This assumption is relaxed below in an alternative model for the absorption.) Since Ly$`\beta `$ absorption is not even unambiguously detectable, we fix the relative optical depths of the lines within each complex to be the same as the ratios observed for O vi. However, we permit the overall optical depth for each Ly$`\beta `$ complex to vary freely. Table 2 gives the best-fit parameters for this model of the absorption lines. Parameters in the table with error bars of zero had their values linked to another parameter in the fit.

Since much of the peak of the O vi emission-line profile is obscured by foreground Galactic absorption, we have explored the effects that this uncertainty in the true emission-line profile might have on our characterization of the absorption lines. We consider a wide range of models:

A. This is our baseline model, described in detail above. The narrow emission lines have line ratios fixed at an optically thin value of 2:1, and we assume that this narrow line emission is obscured at the same covering fraction as the continuum and broad emission line. Individual O vi lines within a complex have the same velocity widths and covering fractions.

B. In this model the narrow emission lines are treated the same as in “A”, but the velocity widths and the covering fractions of individual O vi lines within a complex are all permitted to vary freely. In these fits, the strongest, deepest absorption line in each complex has parameters typical of those found in our baseline model. The weaker adjacent lines retain similar widths in these fits, but their best-fit covering fractions do change. However, the individual covering fractions are not well constrained. Their error bars are typically $`\pm 20`$%, and the new values lie within one error bar of the best-fit value in the baseline model.

C. This variation has the narrow emission line fluxes fixed at an optically thick ratio of 1:1. The emission is obscured with the same covering fraction as the continuum and broad emission line. As in the baseline model, individual O vi lines within a complex have the same velocity widths and covering fractions. In a pattern that repeats with each of the subsequent variations below, the best-fit O vi column densities in this model are slightly lower, but not more than twice the values of the error bars shown in Table 2. While this model significantly changes the overall emission-line profile, since the O vi absorption is so highly blueshifted, little of the intrinsic absorption falls in the region of the line profile with the most dramatic changes. Thus the overall optical depth of the absorption lines is roughly the same as in the baseline model.

D. We also considered a model with no narrow emission-line component. As in the baseline model, individual O vi lines within a complex have the same velocity widths and covering fractions. This model provides a significantly worse fit than the baseline, but the measured O vi column densities and covering fractions are the same as the baseline model to within the error bars in Table 2.

E. This model has narrow-line emission with line ratios fixed at 2:1, but here we assume that the intrinsic absorption does not obscure the narrow-line emission at all. As in the baseline model, individual O vi lines within a complex have the same velocity widths and covering fractions. Again the O vi column densities are lower, but they are not significantly different from those of the baseline model.

F. In this model we also assume that the intrinsic absorption does not absorb the narrow-line emission, but we fix that emission at a ratio of 1:1. As in the baseline model, individual O vi lines within a complex have the same velocity widths and covering fractions. Again we find no significant variation from the results of our baseline model.

The overall properties of these various emission-line profile models are summarized in Table 3. For the O vi components 1 and 2 we list the total column density from the fit, the velocity of the strongest feature in each component, the best-fit widths of the absorption lines, and the best-fit covering fractions. The comparative summary for component #1 is listed first in the table, followed by the summary for component #2.

Fig. 2 graphically illustrates our best fit to the O vi and Ly$`\beta `$ region of the FUSE spectrum. Using our model for the underlying emission and the foreground Galactic absorption, we divide this into the data to produce a normalized spectrum that is corrected for the effects of foreground Galactic absorption. This normalized spectrum is shown in velocity space surrounding the two absorption line complexes in O vi and Ly$`\beta `$ in Fig. 3. Since the relative oscillator strengths of the blue and red lines in the O vi doublet have roughly a 2:1 ratio, one would expect the red line to have a depth that is half that of the blue line in optically thin gas, and an equal depth in optically thick gas. From the normalized spectrum it is readily apparent that the equal depths of the red and blue lines in Component #1 imply that the absorption is heavily saturated. However, since the line cores are not black at their centers, we also can see that the absorbing gas does not fully cover the underlying emission. The covering fraction is only $`50`$%. Our fits may underestimate the total column density in this absorption complex. The lack of visible damping wings on the line profile permits us to set an upper limit of $`1.5\times 10^{18}\mathrm{cm}^2`$ on the O vi column of this component. This upper limit is reflected in the error bar that we assign to the strongest line in Component #1 in Table 2. The relative depths of the red and blue lines in Component #2 are not quite equal, but they also are not at an optically thin ratio. This component is approaching saturation, but is not yet optically thick, and so its total column density is better determined.

## 4 Discussion

As typical for Seyfert 1 galaxies viewed at high spectral resolution in the far-ultraviolet, we see complex, multiple absorption lines from highly ionized O vi. Although Ly$`\beta `$ absorption in the FUSE spectrum is weak or absent, there are Ly$`\alpha `$ absorption lines in the FOS spectrum of NGC 7469 obtained in 1996 at systemic velocities of $`1870\pm 17\mathrm{km}\mathrm{s}^1`$ and $`656\pm 24\mathrm{km}\mathrm{s}^1`$ (Kriss et al. 2000a ), very close to the velocities of Components #1 and #2, so there is some minimal neutral hydrogen column. The high O vi to H i column-density ratios for both components imply very highly ionized gas consistent with those typical of X-ray warm absorbers and similar to the highest ionization component in Mrk 509 (Kriss et al. 2000b ). However, only Component #1 has velocities comparable to those of higher ionization states of O vii and O viii ($`900\pm 100\mathrm{km}\mathrm{s}^1`$) as seen in the XMM-Newton grating spectrum of NGC 7469 (Blustin et al. (2003)). The upper limit on the O vi column density measured in the XMM-Newton grating spectrum of $`<10^{16.5}\mathrm{cm}^2`$ is consistent with the column densities measured in the FUSE spectrum.

To test whether the same gas is responsible for both the UV and the X-ray absorption in component #1, we computed photoionization models similar to those used by Krolik & Kriss (1995, 2001). These models cover a grid in total column density ranging from $`\mathrm{N}_{\mathrm{tot}}=10^{18}`$ to $`10^{21}\mathrm{cm}^2`$, and in ionization parameter from $`U=0.05`$ to 10.0, where $`U`$ is the ratio of ionizing photons in the Lyman continuum to the local electron density. For the illuminating spectrum in our models, we used two different spectral energy distributions. The first, SED1, is the same as that described by Kriss et al. (2000a), which is based on the simultaneous IUE, FOS, and RXTE observations of NGC 7469 performed in 1996. We show SED1 as a solid line in Fig. 4. The second spectral energy distribution, SED2, is based on the current FUSE spectrum presented in this paper and the XMM-Newton spectrum from Blustin et al. (2003). At long wavelengths we assume $`f_\nu \nu ^1`$, as in SED1. At 2500 Å, this breaks to $`f_\nu \nu ^{0.75}`$ to match the FUSE spectrum. At X-ray energies, we use the energy index of 0.7 from the XMM-Newton spectrum to span the 0.5 keV to 100 keV. At higher energies we use a steeper index of 2.0 to prevent divergence in the total ionizing flux. From 50 eV to 0.5 keV, the steep $`f_\nu \nu ^{2.32}`$ is a reasonable match to the soft excess seen in the XMM-Newton data. The FUSE and XMM-Newton data were not obtained simultaneously, and so we normalize the X-ray continuum relative to the UV continuum by choosing $`\alpha _{ox}=1.34`$, the same value used by Kriss et al. (2000a) based on the 1996 simultaneous observations. SED2 is the dashed line shown in Fig. 4. For comparison, we show the absorption-corrected UV and X-ray fluxes at 2120 Å and 2 keV, respectively, as observed with XMM-Newton (Blustin et al. (2003)). These data have $`\alpha _{ox}=1.33\pm 0.02`$, and they are consistent with SED2.

After examining the results of our modeling, we find that none of the models using SED1 achieves sufficiently high ratios of O vi, O vii, and O viii relative to H i to match the values observed in our spectra. For SED2, we do find a solution that is compatible with our observations. This model has U = 6.0 and log $`N_{tot}`$ = 20.55. The predicted column densities for ions of interest are summarized in Table 4, where we compare them to the observed column densities. Note that C iv and N v are virtually invisible in this model, and, indeed, no absorption from these ions was seen by Kriss et al. (2000a) in the 1996 FOS spectrum at the velocity of component #1.

For Component #2, the required column density and ionization level is substantially lower. We obtain a reasonable match to the observed O vi and H i column densities for $`U=0.2`$ and $`N_{tot}`$ = 18.58, as also shown in Table 4. The predicted column densities for C iv and N v in this model are also rather low, although easily detectable. We note that the UV continuum in the current FUSE observation is a factor of $`2.1\times `$ brighter than that observed with the FOS in 1996. If we assume that any variations since then are simply due to changes in flux with a constant column density of absorbing gas, then we would have expected the gas in 1996 to be responding to an ionization parameter of $`U=0.08`$. This would then predict C iv and N v column densities of $`5.7\times 10^{13}\mathrm{cm}^2`$ and $`7.2\times 10^{13}\mathrm{cm}^2`$, respectively, with corresponding equivalent widths of the blue components of each doublet (for optically thin gas) of 0.2 Å and 0.16 Å. While these are still lower than the observed values in the FOS spectrum, ($`0.45\pm 0.05`$ and $`0.48\pm 0.08`$ Å for C iv and N v, respectively) given the uncertainties in the spectral energy distribution and other potentially variable factors, we find the agreement quite good.

The covering fraction and line depth of Component #1 is consistent with its absorbing only the continuum flux and none of the emission-line flux in NGC 7469. Its high ionization parameter, and its likely identification with the same gas responsible for the X-ray absorption suggests that it is much higher ionization than Component #2. Taken together, these points imply that Component #1 lies very close to the central engine, possible interior to the broad emission line region. This would favor its association with an accretion disk wind, rather than a thermally driven wind emanating from the obscuring torus. In constrast, the high covering fraction of Component #2 clearly places it exterior to both the BLR and continuum regions as would be expected for the thermally driven winds of Krolik & Kriss (1995; 2001). Overall, in this one object we may be seeing absorption from both a torus wind and a disk wind.

## 5 SUMMARY

Our high-resolution far-ultraviolet spectrum of NGC 7469 obtained with FUSE shows broad emission lines of C iii, N iii, O vi, and He ii, as well as possible emission from S iv $`\lambda \lambda 1062,1072`$. Intrinsic absorption in the O vi $`\lambda \lambda 1032,1038`$ resonance doublet arises in two distinct kinematic components at systemic velocities of $`569`$ km s-1 (Component #1) and $`1898`$ km s-1 (Component #2). Both components are very highly ionized with no significant Ly$`\beta `$ absorption detected at either velocity. Component #2, although highly ionized, has a lower total column density than Component #1, and it is consistent with having no associated X-ray absorption. It covers more than 90% of both the continuum and broad-line emission. Component #1 at $`569`$ km s-1 is the best match in velocity to the highly ionized X-ray absorbing gas detected in the XMM-Newton grating spectrum of NGC 7469 (Blustin et al. (2003)) at a blueshift of $`900\pm 100\mathrm{km}\mathrm{s}^1`$. Photoionization models for Component #1 show that for a total column density of $`10^{20.55}\mathrm{cm}^2`$ and an ionization parameter of $`U=6.0`$, the column densities of H i, O vi, O vii, and O viii in the FUSE and the XMM-Newton spectra can all be reproduced. Component #1 also has an extraordinarily low covering fraction of 0.5, and is consistent with covering only the continuum emission and none of the broad-line emission. This suggests that it might arise in an accretion disk wind interior to the broad line region.

###### Acknowledgements.

This work is based on data obtained for the Guaranteed Time Team by the NASA-CNES-CSA FUSE mission operated by the Johns Hopkins University. Financial support to U. S. participants has been provided by NASA contract NAS5-32985. The U. K. authors acknowledge the support of the Particle Physics and Astronomy Research Council. G. Kriss acknowledges additional support from NASA Long Term Space Astrophysics grant NAGW-4443.