text:
# Crossover from 2D to 3D magnetic disorder in sub-mono-atomic ferromagnetic layers

## Abstract

We present transport and magnetoresistance (MR) measurements performed on quench condensed ultrathin films of Gd evaporated on an amorphous Ge or Sb layer. These films show a large negative MR accompanied by a hysteretic superimposed structure. When the film is coated by an overlayer of Ge or Sb the magnitude of the MR increases and the hysteretic structure disappears. We speculate that the findings are a result of a crossover from a 2D magnetic disorder in the uncoated layers of Gd to a 3D magnetic disorder as the Gd film is coated by a semiconducting layer.

The magneto-transport properties of magnetic rare-earth atoms imbedded in a non-magnetic insulating matrix is a dramatic example of the effect of magnetic moments on the conductivity of semiconductors. Depending on the magnetic atom concentration, these systems can show extremely large magnetoresistance values von1 ; von2 ; washburn . In the case of three dimensional amorphous Gd-Si where the Gd ion has a spin s=7/2 it has been shown that the system can be continuously tuned through the metal-insulator transition Teizer1 . The observed magnetic field driven transition from localized states subject to variable range hopping to extended states which show metallic behavior, was interpreted as being due to the extra degree of freedom added by the spin on the Gd. In the absence of magnetic field the Gd spin is randomly oriented and thus adds an additional disorder not experienced by a non-spin system ieee . With increasing magnetic field, the Gd spins are driven towards alignment, reducing the net disorder and thus increasing the conductivity. On the insulating side of the metal insulator transition, the magnetoresistance is spectacularly exponentially dependent on temperature and exceeds 5 orders of magnitude for a 10T field at T$`<`$100mK peng .

In addition, tunneling and hall measurements were performed on these systems Teizer2 . They show that the density of states (DOS) is substantially modified by the presence of magnetic field. For an insulating Gd-Si alloy in low field there are very few, if any, states available to tunnel into at the Fermi level. The tunneling conductance exhibits a strong voltage (energy) dependence demonstrating that this is a strongly coulomb correlated system. As the field increases, the tunneling conductance increases such that a very clear correlation between conductivity and density of states is found. Hall measurements show a striking field dependence of the hall coefficient with 1/Rh collapsing to zero at the metal insulator transition as well.

A number of experimental findings are noteworthy. First, the negative MR observed in these systems continues to 20T without showing signs of saturation. This is especially surprising since Gd is a trivalent 4f75d16s2 atom which is characterized by J=S=7/2 and L=0 due to the half filled f shell. Hence, no magnetic anisotropy is expected for the Gd ions and the magnetoresistance is expected to saturate at a relatively low magnetic field. Secondly, magnetization measurement show that the moment in these alloys is usually smaller than 7/2 hellman1 . It peaks at the metal insulator transition (MIT) where it approaches the bulk value of 7/2 but on both sides of the transition it is substantially reduced. These two findings lead to the speculation that there is an antiferromagnetic coupling between the Gd atoms and the surrounding semiconducting atoms hellman2  leading both to the lack of high field saturation and to the reduced net moment. The peak at the MIT is still not understood.

Very little has been explored in two dimensions along these lines. In this paper we describe an experiment performed on a sub mono-atomic layer of Gd grown on an amorphous Ge or Sb substrate. We present MR data of this film. In addition, we study the change in the MR as we subsequently deposit an overlayer of amorphous Ge or Sb, in-situ. We find that there are large differences between an uncoated Gd sub monolayer system and one which is coated by an overlayer. The results demonstrate the important role played by the semiconductor surroundings on the magnetic properties of the ferromagnetic-semiconductor system.

The samples described in this paper were prepared by quench condensation i.e. sequential evaporation on a cryogenically cold substrate under UHV conditions while monitoring the film thickness and resistance. It is well established that if a metallic material is quench-condensed on a substrate that is pre-coated by an ultra-thin buffer layer of amorphous Ge or Sb, the sample grows rather uniformly and is electrically continuous at a thickness of 1-2 monolayers of materialstrongin . This is in contrast with the growth without a buffer layer in which case the film grows in a granular morphology granular bob ; granular goldman ; granular rich  The quench condensation method provides a very sensitive control on the sample growth process, allowing one to terminate the evaporation at any desired stage of the material deposition and ”freeze” the morphological configuration. In particular, this technique allows one to stop the film growth at a thickness for which a measurable conductivity first appears across the sample. Hence one can grow an ultrathin layer which is electrically continuous but geometrically it is still a sub-monolayer. At T=0 we expect such monolayers to be insulating. In the current work we prepared the samples by growing a 10Å thick Ge or Sb buffer-layer on a Si/SiO substrate at T=5K. Then we quench condensed an ultrathin layer of Gd (3-4 Å thick) until a sheet resistance of a few M$`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ was measured across the sample. We then added sequential sub monolayers of Gd thus reducing the sheet resistance, Rsq, in a controlled fashion. Finally, we coated the Gd by overlayers of the amorphous semiconductor material (Ge or Sb). Throughout the experiment we measured the transport (R-T) and magnetoresistance (R-H) properties for each evaporated layer. Magnetic field was applied perpendicular to the film. All measurements were performed in a shielded room and we ensured that the I-V characteristics of all films were in the ohmic regime.

We have studied 9 sets of samples of Gd-Sb and Gd-Ge, all of these samples exhibit similar behavior. The uncoated Gd sub-atomic layers on a semiconductor substrate exhibit negative MR which persist to 9 tesla without saturation. We observe amplitudes of the MR ($`\frac{R_0R_{9T}}{R_{9T}})`$ up to a factor of 60% at T=2K, decreasing monotonically as Gd is added to the layer, thus reducing Rsq (see figure 1). This is similar to the behavior in the 3D alloys in which the MR magnitudes decreases as the Gd concentration is increased. However, the 2D samples show a number of unique properties. The temperature dependence of the MR in the uncoated Gd layer at H=9T often tends to saturate as the temperature is reduced below T=4K as demonstrated in figures 1 and 2 (left panel). In addition, a sample dependent structure is superimposed on the usual smooth negative MR background. This can be seen in figure 2 which shows a very profound detailed and hysteretic MR trace. The curves trace each other when sweeping the field in the same direction many times but they produce hysteretic mirror images when sweeping the field in opposite directions. The structure persists, in many cases, up to a field of 9T (the highest available field in our experiment). This is very surprising since a hysteretic MR trace is associated with magnetic anisotropy and preferred magnetic moment orientation. Since Gd is believed to be spherical, any anisotropy is expected to be negligible and its effect is expected to be limited to very small magnetic fields. This is clearly not the case for the results shown in figure 2 where the hysteretic sharp structure persists to at least several tesla and to at least 4.2K. None of this hysteresis is observed in 3 dimensions.

As the Gd layer is subsequently coated by an overlayer of Ge or Sb a number of clear trends are observed. The initial layers of the semiconductor overlayer (up to a thickness of $`4`$Å) cause both the resistance and the MR to increase. Additional Ge or Sb overlayer evaporation causes the resistance to then decrease, however the MR continues to increase (we have observed $`\frac{\mathrm{\Delta }R}{R}`$ values up to a factor of 5 at 9T) until, for thick enough overlayers (thicker than approximately 10Å), $`\frac{\mathrm{\Delta }R}{R}`$ does not change with additional overlayer. In addition, the overlayers of Ge or Sb suppress the hysteretic structure and eventually yield smooth negative MR curves as demonstrated in figure 3. Another striking effect of the semiconductor overlayer is associated with the temperature dependence of the resistance. Figure 4 shows the transport properties of a Gd-Ge sample for uncoated Gd and two overlayer thicknesses for H=0 and H=9T. It is seen that the R-T curves can loosely fit a $`\sigma =cT`$ dependence in this temperature range. The slope, c, changes as a function of the overlayer thickness so that the R-T curves cross each other at various temperatures. This is very different than the behavior in the 3D case where the temperature dependence becomes weaker (monotonically) as the resistance decreases. In the 2D case, the observed crossing of the R-T traces implies that the overlayer material modifies the conduction mechanism leading to a qualitatively different temperature dependence.

The non-monotonic dependence of the resistance with overlayer thickness is peculiar. Naively, all other thing being unchanged, one would expect that adding a semiconductor between the Gd atoms would decrease the resistance because of the decrease in the tunneling barrier heights between the metallic atoms. This is indeed observed for thicker overlayers. The fact that the resistance increases for initial overlayer thicknesses implies that there is another competing mechanism. The observation that adding the overlayer is accompanied by a significant increase in MR amplitudes (for both regions of resistance change) leads us to speculate that the increase of resistance in the first overlayer stages is associated with an increase in magnetic disorder.We envision that the uncovered Gd atoms are forced to be oriented perpendicular to the substrate. The chemical bond of the Gd atom to the substrate semiconductor breaks the natural magnetic symmetry of the ion and orients the moment perpendicular to the substrate. Ferromagnetic interactions between the Gd atoms create magnetic domains which are either ”up” or ”down” on the surface. In this picture, aside from the up/down disorder, much of the magnetic disorder, which characterizes the 3D alloys and dominates their MR behavior, is quenched in the 2D sub-mono-atomic films because the Gd atoms moments are confined to being vertical. The subsequent semiconductor overlayer relaxes this constraint and allows the magnetic moment to splay into all the 3D space. This increases the magnetic disorder leading to an increase both in the resistance and in the MR. It appears therefore that there are two conflicting effects of the top semiconducting layer. The generation of parallel tunneling paths acts to raise the conductivity and the increase of magnetic disorder acts to reduce conductivity. The latter effect is highly dependent on temperature as observed in the 3D alloy case, while tunneling effects are relatively temperature insensitive. This may explain the unique temperature dependence of the resistance as an overlayer is added to the Gd film (figure 4). At high temperatures the main effect of the semiconducting layer is to increase the tunneling conductance, while at low temperatures the dominant factor is the enhancement of disorder which decreases conductivity. This leads to the crossing of the R-T curves as a function of overlayer thickness which is observed in figure 4.

The above picture can also explain the evolution of the structure observed in the MR (figure 3). The hysteretic structure is a consequence of the anisotropy in the Gd atoms on the surface. In the absence of magnetic field, domains are randomly oriented up or down. With the application of a perpendicular field, the domains orient with the field direction. Each flip of a domain moment will cause a sharp resistance change (which may be an increase or decrease depending on the microscopic configuration). The presence of an overlayer relaxes the symmetry and restores the isotropic nature of the Gd. In effect, coating the Gd with amorphous Ge or Sb causes a crossover from a 2D magnetic disorder to a 3D magnetic disorder. This leads to suppression of the hysteretic structure because in the 3D disorder the moments can rotate continuously, without abrupt orientation flips, until they align with the field.

In summary, the magnetic properties of a 2D sub monolayer of Gd on an amorphous semiconducting substrate show a number of features which are different than the 3D alloys. These include a relatively small magnitude of MR, small temperature dependence and a hysteretic fine-structure superimposed on the MR curves. When these layers are covered by a semiconducting overlayer, the samples evolve towards behavior which is more characteristic of 3D alloys, i.e. the MR and its temperature dependence becomes larger and the fine-structure vanishes. These results lead us to suggest that the coated layers are the limiting case of a very thin Gd-Ge alloy and share similar physics while the uncoated layers exhibit qualitatively different results due to the fact that the magnetic disorder in these samples is substantially reduced.

We gratefully acknowledge illuminating discussions with F. Hellman. This research was supported by the Binational USA-Israel fund grant number 1999332 and the NSF grant DMR0097242.


format: text

text:
# 1 Introduction

## 1 Introduction

The existence of Q-balls is a general feature of scalar field theories carrying a conserved $`U\left(1\right)`$ charge . Q-balls can be understood as bound states of scalar particles and appear as stable classical solutions (nontopological solitons) carrying a rotating time dependent internal phase. They are characterized by a conserved nontopological charge $`Q`$ (Noether charge) which is responsible for their stability (see, for example, Refs. -). These features differentiate the Q-ball interaction properties from those of the topological solitons since here the charge $`Q`$ can take arbitrary values in a specific range, allowing for the possibility of charge transfer between solitons during the interaction process.

Up till now, comprehensive studies of these objects have been made by using either numerical simulations - or some analytic considerations . Recently, in  the explicit relation between the energy and the charge of the Q-balls has been derived using analytic arguments. In particular, a semi-Bogomolny argument in the energy density led to a first order differential equation whose solution however, did not satisfy the correct boundary conditions and differed considerably from its exact form. In this work, we present a method to obtain an analytic form for the Q-ball profile function which is in good agreement with the numerical results.

We consider the $`U\left(1\right)`$ Goldstone model, given by the Lagrangian

$$=\frac{1}{2}_\mu \varphi ^\mu \overline{\varphi }U\left(\left|\varphi \right|\right)$$
(1)
where $`\varphi `$ is a single complex scalar field in three spatial dimensions while the potential $`U\left(\left|\varphi \right|\right)`$ is a function of $`\left|\varphi \right|`$ only and has a single minimum at $`\varphi =0`$. This is equivalent of stating that there is a sector of scalar particles (mesons) which carry $`U\left(1\right)`$ charge and have mass squared equal to $`\frac{1}{2}U^{\prime \prime }\left(0\right)`$. The corresponding energy functional is given by

$$E=\left(\frac{1}{2}\left|_t\varphi \right|^2+\frac{1}{2}\left|\varphi \right|^2+U\left(\left|\varphi \right|\right)\right)d^3x.$$
(2)
The model has a global $`U\left(1\right)`$ symmetry and an associated conserved Noether current $`J_\mu `$ exists whose covariant conservation $`^\mu J_\mu =0`$ leads to the existence of the conserved Noether charge $`Q`$ given by

$$Q=\frac{1}{2i}\left(\overline{\varphi }_t\varphi \varphi _t\overline{\varphi }\right)d^3x.$$
(3)
A stationary Q-ball solution has the form

$$\varphi =e^{i\omega t}f\left(r\right)$$
(4)
where $`f\left(r\right)`$ is a real radial profile function which satisfies the ordinary differential equation

$$f^{\prime \prime }\left(r\right)+\frac{2}{r}f^{}\left(r\right)=\omega ^2f\left(r\right)+U^{}\left(f\right)$$
(5)
with the condition $`f\left(\mathrm{}\right)=0`$ and $`f^{}\left(0\right)=0`$. This equation can either be interpreted as describing the motion of a point particle moving in a potential with friction , or in terms of Euclidean bounce solutions . In each case the effective potential being $`U_{eff}\left(f\right)=\omega ^2f^2/2U\left(f\right)`$ leads to constraints on the potential $`U\left(f\right)`$ and the frequency $`\omega `$ in order for a Q-ball solution to exist. Firstly, the effective mass of $`f`$ must be negative. If we consider a potential $`U\left(f\right)`$ which is non-negative and satisfies $`U\left(0\right)=U^{}\left(0\right)=0`$, $`U^{\prime \prime }\left(0\right)=\omega _+^2>0`$ then one can deduce that $`\omega <\omega _+`$. Furthermore, the minimum of $`U\left(f\right)/f^2`$ must be attained at some positive value of $`f`$, say $`0<f_0<\mathrm{}`$ and existence of the solution requires that $`\omega >\omega _{}`$ where $`\omega _{}^2=2U\left(f_0\right)/f_0^2`$. Hence, Q-balls exist for all $`\omega `$ in the range $`\omega _{}<\left|\omega \right|<\omega _+`$.

Then, the charge and the energy of a stationary Q-ball solution simplify to

$`Q`$ $`=`$ $`4\pi \omega {\displaystyle r^2f^2\left(r\right)𝑑r}`$ (6)
$`E`$ $`=`$ $`4\pi {\displaystyle }({\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\omega ^2f^2\left(r\right)+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}f^{}{}_{}{}^{2}\left(r\right)+U\left(f\right))r^2dr.`$ (7)
It has been observed using numerical and analytic methods that the classical stability of a Q-ball is related with the dependence of its charge on the internal frequency $`\omega `$. For small internal frequency, close to its minimal value $`\omega _{}`$, the profile function is almost constant which implies that the charge (6) is large and this corresponds to the so-called thin-wall approximation. On the other hand, for large internal frequency (close to its maximal value $`\omega _+`$) the profile function (and thus the charge) tends to zero and this corresponds to the thick-wall approximation. In fact, for $`\omega \omega _+`$, the behavior of the charge $`Q`$ depends on the particular form of the potential and the number of dimensions . In the case studied here we show that $`Q\mathrm{}`$ as $`\omega \omega _+`$.

The choice of the potential is not unique; the standard requirement is that the function $`U\left(f\right)/f^2`$ has a local minimum at some value of $`f`$ different from zero. For simplicity, we consider the following form

$$U\left(f\right)=f^2\left(1+\left(1f^2\right)^2\right)$$
(8)
which implies that in terms of the earlier notation we have that $`\omega _+=2`$ and $`\omega _{}=\sqrt{2}`$, and therefore stable Q-balls exist for $`\sqrt{2}<\omega <2`$. In this case, the energy-charge dependence of the Q-balls, obtained in  using a semi-Bogomolny argument, is given by the analytic expression

$`E_{_{Bog}}`$ $`=`$ $`\sqrt{2}Q_{_{Bog}}+{\displaystyle \frac{3^{2/3}\pi ^{1/3}}{2^{7/6}}}Q_{_{Bog}}^{2/3}+{\displaystyle \frac{5\pi ^{2/3}}{2^{11/6}3^{2/3}}}Q_{_{Bog}}^{1/3}{\displaystyle \frac{\pi \left(4+3\pi ^2\right)}{36\sqrt{2}}}+{\displaystyle \frac{\pi ^{4/3}\left(17216\pi ^2\right)}{25922^{1/6}3^{1/3}}}Q_{_{Bog}}^{1/3}`$ (9)
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{\pi ^{5/3}\left(2054\pi ^2+27\pi ^4\right)}{19442^{5/6}3^{2/3}}}Q_{_{Bog}}^{2/3}+O\left(Q_{_{Bog}}^1\right).`$
For large $`Q`$, the above equation corresponds to the upper energy bound. The same result can be obtained by representing the Q-ball profile function by the Woods-Saxon distribution (ie a generalization of the semi-Bogomolny solution) as presented in .

Let us emphasize that neither the semi-Bogomolny nor the Woods-Saxon ansatz describe accurately the Q-ball profile function. In particular, in both cases the derivative of the profile function at the origin is non-zero (that is, different from the required boundary conditions) while the corresponding profile function differs from the exact one obtained by solving numerically the equation of motion. In the next section, we show that the symmetrized Woods-Saxon distribution describes accurately the Q-ball profile function and satisfies the correct boundary conditions.

## 2 Equation of Motion

The Q-ball equation of motion (5) for the specific potential (8) is given by

$$f^{\prime \prime }\left(r\right)+\frac{2}{r}f^{}\left(r\right)=\left(4\omega ^2\right)f\left(r\right)8f^3\left(r\right)+6f^5\left(r\right)$$
(10)
and satisfies the boundary conditions $`f^{}\left(0\right)=0`$, $`f\left(\mathrm{}\right)=0`$. For large values of the argument $`r`$ the nonlinear terms in (10) can be neglected and we get the asymptotic behaviour $`f\left(r\right)\mathrm{exp}\left(\sqrt{4\omega ^2}r\right).`$ The exact solution of (10) should contain only one free parameter $`\omega `$ so that the charge $`Q`$ the energy $`E`$ and the initial value $`f\left(0\right)`$ should in principle be expressed as functions of this parameter. Since equation (10) is too complicated to be tackled by analytic methods, we shall seek a suitable ansatz for the profile function and search for relations connecting $`E`$,$`Q`$ and $`f\left(0\right)`$ with $`\omega `$.

As mentioned earlier, a test profile of the Woods-Saxon type cannot reasonably approximate the Q-ball solution since it fails to satisfy the correct boundary conditions. Nevertheless, it implies an energy-charge relation (9) which holds remarkably well for a wide range of energies, a fact that certainly requires some further investigation. A more general test function that satisfies the correct boundary conditions and has the correct asymptotic behaviour is given by the symmetrized Woods-Saxon distribution

$$f\left(r\right)=\frac{c}{\sqrt{1+c_1\mathrm{cosh}\left(\alpha r\right)}}$$
(11)
The values of the arbitrary parameters $`c`$, $`c_1`$ and $`\alpha `$ can then be determined by fitting the data of the numerically solved (10). Having done that, we got a very satisfactory agreement in all cases. It is interesting to realize that $`f\left(r\right)`$ satisfies the following differential equation

$$f^{\prime \prime }\left(r\right)+\frac{2}{r}f^{}\left(r\right)=\frac{\alpha ^2}{4}\left(1\frac{4}{ar}\right)f\left(r\right)\frac{\alpha ^2}{c^2}\left(1\frac{1}{ar}\right)f^3\left(r\right)+\frac{3\alpha ^2}{4c^4}\left(\left(1c_1^2\right)+\frac{2}{3}\frac{c_1^2}{\alpha r}\right)f^5\left(r\right)+O\left(f^7\right)$$
(12)
which in the limit $`ar4`$ looks exactly like (10). It is then quite reasonable to expect that there must be a critical value of $`r=r_c`$ beyond which the following equations must approximately hold true:

$`{\displaystyle \frac{\alpha ^2}{4}}\left(1{\displaystyle \frac{4}{\alpha r_c}}\right)4\omega ^2`$ (13)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{\alpha ^2}{c^2}}\left(1{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\alpha r_c}}\right)8`$ (14)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{3\alpha ^2}{4c^4}}((1c_1^2)+{\displaystyle \frac{2}{3}}{\displaystyle \frac{c_1^2}{\alpha r_c}})6`$ (15)
The thin-wall approximation is reached when $`c_10`$ so we will assume that $`c_1<1`$ and we shall neglect the last term in the left hand side of (15). Then the system above gives the approximate solutions

$`c`$ $``$ $`\sqrt{{\displaystyle \frac{2}{3}}}\sqrt{1c_1^2}\sqrt{1+\sqrt{1{\displaystyle \frac{3}{8}}{\displaystyle \frac{4\omega ^2}{1c_1^2}}}}`$ (16)
$`\alpha `$ $``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{4\sqrt{2}}{3}}\sqrt{1c_1^2}\left(1+\sqrt{1{\displaystyle \frac{3}{8}}{\displaystyle \frac{4\omega ^2}{1c_1^2}}}\right)`$ (17)
$`\alpha r__c`$ $``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1+\sqrt{1\frac{3}{8}\frac{4\omega ^2}{1c_1^2}}}{\frac{1}{2}+\sqrt{1\frac{3}{8}\frac{4\omega ^2}{1c_1^2}}}}`$ (18)
A comparison with values obtained by a direct fit shows that the relations above are quite good. In fact, equation (16) is excellent, while equation (17) gives the right shape but the actual values for $`\alpha `$ are on the average $`10\%`$ higher than expected, implying a faster drop of the profile function. Note that both $`c`$ and $`a`$ are slowly varying functions of $`\omega `$.

The equation of motion (10) can be written as:

$$\frac{d}{dr}(\frac{1}{2}f^{}{}_{}{}^{2}\left(r\right)+\frac{1}{2}\omega ^2f^2\left(r\right)U\left(f\right))=\frac{2}{r}f^{}{}_{}{}^{2}\left(r\right)$$
(19)
In the absence of the friction term, equation (19) would simply imply the conservation of energy for the corresponding mechanical problem. In the presence of friction and upon integrating (19) we get that the initial potential energy equals the work done by friction. This relation can be used to provide a further constraint on the form of (11)

$$\frac{1}{2}\omega ^2f^2\left(0\right)U\left(f\left(0\right)\right)=2_0^{\mathrm{}}\frac{f^{}{}_{}{}^{2}\left(r\right)}{r}dr$$
(20)
Recall that $`f\left(0\right)=c/\sqrt{1+c_1}`$. Finally, using the symmetrized Woods-Saxon distribution (11), the charge (6) and the energy (7) of the Q-ball can be explicitly evaluated in terms of the parameters $`c`$, $`c_1`$ and $`\alpha `$:

$`Q`$ $`=`$ $`4\pi \omega {\displaystyle \frac{c^2}{3\alpha ^3\sqrt{1c_1^2}}}\mathrm{cosh}^1\left({\displaystyle \frac{1}{c_1}}\right)(\pi ^2+\mathrm{cosh}^1\left({\displaystyle \frac{1}{c_1}}\right)^2),`$ (21)
$`E`$ $`=`$ $`4\pi \left[{\displaystyle \frac{\alpha ^2+4\left(4+\omega ^2\right)}{8}}I_0\left(2+{\displaystyle \frac{\alpha ^2}{4c^2}}\right)I_1+\left(1+{\displaystyle \frac{\alpha ^2}{8c^4}}\left(1c_1^2\right)\right)I_2\right],`$ (22)
where the integrals $`I_0`$, $`I_1`$ and $`I_2`$ are given by

$`I_0`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{Q}{4\pi \omega }},`$ (23)
$`I_1`$ $`=`$ $`c^2I_0+c^2c_1{\displaystyle \frac{d}{dc_1}}I_0,`$ (24)
$`I_2`$ $`=`$ $`c^4I_0+2c^4c_1{\displaystyle \frac{d}{dc_1}}I_0+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}c^4c_1^2{\displaystyle \frac{d^2}{dc_1^2}}I_0`$ (25)
It is readily seen that the actual values for $`Q`$ and $`E`$ depend strongly on the value of $`c_1`$ especially for small values of $`c_1`$. In this region, $`c_1`$ can be eliminated in favour of $`Q`$ to get

$`E`$ $`=`$ $`\left({\displaystyle \frac{1}{\omega }}+{\displaystyle \frac{\omega }{2}}\right)Q+{\displaystyle \frac{24+3\alpha ^2}{16\omega }}\left(q\omega \right)^{\frac{1}{3}}Q^{\frac{2}{3}}+{\displaystyle \frac{24+3\alpha ^2}{8\omega }}\left(q\omega \right)^{\frac{2}{3}}Q^{\frac{1}{3}}{\displaystyle \frac{\left(8+\alpha ^2\right)\pi ^2}{8\omega }}q\omega +O\left(Q^{\frac{1}{3}}\right)`$ (26)
where

$$q=\frac{4\pi c^2}{3\alpha ^3}$$
(27)
It is interesting to see that the leading terms of (26) are identical to those of (9) for $`\alpha =2\sqrt{2}`$, $`c=1`$, $`\omega =\sqrt{2}`$. Taking into account the fact that $`\alpha `$ and $`c`$ are slowly varying functions of $`\omega `$ helps to explain the wide range of applicability of (9).

As a result, the parameters $`c`$, $`c_1`$, $`\alpha `$ and $`\omega `$ for specific values of the charge $`Q`$ can be uniquely determined by solving the system of equations: (16), (20), (21), and (22) provided that the energy-charge dependence of the Q-ball is given by (9). We expect the values obtained that way to be quite accurate as long as (9) remains reasonably accurate. In practice, this means that $`Q16`$, a value far distant from the values normally associated with the region of the thin-wall approximation. In Table 1 the values of the arbitrary constants in (11) are presented for different values of $`Q`$ (or $`\omega `$). That way, the initial value $`f\left(0\right)`$ can be determined explicitly; a comparison with values obtained numerically show that the symmetrized Woods-Saxon distribution describes accurately the Q-ball profile function.

| $`Q`$ | $`\omega `$ | $`c`$ | $`c_1`$ | $`\alpha `$ | $`f\left(0\right)`$ | $`f\left(0\right)_{num}`$ |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| 23.68 | 1.79 | 1.097 | 0.12 | 2.66 | 1.037 | 1.024 |
| 35 | 1.72 | 1.087 | 0.068 | 2.60 | 1.052 | 1.055 |
| 61.6 | 1.64 | 1.068 | 0.0243 | 2.54 | 1.056 | 1.065 |
| 149.3 | 1.57 | 1.049 | 0.0031 | 2.53 | 1.048 | 1.056 |

Table 1: Values of the parameters $`c`$, $`c_1`$, $`\alpha `$ and $`f\left(0\right)`$ obtained from $`\left(\text{11}\right)`$ and numerically ($`f\left(0\right)_{num}`$) for different values of $`\omega `$.

Finally, Figure 1 presents the profile function obtained analytically and numerically for $`\omega =1.64`$. Figure 2 presents the values of the profile function at the origin for different $`\omega `$ obtained numerically and analytically.

## 3 Conclusions

In this work, the basic properties of the Q-ball profile function have been extensively studied by means of mainly analytic methods. In particular, it has been shown that the profile function can be accurately approximated by the symmetrized Woods-Saxon distribution, while the corresponding energy and charge can be explicitly evaluated. The approach presented here might prove to be particularly useful in understanding the basic properties of Q-balls such as existence, small vibrations and stability. We believe that a similar line of argument can be applied to study the profile function and the energy-charge dependence in other types of potentials. In fact, we expect that the symmetrized Woods-Saxon distribution will accurately describe all types of Q-balls independently of the exact form of the scalar potential. Work in this direction is currently in progress.

## Acknowledgement

We thank V. Kopeliovich, A. Kouiroukidis and S. Massen for useful discussions. TI thanks the Royal Society and the National Hellenic Research Foundation for a Study Visit grant.

References


text:
# VLT observations of the highly ionized nebula around Brey2Based on observations collected at the European Southern Observatory, Cerro Paranal, Chile (ESO No. 68.C-0238(A,B)).

## 1 Introduction

Except for Planetary Nebulae, high excitation features, such as nebular He ii emission, are not expected in H ii regions. Indeed, normal O stars do not emit enough hard UV photons to produce detectable nebular He ii emission. However, in the last two decades, seven objects of the Local Group were found to harbour such nebular He ii emission (Garnett et al. gar91 (1991)). Wolf-Rayet (WR) stars are the ionizing sources of five of them. These stars are hot, evolved massive stars that possess strong winds, but until then they were generally believed to be unable to excite such highly ionized nebulae. Nebular He ii emission was also discovered farther away, in star-forming galaxies (e.g. I Zw 18, see French fre (1980)) and WR stars were again thought to be responsible for it (Schaerer sch (1996)). This type of emission thus seems intimately linked to WR stars in most cases, and the analysis of these peculiar highly ionized objects can help us put tighter constraints on the poorly known extreme UV ionizing fluxes of these stars (Crowther cro (2002)). Only the He ii nebulae of the Local Group are situated close enough to enable a detailed study.

We study here the nebula associated with Brey2 (or BAT99-2 in Breysacher et al. bat (1999)), a WN2b(h) star in the Large Magellanic Cloud (Foellmi et al. foe (2003)). This WR star has blown a small bubble whose expansion velocity reaches 16 km s-1 (Chu et al. chu (1999)). Moderate chemical enrichment was detected in this bubble (Garnett & Chu gar (1994)). Using this result, Chu et al. (chu (1999)) suggested that the circumstellar bubble was probably currently merging with the interstellar bubble blown by the progenitor of the WR. Nebular He ii emission near Brey2 was first detected by Pakull (pak (1991)). Imaging of the nebula in the He ii lines is crucial in establishing the distribution of the emission in detail, in order to evaluate the total flux, and to better understand the origin of the ionization. To date, only low resolution, low signal/noise He ii images exist (Melnick & Heydari-Malayeri mel (1991)). Thanks to observations made with the Very Large Telescope (VLT), we present here the first high resolution He ii $`\lambda `$4686 images and a detailed spectral analysis of this peculiar highly ionized nebula.

## 2 Observations

We obtained CCD images of Brey2 and its associated nebula with the FORS instrument installed on the 8 m VLT-UT3 in 2002 January. The images were taken through seven filters (H$`\alpha `$, \[O iii\], He i $`\lambda `$5876, He ii $`\lambda `$4686, plus three continuum filters centered on 4850, 5300, and 6665 Å) for exposure times of 3$`\times `$100s, 3$`\times `$100s, 9$`\times `$400s, 9$`\times `$400s, 9$`\times `$60s, 9$`\times `$60s, and 3$`\times `$100s, respectively. The seeing was $``$1″. The data were reduced with iraf using standard methods for overscan and bias subtraction and flatfielding. Stellar sources were removed using the photometric and astrometric information obtained from the continuum images (details are reported by Nazé et al., in preparation). The few remaining faint stars were either removed individually or not considered for flux determinations. Fig. 1 presents a three color image of the whole field; while Fig. 2 shows a close-up on Brey2 in the four nebular filters.

During the same observing run, we also obtained long-slit spectra of Brey2 with the same instrument. We used the 600B and 600V grisms to obtain a blue spectrum covering 3700-5600 Å ($`R800`$) and a red spectrum covering 4500-6850Å ($`R1000`$), respectively. The 1.3″$`\times `$6.8 slit was tilted by 45 and centered on Brey2. The spatial resolution was $``$1.2″ and the spectral resolution, as mesured from the FWHM of the calibration lines, 7Å. The spectra were reduced and calibrated in a standard way using iraf. For flux calibration, we observed several standard stars from Oke (oke (1990)) and used the mean atmospheric extinction coefficients for CTIO reduced by 15%. Sky subtraction was done using a small region of the spectra where the nebular emission is the lowest. Only a few residuals remained for the brighter sky lines (e.g. \[O i\] 5577Å).

## 3 The high excitation nebula surrounding Brey2

### 3.1 Morphology

As seen in Fig. 1, the nebula surrounding Brey2 is quite complex. The bubble blown by the WR star is visible to the NW of the star as a small, quite bright arc(and arrow)-like structure, of external radius $``$15″. To the south of the star, a large shell, $``$100′′ in radius, may in fact be the interstellar bubble blown by the progenitor of Brey2 (Garnett & Chu gar (1994)). Though with a low S/N, the He i image appears well correlated with H$`\alpha `$, at least for the brightest features. But the \[O iii\] image seems less filamentary than the H$`\alpha `$ image at the SNR’s position (see below) and at the SE of the field-of-view. It also shows several additional features compared to the H$`\alpha `$ image. All H$`\alpha `$ features on the eastern side of the nebula possess a lower \[O iii\]/H$`\alpha `$ ratio than the central nebulosities surrounding Brey2. BSDL 49 (Bica et al. bic (1999)), an oval-shaped structure 160″ west of Brey2 and 140″$`\times `$100″ in size, presents an extremely low \[O iii\]/H$`\alpha `$ ratio. These low ratios suggest that the regions are not ionized by early O or WR stars but most probably by cooler stars, e.g. late O or early B stars.

In contrast, the He ii image appears strikingly different (see Fig. 2). The arc-like structure emits strongly in He ii, and a fainter halo $``$90″$`\times `$70″ in size surrounds the star. These He ii emissions appear well centered on Brey2. The shell directly south of the star also emits He ii, but rather faintly. This shell may represent the limit of the He ii Strömgren sphere. Since the density south of Brey2 appears much lower than in the other directions, some He ii ionizing photons could escape the direct surroundings of Brey2 and ionize this shell. Finally, note that the very faint halo seems to extend to the bright H$`\alpha `$ regions visible at the lower left of Fig. 1. However, since we do not have spectra of this region, we can not confirm that the nebular emission actually comes from He ii, and not from other nebular lines, e.g. \[Ar iv\].

We used the calibrated long-slit spectra to get the ADU-flux conversion factor of the images. The total He ii emission arc$`+`$halo is about 5$`\times `$10-13 erg cm-2 s-1, or a luminosity of 3 $`\times `$1035 erg s-1 at the distance of the LMC (50 kpc), and after a reddening correction of $`A_\mathrm{V}=0.7\mathrm{mag}`$ (see §3.2). This corresponds to a flux of 4$`\times `$1047 He+ ionizing photons s-1. Comparing to the models of Smith et al. (smi (2002)), this flux is compatible with a 90-100 kK WR star, consistent with the WN2 classification of Brey2.

To the NW of Brey2, a SNR was diagnosed by its high-velocity motions and confirmed through nonthermal radio emission and its high \[S ii\]/H$`\alpha `$ ratio (Chu et al. chu (1999)). Between BSDL 49 and the features associated with Brey2, filamentary structures, characteristic of SNRs (Chen et al. che (2000)), prove the presence of this SNR candidate. Two rather bright H$`\alpha `$ filaments seem to delineate the SNR to the north and south. They form a region some $``$50″ in radius. Our long-slit spectra taken at that position show clear indications of an enhanced \[S ii\]/H$`\alpha `$ ratio, typical of SNRs (see below), and a lower \[O iii\]/H$`\alpha `$ ratio.

### 3.2 Spectrophotometry

The Balmer decrement H$`\alpha `$/H$`\beta `$ was used to derive the interstellar extinction, assuming the theoretical case B decrement at $`T=15000\mathrm{K}`$ and $`30000\mathrm{K}`$ (Storey & Hummer sto (1995)). Some faint stars sometimes affected the nebular spectra. In such cases, we correct the measured emission line strengths by a 2 Å equivalent width for the Balmer absorptions (McCall et al. mcc (1985)) before estimating the reddening. To deredden the line ratios, we used the extinction law from Cardelli et al. (car (1989)) with $`R_\mathrm{V}=3.1`$. Spectra were extracted from five regions of interest for detailed analysis (Fig. 1): the first one includes the arrow of the arc-like structure (12″ long without the star); the second and third ones explore the eastern and western He ii halos (34″ and 22″ long, respectively); the fourth examines the eastern part of the large southern shell (40″ long); and the fifth investigates the properties of the SNR candidate situated to the NW of the star (44″ long). The extinction-corrected line ratios for these regions are listed in Table 1.

Using the nebular package under iraf (Shaw & Dufour sha (1995)), we then derived temperatures, densities and abundances in these regions (see Table 2). To get Helium abundances, we used the emissivities computed by Benjamin et al. (ben (1999)) for He i and by Storey & Hummer (sto (1995)) for H and He ii. The presence of He ii suggests that higher ionization states than O2+ exist as well. This can actually explain the slightly smaller \[O iii\]/H$`\alpha `$ ratio of the arc-like structure compared to its direct surroundings. Following Garnett & Chu (gar (1994)), we derived the total oxygen abundance using :
$`\frac{N(\mathrm{O})}{N(\mathrm{H})}=\frac{N(\mathrm{O}^{0+})+N(\mathrm{O}^+)+N(\mathrm{O}^{2+})}{N(\mathrm{H}^+)}\times \left(1+\frac{N(\mathrm{He}^{2+})}{N(\mathrm{He}^+)}\right)`$
Compared to the LMC abundances (Russell & Dopita rus (1990)), no sign of enrichment in helium can be detected for the He ii nebula. But its oxygen abundance is slightly lower (max 35%), and its N/O ratio slightly higher (min 30%) than the LMC’s trend. This is compatible with what might be expected for a nebula enriched by a stellar wind. Using a closer background for analysing the spectrum of the arc does not change this conclusion. On the other hand, the SNR shows rather low helium and oxygen abundances, but a normal N/O ratio.

## 4 Conclusion

We have presented the first high resolution images of the nebula around Brey2, one of the 7 He ii nebulae of the Local Group. He ii is particularly emitted by a small arc-like structure, some $``$15″ in radius, that surrounds the star. This arc corresponds to the bubble blown by the WR star. Fainter He ii emission is present in a surrounding halo, and still fainter He ii emission is detected in the large interstellar bubble blown by the progenitor of Brey2 towards the south of the star. We derived an He+ ionizing flux of 4$`\times `$1047 photons s-1, which appears consistent with the latest theoretical models for very early WN stars. We also confirm the results of Garnett & Chu (gar (1994)) regarding the composition of the nebula: with a larger N/O ratio and a slightly smaller O abundance, the small nebula associated with Brey2 shows only modest enrichment by stellar winds. We have also identified the SNR in the FORS images, and have analysed its spectrum. The bright - thus dense - H$`\alpha `$ region situated between Brey2 and the SNR may be the result of the compression of the ISM between these two expanding structures.

###### Acknowledgements.

We acknowledge support from the PRODEX XMM-OM and Integral Projects and through contracts P4/05 and P5/36 ‘Pôle d’Attraction Interuniversitaire’ (Belgium).


text:
# Isosinglet Scalar Mesons Below 2 GeV and the Scalar Glueball Mass

## I Introduction

Scalar mesons play important roles in low-energy QCD, and are at the focus of many theoretical and experimental investigations. Scalars are important from the theoretical point of view because they are Higgs bosons of QCD and induce chiral symmetry breaking, and therefore, are probes of the QCD vacuum. Scalars are also important from a phenomenological point of view, as they are very important intermediate states in Goldstone boson interactions away from threshold, where chiral perturbation theory is not applicable. There are 9 candidates for the lowest-lying scalar mesons ($`m<1`$ GeV): $`f_0(980)`$ \[$`I=0`$\] and $`a_0(980)`$ \[$`I=1`$\] which are well established experimentally PDG ; $`\sigma (560)`$ or $`f_0(600)`$ \[$`I=0`$\] with uncertain mass and decay width PDG ; and $`\kappa (900)`$ \[$`I=1/2`$\] which is not listed but mentioned in PDG PDG . The $`\kappa (900)`$ is observed in some theoretical models BFSS1 ; vanBeveren ; Ishida\_kappa , as well as in some experimental investigations E791 . It is known that a simple $`q\overline{q}`$ picture does not explain the properties of these mesons. Different theoretical models that go beyond a simple $`q\overline{q}`$ picture have been developed, including: MIT bag model Jaf , $`K\overline{K}`$ molecule Isg , unitarized quark model vanBeveren ; Tor , QCD sum-rules Eli , and chiral Lagrangians BFSS1 ; San ; BFSS2 ; Far ; pieta ; Mec ; LsM ; AS ; Pelaez .

The next-to-lowest scalars (1 GeV $`<m<`$ 2 GeV) are: $`K_0^{}(1430)`$ \[$`I=1/2`$\]; $`a_0(1450)`$ \[$`I=1`$\]; $`f_0(1370)`$, $`f_0(1500)`$, $`f_0(1710)`$ \[$`I=0`$\], and are all listed in PDG . The $`f_0(1500)`$ is believed to contain a large glue component and therefore a good candidate for the lowest scalar glueball state. These states, are generally believed to be closer to $`q\overline{q}`$ objects; however, some of their properties cannot be explained based on a pure $`q\overline{q}`$ structure.

Chiral Lagrangians, provide a powerful framework for studying the lowest and the next-to-lowest scalar states probed in different Goldstone boson interactions ($`\pi \pi `$, $`\pi K`$, $`\pi \eta `$,…) away from threshold San ; BFSS1 ; BFSS2 ; Far ; pieta ; LsM . In this approach, a description of the scattering amplitudes which are, to a good approximation, both crossing symmetric and unitary is possible. To construct scattering amplitudes, all contributing intermediate resonances up to the energy of interest are considered, and only tree diagrams (motivated by large $`N_c`$ approximation) are taken into account. In this way, crossing symmetry is satisfied, but the constructed amplitudes should be regularized. Regularization procedure in turn unitarizes the scattering amplitude. By fitting the resulting scattering amplitude to experimental data, the unknown physical properties (mass, decay width, …) of the light scalar mesons can be extracted. It is shown in San  that there is a need for a $`\sigma `$ meson with a mass around 550 MeV in order to describe the experimental data on $`\pi \pi `$ scattering amplitude. Similarly, in BFSS1  the need for a $`\kappa `$ meson with a mass around 900 MeV for describing the available data on $`\pi K`$ scattering amplitude is presented. Motivated by the evidence for a $`\sigma `$ and a $`\kappa `$, and taking into account the experimentally well-established scalars, the $`f_0(980)`$ and the $`a_0(980)`$, a possible classification of these states (all below 1 GeV) into a lowest-lying scalar meson nonet is investigated in BFSS2 . In this approach, the non-linear chiral Lagrangian is expressed in terms of this nonet, and it is shown BFSS2  that the consistency with several low energy processes ($`\pi \pi `$ and $`\pi K`$ scatterings, and $`\mathrm{\Gamma }[f_0(980)\pi \pi ]`$) requires a scalar mixing angle which is more consistent with a four-quark assignment for the lowest-lying scalar states. This model also well describes the experimental measurements for the $`\eta ^{}\eta \pi \pi `$ decay Far , and estimates the total decay width of $`a_0(980)`$ to be around 70 MeV consistent with a recent experimental confirmation Teige . This model has also been employed to describe the radiative decays $`\varphi \pi \eta \gamma `$ and $`\varphi \pi \pi \gamma `$ in ref. Blk\_rad .

In order to study properties of the $`a_0(1450)`$ and the $`K_0^{}(1430)`$, in the framework of a non-linear chiral, a next-to-lowest lying scalar nonet is introduced in Mec . Similar two-nonet treatment of the scalar mesons in the context of linear sigma model are investigated in LsM ; Close2 . It is shown in Mec  that a mixing between the lowest nonet (a four-quark nonet) and the next-to-lowest nonet (a two-quark nonet) provides a description of the mass spectrum and the partial decay widths of the $`I=1/2`$ and $`I=1`$ scalars \[$`\kappa (900),a_0(980),K_0^{}(1430)`$ and $`a_0(1450)`$\]. The case of $`I=0`$ states is not studied in Mec  and is the goal of the present work. Specifically, we would like to see if the $`I=0`$ scalar states below 2 GeV can be described within a framework that is constrained by the mixing scenario of ref. Mec , and in addition includes terms that are relevant to $`I=0`$ states only, such as mixing with a scalar glueball. The mixing of scalar glueballs with $`\overline{q}q`$ scalar mesons has been studied in the literature Close ; Teshima . However, the importance of mixing between the $`\overline{q}q`$ and $`\overline{q}\overline{q}qq`$ nonets in ref. Mec  suggests that the mixing of glueballs with the four-quark nonet should also be examined. Therefore, in the present work we investigate a description of the $`I=0`$ states in terms of two and four quark components, and a glueball component. Moreover, we investigate the sensitivity of the results on the input data.

After a brief review of the mixing mechanism of ref. Mec  in Sec. II, we study the mass spectrum and the sub-structure of the isosinglet states in Sec. III. A description of the two-pseudoscalar decay widths of these states is investigated in Sec. IV, followed by a summary and conclusion in Sec. V. The basic formulas are listed in the appendixes.

## II Mixing Mechanism for I=1/2 and I=1 Scalar States

In ref. Mec  the properties of the $`I=1/2`$ and $`I=1`$ scalar mesons, $`\kappa (900),K_0^{}(1430),a_0(980)`$ and $`a_0(1450)`$, in a non-linear chiral Lagrangian framework is studied in detail. In this approach, a $`\overline{q}\overline{q}qq`$ nonet $`N`$ mixes with a $`\overline{q}q`$ nonet $`N^{}`$ and provides a description of the mass spectrum and decay widths of these scalars. This mixing provides an explanation for some unexpected properties of the $`K_0^{}(1430)`$ and the $`a_0(1450)`$, which are generally believed to be good candidates for a $`\overline{q}q`$ nonet PDG , but some of their properties do not quite follow this scenario. For example, in a $`q\overline{q}`$ nonet, isotriplet is expected to be lighter than the isodoublet, but for these two states PDG :

$$m\left[a_0(1450)\right]=1474\pm 19\mathrm{M}\mathrm{e}\mathrm{V}>m\left[K_0^{}(1430)\right]=1412\pm 6\mathrm{M}\mathrm{e}\mathrm{V}$$
(1)
Also their decay ratios given in PDG PDG  do not closely follow a pattern expected from an SU(3) symmetry (given in parenthesis):

$$\frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }\left[a_0^{total}\right]}{\mathrm{\Gamma }\left[K_0^{}\pi K\right]}=0.92\pm 0.12(1.51),\frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }\left[a_0K\overline{K}\right]}{\mathrm{\Gamma }\left[a_0\pi \eta \right]}=0.88\pm 0.23(0.55),\frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }\left[a_0\pi \eta ^{}\right]}{\mathrm{\Gamma }\left[a_0\pi \eta \right]}=0.35\pm 0.16(0.16)$$
(2)
These properties of the $`K_0^{}(1430)`$ and the $`a_0(1450)`$ are naturally explained by the mixing mechanism of ref. Mec . The general mass terms contributing to the $`I=1/2`$ and the $`I=1`$ states can be written as

$$_{mass}^{I=1/2,1}=a\mathrm{Tr}(NN)b\mathrm{Tr}(NN)a^{}\mathrm{Tr}(N^{}N^{})b^{}\mathrm{Tr}(N^{}N^{})$$
(3)
where $`=\mathrm{diag}(1,1,x)`$ with $`x`$ being the ratio of the strange to non-strange quark masses, and $`a,b,a^{}`$ and $`b^{}`$ are unknown parameters fixed by the “bare” masses:

$$\begin{array}{ccccccc}m^2[a_0]& =& 2(a+b)\hfill & & m^2[a_0^{}]& =& 2(a^{}+b^{})\hfill \\ m^2[K_0]& =& 2a+(1+x)b\hfill & & m^2[K_0^{}]& =& 2a^{}+(1+x)b^{}\hfill \end{array}$$
(4)
where the subscript “0” denotes the “bare” states (i.e. before the mixing between $`N`$ and $`N^{}`$ is taken into account). Therefore, as $`N`$ is a four-quark nonet and $`N^{}`$ a two-quark nonet, we expect:

$$m^2[K_0]<m^2[a_0]m^2[a_0^{}]<m^2[K_0^{}]$$
(5)
Introducing a simple mixing

$$_{mix}^{I=1/2,1}=\gamma \mathrm{Tr}\left(NN^{}\right)$$
(6)
it is shown in Mec  that for $`0.51<\gamma <0.62\mathrm{GeV}^2`$, it is possible to recover the physical masses such that the “bare” masses have the expected ordering of (5). Therefore in this mechanism, the “bare” isotriplet states split more than the isodoublets, and consequently, the physical isovector state $`a_0(1450)`$ becomes heavier than the isodoublet state $`K_0^{}(1430)`$ as observed in (1). The light isovector and isodoublet states are the $`a_0(980)`$ and the $`\kappa (900)`$. With the physical masses $`m[a_0(980)]=0.9835`$ GeV, $`m[\kappa (900)]=0.875`$ GeV, $`m[a_0(1450)]=1.455`$ GeV and $`m[K_0(1430)]=1.435`$ GeV, the best values of $`\gamma `$ and the “bare” masses are found in Mec

$$m_{a_0}=m_{a_0^{}}=1.24\mathrm{GeV},m_{K_0}=1.06\mathrm{GeV},m_{K_0^{}}=1.31\mathrm{GeV},\gamma =0.58\mathrm{GeV}^2$$
(7)
The decay ratios (2) are also investigated in Mec  in which the scalar-pseudoscalar-pseudoscalar interaction part relevant to the $`I=1/2`$ and $`I=1`$ scalar states is given as

$$_{int.}^{I=1/2,1}=Aϵ^{abc}ϵ_{def}N_a^d_\mu \varphi _b^e_\mu \varphi _c^f+C\mathrm{Tr}(N_\mu \varphi )\mathrm{Tr}(_\mu \varphi )+A^{}ϵ^{abc}ϵ_{def}N_{}^{}{}_{a}{}^{d}_\mu \varphi _b^e_\mu \varphi _c^f+C^{}\mathrm{Tr}(N^{}_\mu \varphi )\mathrm{Tr}(_\mu \varphi )$$
(8)
where $`A,C,A^{}`$ and $`C^{}`$ are unknown parameters fixed by decay properties of the scalars, and $`\varphi `$ is the conventional pseudoscalar meson nonet. It is shown in Mec  that with parameters

$$A=1.19\pm 0.16\mathrm{GeV}^1,A^{}=3.37\pm 0.16\mathrm{GeV}^1,C=1.05\pm 0.49\mathrm{GeV}^1,C^{}=6.87\pm 0.50\mathrm{GeV}^1,$$
(9)
a reasonable agreement on the decay ratios of the $`K_0^{}(1430)`$ and the $`a_0(1450)`$ consistent with (2), as well as the expected decay widths of the $`a_0(980)`$ and the $`\kappa (900)`$ can be obtained. In next section, we include the Lagrangians (3) and (8) together with parameters (7) and (9) as part of the mass and interaction Lagrangian of the $`I=0`$ scalar states.

## III Isosinglet States

The general mass terms for nonets $`N`$ and $`N^{}`$, and a scalar glueball $`G`$ can be written as:

$$_{mass}^{I=0}=_{mass}^{I=1/2,1}c\mathrm{Tr}(N)\mathrm{Tr}(N)d\mathrm{Tr}(N)\mathrm{Tr}(N)c^{}\mathrm{Tr}(N^{})\mathrm{Tr}(N^{})d^{}\mathrm{Tr}(N^{})\mathrm{Tr}(N^{})gG^2$$
(10)
The a priori unknown parameters $`c`$ and $`d`$ induce “internal” mixing between the two $`I=0`$ flavor combinations \[$`(N_1^1+N_2^2)/\sqrt{2}`$ and $`N_3^3`$\] of nonet $`N`$. Similarly, $`c^{}`$ and $`d^{}`$ play the same role in nonet $`N^{}`$. Parameters $`c,d,c^{}`$ and $`d^{}`$ do not contribute to the mass spectrum of the $`I=1/2`$ and $`I=1`$ states. The last term represents the glueball mass term. The term $`_{mass}^{I=1/2,1}`$ is imported from Eq. (3) together with its parameters from Eq. (7).

The mixing between $`N`$ and $`N^{}`$, and the mixing of these two nonets with the scalar glueball $`G`$ can be written as

$$_{mix}^{I=0}=_{mix}^{I=1/2,1}\rho \mathrm{Tr}(N)\mathrm{Tr}(N^{})eG\mathrm{Tr}\left(N\right)fG\mathrm{Tr}\left(N^{}\right)$$
(11)
where the first term is given in (6) with $`\gamma `$ from (7). The second term does not contribute to the $`I=1/2,1`$ mixing, and in special limit of $`\rho \gamma `$:

$$\gamma \mathrm{Tr}(NN^{})\rho \mathrm{Tr}(N)\mathrm{Tr}(N^{})=\gamma ϵ^{abc}ϵ_{ade}N_b^dN_{}^{}{}_{c}{}^{e}$$
(12)
This particular mixing is more consistent with the OZI rule than the individual $`\gamma `$ and $`\rho `$ terms and is studied in Teshima . Here we do not restrict the mixing to this particular combination, and instead, examine a range of $`\rho `$ values. Terms with unknown couplings $`e`$ and $`f`$ describe mixing with the scalar glueball $`G`$. As a result, the five isosinglets below 2 GeV, become a mixture of five different flavor combinations, and their masses can be organized as

$$_{mass}^{I=0}+_{mix}^{I=0}=\frac{1}{2}\stackrel{~}{𝐅}_0𝐌^2𝐅_0=\frac{1}{2}\stackrel{~}{𝐅}𝐌_{diag.}^2𝐅$$
(13)
with

$$𝐅_0=\begin{array}{c}\left(\begin{array}{c}N_3^3\\ (N_1^1+N_2^2)/\sqrt{2}\\ N_{}^{}{}_{3}{}^{3}\\ (N_{}^{}{}_{1}{}^{1}+N_{}^{}{}_{2}{}^{2})/\sqrt{2}\\ G\end{array}\right)\hfill \end{array}=\begin{array}{c}\left(\begin{array}{c}\overline{u}\overline{d}ud\\ (\overline{s}\overline{d}ds+\overline{s}\overline{u}us)/\sqrt{2}\\ \overline{s}s\\ (\overline{u}u+\overline{d}d)/\sqrt{2}\\ G\end{array}\right)\hfill \end{array}=\begin{array}{c}\left(\begin{array}{c}f_0^{NS}\hfill \\ f_0^S\hfill \\ f_{}^{}{}_{0}{}^{S}\hfill \\ f_{}^{}{}_{0}{}^{NS}\hfill \\ G\hfill \end{array}\right)\hfill \end{array}$$
(14)
where the superscript $`NS`$ and $`S`$ respectively represent the non-strange and strange combinations. $`𝐅`$ contains the physical fields

$$𝐅=\begin{array}{c}\left(\begin{array}{c}\sigma (550)\\ f_0(980)\\ f_0(1370)\\ f_0(1500)\\ f_0(1710)\end{array}\right)=K^1𝐅_0\end{array}$$
(15)
where $`K^1`$ is the transformation matrix. The mass squared matrix is

$$𝐌^2=\left[\begin{array}{ccccc}2m_{K_0}^2m_{a_0}^2+2(c+dx)& \sqrt{2}[2c+(1+x)d]& \gamma +\rho & \sqrt{2}\rho & e\\ \sqrt{2}[2c+(1+x)d]& m_{a_0}^2+4(c+d)& \sqrt{2}\rho & \gamma +2\rho & \sqrt{2}e\\ \gamma +\rho & \sqrt{2}\rho & 2m_{K_0^{}}^2m_{a_0^{}}^2+2(c^{}+d^{}x)& \sqrt{2}[2c^{}+(1+x)d^{}]& f\\ \sqrt{2}\rho & \gamma +2\rho & \sqrt{2}[2c^{}+(1+x)d^{}]& m_{a_0^{}}^2+4(c^{}+d^{})& \sqrt{2}f\\ e& \sqrt{2}e& f& \sqrt{2}f& 2g\end{array}\right]$$
(16)
in which the value of the unmixed $`I=1/2,1`$ masses, and the mixing parameter $`\gamma `$ are substituted in from (7). We search for the unknown parameters $`c,c^{},d,d^{},e,f,g`$ and $`\rho `$ in (16) by fitting its eigenvalues to the mass of the physical states. We take $`m_\sigma =550\pm 50`$ MeV expected from chiral Lagrangian treatment of the $`\pi \pi `$ scattering in San , as well as the following experimental values from PDG PDG :

$$\begin{array}{ccc}\hfill m[f_0(980)]& =& 980\pm 10\mathrm{MeV}\hfill \\ \hfill m[f_0(1370)]& =& 12001500\mathrm{MeV}\hfill \\ \hfill m[f_0(1500)]& =& 1507\pm 5\mathrm{MeV}\hfill \\ \hfill m[f_0(1710)]& =& 1713\pm 6\mathrm{MeV}\hfill \end{array}$$
(17)
The largest experimental uncertainty is on the mass of $`f_0(1370)`$, and for our initial study we take its central value of 1350 MeV. The sensitivity of the results on the mass of $`f_0(1370)`$ turns out to be the main source of error and will be discussed later. Figure 1 shows the dependency of $`\chi ^2`$ on parameter $`\rho `$. We see that for $`0.4\mathrm{GeV}^2<\rho <0`$ the $`\chi ^2`$ is very small, but significantly increases outside this interval. For five values of $`\rho `$ the result of fits are given in table 1, in which the sensitivity of the fitted parameters on $`\rho `$ can be seen. As far as fitting the isosinglet masses is concerned, all chosen values of $`\rho `$ in table 1 give more or less the same description. Parameters $`d`$ and $`d^{}`$ induce SU(3) symmetry breaking and are at least an order of magnitude smaller than $`c`$ and $`c^{}`$. The fitted parameters determine the rotation matrix (15) which in turn probes the quark substructure of the scalars. For $`\rho =0`$ the rotation matrix is given in (18) in which the errors reflect the experimental uncertainties in (17). For other values of $`\rho `$ in table 1, the corresponding rotation matrices are given in Appendix A. The overall results show that the sub-structure of $`\sigma (550)`$ is not sensitive to $`\rho `$ and is dominantly a non-strange four quark combination $`\overline{u}\overline{d}ud`$, consistent with the investigation of ref. BFSS2 . The sub-structure of the $`f_0(980)`$ is more sensitive to $`\rho `$; for $`\rho <0.2\mathrm{GeV}^2`$ it has a dominant $`\overline{s}s`$ component, whereas for $`\rho 0.2\mathrm{GeV}^2`$ the non-strange $`(\overline{u}u+\overline{d}d)/\sqrt{2}`$ component dominates. The later case has some support in QCD sum-rules Eli . The $`f_0(1370)`$ has substantial two-quark components with some glueball admixture, and the $`f_0(1500)`$ and $`f_0(1710)`$ have large glueball components. For each value of $`\rho `$, the corresponding glueball mass is also given in table 1, showing a variation in the range 1.47-1.60 GeV. As $`\rho \gamma `$ the result indicates that the glueball component of the $`f_0(1500)`$ significantly increases, but in this limit the $`\chi ^2`$ is relatively large, and therefore, the result is not as accurate as the cases given in table 1. For $`\rho =0.5\mathrm{GeV}^2`$ (which is close to the limit $`\rho \gamma `$) the rotation matrix is given in Eq. (25), and is consistent with the result of ref. Teshima .

$$K_{(\rho =0)}^1=\left[\begin{array}{ccccc}0.853\pm 0.015& 0.011\pm 0.024& 0.476\pm 0.018& 0.148\pm 0.024& 0.156\pm 0.017\\ 0.278\pm 0.040& 0.497\pm 0.009& 0.211\pm 0.019& 0.774\pm 0.013& 0.181\pm 0.035\\ 0.394\pm 0.020& 0.311\pm 0.026& 0.817\pm 0.025& 0.102\pm 0.022& 0.266\pm 0.048\\ 0.125\pm 0.021& 0.550\pm 0.024& 0.247\pm 0.055& 0.588\pm 0.015& 0.525\pm 0.020\\ 0.157\pm 0.023& 0.595\pm 0.017& 0.032\pm 0.019& 0.153\pm 0.017& 0.773\pm 0.016\end{array}\right]$$
(18)
The fits are sensitive to the input mass of $`f_0(1370)`$ which has the largest experimental uncertainty in (17). We find that very good $`\chi ^2`$ fits can be obtained for $`1.31\mathrm{GeV}m[f_0(1370)]1.45\mathrm{GeV}`$. Outside this interval, however, the goodness of the fits significantly reduces. This observation further restricts the $`m[f_0(1370)]`$ in (17). For several values of $`m[f_0(1370)]`$ the fitted parameters are given in table 2, and the corresponding rotation matrices are given in Appendix A. The resulting glueball mass is in the range $`1.54\mathrm{GeV}m_G1.61\mathrm{GeV}`$. For this range of $`m[f_0(1370)]`$, the sensitivity of the glueball content of the $`f_0(1370)`$, $`f_0(1500)`$ and $`f_0(1710)`$ on the mass of $`f_0(1370)`$ are examined in figure 2 and show a strong dependence. For example, we see that below the central value of $`m[f_0(1370)]=1.35`$ GeV, the glueball component of the $`f_0(1710)`$ dominates those of the $`f_0(1500)`$ and $`f_0(1370)`$. However, above $`m[f_0(1370)]1.4`$ GeV, the $`f_0(1500)`$ acquires the largest glue component followed by the components of the $`f_0(1710)`$ and $`f_0(1370)`$. The order again changes around $`m[f_0(1370)]1.42`$ GeV. Of course this periodic-like behavior is not surprising as the rotation matrix, which depends on ten mixing angles, goes through periodic variations as we tune $`m[f_0(1370)]`$. Therefore, due to this sensitivity on the mass of $`f_0(1370)`$, a precises extraction of the glueball content of these states requires an accurate knowledge of the $`m[f_0(1370)]`$.

The correlation between the mixing parameter $`\rho `$ and the input mass for the $`f_0(1370)`$ are also examined. Although the texture of the rotation matrix varies with these two parameters, the glueball mass remains more or less within the same intervals obtained by uncorrelated variations of $`\rho `$ and $`m[f_0(1370)]`$ (see above). The overall numerical work shows

$$1.47\mathrm{GeV}m_G1.64\mathrm{GeV}$$
(19)
in agreement with the lattice QCD estimates Lattice . There are values of $`\rho `$ and $`m[f_0(1370)]`$, for which the glueball masses are as low as 1.32 GeV. However, for these cases the $`f_0(980)`$ acquires a large glueball component which is not consistent with either the molecule or the four-quark description of this state.

It is important to note that the coupling of the glueball to both nonets $`N`$ and $`N^{}`$ should be taken into account. This is examined in table 3 for $`\rho =0`$ and $`m[f_0(1370)]`$=1.35 GeV. The first column corresponds to the general case where the coupling of the glueball to both nonets $`N`$ and $`N^{}`$ is taken into account. We see that scalar glueball coupling to $`N`$ is larger than its coupling to $`N^{}`$. In a recent work Teshima  a similar analysis is given in which the coupling to the lowest-lying nonet is neglected. To illustrate the importance of the glueball coupling to both nonets, in the second and third columns of Table 3 the glueball coupling to $`N`$ and $`N^{}`$ is respectively suppressed. We see that the result is sensitive to the glueball coupling to $`N`$ and $`N^{}`$. For example, when $`e=0`$ the glueball mass significantly increases to 1.45 GeV, whereas when $`f=0`$ the glueball mass decreases to 1.22 GeV. (We see that the result seems to be more sensitive to $`e`$.) Other fitted parameters in Table 3 also show a similar sensitivity to the suppression of the couplings $`e`$ and $`f`$. Therefore, it is important to consider a general treatment in which both couplings are taken into account.

## IV Interaction Lagrangian

To further examine the present model for the scalar mesons, we need to investigate the interaction Lagrangian for these states and study their partial decay widths to several two-pseudoscalar channels. We saw in previous section that the experimental input mass of $`f_0(1370)`$ is the main source of uncertainty on the rotation matrix which in turn affects the interaction Lagrangian and decay width calculations. Therefore, without an accurate knowledge of $`m[f_0(1370)]`$ we can only give a qualitative description of the decay properties. Moreover, although various decay ratios are recently reported by the WA102 collaboration WA102  (see table 4), the experimental status of the individual decay widths is not quite clear. In PDG PDG  some of these decay widths are given, even though they are not used in any averaging. Nevertheless, in this section we present the interaction Lagrangian and give a preliminary study of several decay ratios. This will provide a basis in which the upcoming experimental data on the decay widths/ratios of the scalar mesons can be analyzed.

The scalar-pseudoscalar-pseudoscalar interaction takes the general form:

$`_{int.}^{I=0}`$ $`=`$ $`_{int.}^{I=1/2,1}+B\mathrm{Tr}\left(N\right)\mathrm{Tr}\left(_\mu \varphi _\mu \varphi \right)+D\mathrm{Tr}\left(N\right)\mathrm{Tr}\left(_\mu \varphi \right)\mathrm{Tr}\left(_\mu \varphi \right)+B^{}\mathrm{Tr}\left(N^{}\right)\mathrm{Tr}\left(_\mu \varphi _\mu \varphi \right)`$ (20)
$`+D^{}\mathrm{Tr}\left(N^{}\right)\mathrm{Tr}\left(_\mu \varphi \right)\mathrm{Tr}\left(_\mu \varphi \right)+EG\mathrm{Tr}\left(_\mu \varphi _\mu \varphi \right)+FG\mathrm{Tr}\left(_\mu \varphi \right)\mathrm{Tr}\left(_\mu \varphi \right)`$
where $`B`$ and $`D`$ are unknown coupling constants describing the coupling of the four-quark nonet $`N`$ to the pseudoscalars. Similarly, $`B^{}`$ and $`D^{}`$ are couplings of $`N^{}`$ to the pseudoscalars. $`E`$ and $`F`$ describe the coupling of a scalar glueball to the pseudoscalar mesons, and $`_{int.}^{I=1/2,1}`$ is the interaction Lagrangian for $`I=1/2,1`$ states given in (8) together with parameters in (9). The pseudoscalar part of the Lagrangian can be found in ref. BFSS1 . The interaction Lagrangian (20) can be rewritten as:

$`_{int}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}}\gamma _{\pi \pi }^i𝐅_i_\mu \pi ._\mu \pi +{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}}\gamma _{KK}^i𝐅_i_\mu \overline{K}_\mu K`$ (21)
$`+\gamma _{\eta \eta }^i𝐅_i_\mu \eta _\mu \eta +\gamma _{\eta \eta ^{}}^i𝐅_i_\mu \eta _\mu \eta ^{}+\gamma _{\eta ^{}\eta ^{}}^i𝐅_i_\mu \eta ^{}_\mu \eta ^{}`$
where $`\gamma _{ss^{}}^i`$ is the coupling of the $`i`$-th scalar \[see Eq. (15)\] to pseudoscalars $`s`$ and $`s^{}`$, and is given by

$$\gamma _{ss^{}}^i=\underset{j}{}\left(\gamma _{ss^{}}K\right)_{ji}$$
(22)
with $`K`$ defined in (15) and

$$\gamma _{ss^{}}=\left[\begin{array}{ccccc}\gamma _{ss^{}}^{NS}& & & & \\ & \gamma _{ss^{}}^S& & & \\ & & \gamma _{ss^{}}^S& & \\ & & & \gamma _{ss^{}}^{NS}& \\ & & & & \gamma _{ss^{}}^G\end{array}\right]$$
(23)
in which the diagonal elements are the couplings of the pseudoscalars $`s`$ and $`s^{}`$ to the $`f_0^{NS},f_0^S,f_{}^{}{}_{0}{}^{S},f_{}^{}{}_{0}{}^{NS}`$ \[defined in (14)\] and the scalar glueball $`G`$, respectively. The diagonal elements for all decay channels $`ss^{}`$ are listed in the Appendix B.

To determine the unknown couplings we need to fit the prediction of this Lagrangian to experimental data. Here we use the estimates of the decay ratios by the WA102 collaboration WA102  in table 4. We should note, however, that the decay ratios alone are not sufficient to determine the free parameters and need to be supplemented by more data such as the individual partial decay widths, or the total decay widths PDG :

$$\begin{array}{ccc}\hfill \mathrm{\Gamma }^{total}[f_0(980)]& =& 40100\mathrm{M}\mathrm{e}\mathrm{V}\hfill \\ \hfill \mathrm{\Gamma }^{total}[f_0(1370)]& =& 200500\mathrm{M}\mathrm{e}\mathrm{V}\hfill \\ \hfill \mathrm{\Gamma }^{total}[f_0(1500)]& =& 109\pm 7\mathrm{M}\mathrm{e}\mathrm{V}\hfill \\ \hfill \mathrm{\Gamma }^{total}[f_0(1710)]& =& 125\pm 10\mathrm{M}\mathrm{e}\mathrm{V}\hfill \end{array}$$
(24)
For example, with $`\rho =0`$ and $`m[f_0(1370)]=1.35`$ GeV, a numerical study of the decay ratios is given in table 4, together with the predicted decay widths in table 5. The result is compared with estimates extracted from other works, and shows an overall qualitative agreement, even though some of the predicted decay widths such as $`\mathrm{\Gamma }[\sigma (550)\pi \pi ]`$ or $`\mathrm{\Gamma }[f_0(1500)\pi \pi ]`$ do not quite agree with other investigations <sup>1</sup><sup>1</sup>1Note that the $`\mathrm{\Gamma }[\sigma \pi \pi ]`$, which is proportional to the $`\gamma _{\sigma \pi \pi }^2`$, is not the same as the Breit-Wigner width that appears in the denominator of the $`\sigma `$ propagator San . This deviation from a Breit-Wigner shape, is also a characteristic of the $`\kappa (900)`$ meson BFSS2 .. However we should again note that the current experimental status of the decay widths is not quite established, and that together with the large uncertainty on the mass of the $`f_0(1370)`$ are the main sources of error in estimates given in tables 4 and 5. Certainly more work is needed to investigate the parameters of the interaction Lagrangian in more detail, and study its correlation with the mass of $`f_0(1370)`$. We postpone this goal for future works.

## V Summary and Conclusion

In this work we studied the $`I=0`$ scalar mesons below 2 GeV \[$`\sigma (550)`$, $`f_0(980)`$, $`f_0(1370),f_0(1500)`$, and $`f_0(1710)`$\] using a non-linear chiral Lagrangian which is constrained by the mass and the decay properties of the $`I=1/2`$ and $`I=1`$ scalar meson below 2 GeV \[$`\kappa (900),K_0^{}(1430),a_0(980)`$ and $`a_0(1450)`$\]. In this framework the lowest-lying four-quark scalar meson nonet $`N`$ mixes with the next-to-lowest lying two-quark nonet $`N^{}`$ and a scalar glueball $`G`$. We showed that this model can describe the mass spectrum of the scalars, and studied the correlation between the mass of $`f_0(1370)`$ and the substructure of these states. We showed that consistency of this model with the experimental mass spectrum favors $`1.31\mathrm{GeV}m[f_0(1370)]1.45`$ GeV, and sets a bound on the scalar glueball mass in the 1.47 GeV to 1.64 GeV range. We also showed that it is important to take into account the coupling of the scalar glueball to $`N`$ as well as to $`N^{}`$. We found that the $`\sigma (550)`$ is mainly a non-strange four quark state, whereas the substructure of other $`I=0`$ states is sensitive to the mass of the $`f_0(1370)`$. The numerical results show that the $`f_0(1500)`$ and $`f_0(1710)`$ have significant glueball admixtures. We also investigated the interaction Lagrangian and gave a preliminary study of the decay widths of the $`I=0`$ scalars into various pseudoscalar-pseudoscalar channels. Probing scalar-pseudoscalar-pseudoscalar couplings is important for low energy processes such as $`\eta ^{}3\pi `$, $`\eta ^{}\eta \pi \pi `$, in which the scalar mesons are expected to play important roles Far ; e3p , and therefore are interesting directions for future works. It is also interesting to examine this model with higher order effects, such as higher derivative terms or more complex mixing terms between two and four quark nonets.

###### Acknowledgements.

The author wishes to thank A. Abdel-Rahim, D. Black and J. Schechter for very helpful discussions. This work has been supported by 2003 grant from the State of New York/UUP Professional Development Committee; 2003 grant from the joint Labor-Management Institutional Development Awards Committee; and 2003 Grant from the School of Arts and Sciences, SUNY Institute of Technology.

## Appendix A The rotation matrices

### A.1 $`m[f_0(1370)]=1.35\mathrm{GeV}`$ and $`\rho `$ a variable:

$$K_{(\rho =0.5\mathrm{GeV}^2)}^1=\left[\begin{array}{ccccc}0.829& 0.033& 0.030& 0.556& 0.034\\ 0.289& 0.605& 0.648& 0.362& 0.009\\ 0.431& 0.099& 0.491& 0.692& 0.292\\ 0.066& 0.411& 0.430& 0.049& 0.800\\ 0.197& 0.674& 0.393& 0.280& 0.524\end{array}\right]$$
(25)
$$K_{(\rho =0.4\mathrm{GeV}^2)}^1=\left[\begin{array}{ccccc}0.884& 0.047& 0.047& 0.463& 0.003\\ 0.224& 0.402& 0.685& 0.535& 0.183\\ 0.368& 0.362& 0.482& 0.616& 0.349\\ 0.128& 0.602& 0.445& 0.266& 0.594\\ 0.129& 0.586& 0.315& 0.223& 0.701\end{array}\right]$$
(26)
$$K_{(\rho =0.2\mathrm{GeV}^2)}^1=\left[\begin{array}{ccccc}0.927& 0.138& 0.292& 0.155& 0.108\\ 0.039& 0.107& 0.429& 0.783& 0.436\\ 0.329& 0.342& 0.804& 0.293& 0.210\\ 0.141& 0.455& 0.126& 0.524& 0.694\\ 0.104& 0.803& 0.264& 0.042& 0.522\end{array}\right]$$
(27)
$$K_{(\rho =0.075\mathrm{GeV}^2)}^1=\left[\begin{array}{ccccc}0.842& 0.016& 0.490& 0.183& 0.133\\ 0.274& 0.531& 0.156& 0.769& 0.167\\ 0.414& 0.062& 0.852& 0.232& 0.212\\ 0.077& 0.302& 0.075& 0.435& 0.842\\ 0.199& 0.789& 0.057& 0.365& 0.448\end{array}\right]$$
(28)
### A.2 $`\rho =0`$ and $`m[f_0(1370)]`$ a variable:

$$K_{(m[f_0(1370)]=1.34\mathrm{GeV})}^1=\left[\begin{array}{ccccc}0.844& 0.003& 0.490& 0.159& 0.149\\ 0.298& 0.506& 0.220& 0.762& 0.163\\ 0.398& 0.348& 0.798& 0.096& 0.274\\ 0.129& 0.558& 0.273& 0.602& 0.485\\ 0.155& 0.559& 0.028& 0.148& 0.801\end{array}\right]$$
(29)
$$K_{(m[f_0(1370)]=1.36\mathrm{GeV})}^1=\left[\begin{array}{ccccc}0.853& 0.034& 0.476& 0.142& 0.159\\ 0.277& 0.467& 0.230& 0.784& 0.196\\ 0.391& 0.267& 0.821& 0.149& 0.283\\ 0.126& 0.486& 0.215& 0.554& 0.629\\ 0.167& 0.688& 0.035& 0.192& 0.679\end{array}\right]$$
(30)
$$K_{(m[f_0(1370)]=1.38\mathrm{GeV})}^1=\left[\begin{array}{ccccc}0.867& 0.030& 0.447& 0.124& 0.181\\ 0.241& 0.481& 0.180& 0.785& 0.251\\ 0.389& 0.204& 0.862& 0.122& 0.220\\ 0.110& 0.490& 0.148& 0.570& 0.633\\ 0.167& 0.698& 0.044& 0.170& 0.674\end{array}\right]$$
(31)
$$K_{(m[f_0(1370)]=1.40\mathrm{GeV})}^1=\left[\begin{array}{ccccc}0.883& 0.031& 0.417& 0.100& 0.189\\ 0.197& 0.483& 0.136& 0.793& 0.283\\ 0.384& 0.132& 0.895& 0.120& 0.138\\ 0.085& 0.502& 0.061& 0.567& 0.645\\ 0.163& 0.705& 0.049& 0.158& 0.671\end{array}\right]$$
(32)
## Appendix B The coupling constants and decay widths

The coupling of $`I=0`$ states $`f_0^{NS},f_0^S,f_{}^{}{}_{0}{}^{S},f_{}^{}{}_{0}{}^{NS}`$ and $`G`$ to different two-pseudoscalar channels are:

$`\gamma _{\pi \pi }^S`$ $`=`$ $`2B`$ (33)
$`\gamma _{\pi \pi }^{NS}`$ $`=`$ $`\sqrt{2}(BA)`$ (34)
$`\gamma _{KK}^S`$ $`=`$ $`2(2BA)`$ (35)
$`\gamma _{KK}^{NS}`$ $`=`$ $`2\sqrt{2}B`$ (36)
$`\gamma _{\eta \eta }^S`$ $`=`$ $`\sqrt{2}(B+D)+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}(C+2A+4D)\mathrm{sin}\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}\theta _p\sqrt{2}(C+D)\mathrm{cos}^2\theta _p`$ (37)
$`\gamma _{\eta \eta }^{NS}`$ $`=`$ $`(B+D)+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}}(C+2D)\mathrm{sin}\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}\theta _p(A+D)\mathrm{cos}^2\theta _pC\mathrm{sin}^2\theta _p`$ (38)
$`\gamma _{\eta \eta ^{}}^S`$ $`=`$ $`\sqrt{2}(C+D)\mathrm{sin}\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}\theta _p(C+2A+4D)\mathrm{cos}\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}\theta _p`$ (39)
$`\gamma _{\eta \eta ^{}}^{NS}`$ $`=`$ $`\sqrt{2}(C+2D)\mathrm{cos}\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}\theta _p(AC+D)\mathrm{sin}\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}\theta _p`$ (40)
$`\gamma _{\eta ^{}\eta ^{}}^S`$ $`=`$ $`\sqrt{2}(B+D){\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}(C+2A+4D)\mathrm{sin}\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}\theta _p\sqrt{2}(C+D)\mathrm{sin}^2\theta _p`$ (41)
$`\gamma _{\eta ^{}\eta ^{}}^{NS}`$ $`=`$ $`(B+D){\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}}(C+2D)\mathrm{sin}\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}\theta _p(A+D)\mathrm{sin}^2\theta _pC\mathrm{cos}^2\theta _p`$ (42)
$`\gamma _{\pi \pi }^S`$ $`=`$ $`\sqrt{2}(B^{}A^{})`$ (43)
$`\gamma _{\pi \pi }^{NS}`$ $`=`$ $`2B^{}`$ (44)
$`\gamma _{KK}^S`$ $`=`$ $`2\sqrt{2}B^{}`$ (45)
$`\gamma _{KK}^{NS}`$ $`=`$ $`2(2B^{}A^{})`$ (46)
$`\gamma _{\eta \eta }^S`$ $`=`$ $`(B^{}+D^{})+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}}(C^{}+2D^{})\mathrm{sin}\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}\theta _p(A^{}+D^{})\mathrm{cos}^2\theta _pC^{}\mathrm{sin}^2\theta _p`$ (47)
$`\gamma _{\eta \eta }^{NS}`$ $`=`$ $`\sqrt{2}(B^{}+D^{})+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}(C^{}+2A^{}+4D^{})\mathrm{sin}\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}\theta _p\sqrt{2}(C^{}+D^{})\mathrm{cos}^2\theta _p`$ (48)
$`\gamma _{\eta \eta ^{}}^S`$ $`=`$ $`\sqrt{2}(C^{}+2D^{})\mathrm{cos}\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}\theta _p(A^{}C^{}+D^{})\mathrm{sin}\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}\theta _p`$ (49)
$`\gamma _{\eta \eta ^{}}^{NS}`$ $`=`$ $`\sqrt{2}(C^{}+D^{})\mathrm{sin}\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}\theta _p(C^{}+2A^{}+4D^{})\mathrm{cos}\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}\theta _p`$ (50)
$`\gamma _{\eta ^{}\eta ^{}}^S`$ $`=`$ $`(B^{}+D^{}){\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}}(C^{}+2D^{})\mathrm{sin}\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}\theta _p(A^{}+D^{})\mathrm{sin}^2\theta _pC^{}\mathrm{cos}^2\theta _p`$ (51)
$`\gamma _{\eta ^{}\eta ^{}}^{NS}`$ $`=`$ $`\sqrt{2}(B^{}+D^{}){\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}(C^{}+2A^{}+4D^{})\mathrm{sin}\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}\theta _p\sqrt{2}(C^{}+D^{})\mathrm{sin}^2\theta _p`$ (52)
$`\gamma _{\pi \pi }^G`$ $`=`$ $`\sqrt{2}E`$ (53)
$`\gamma _{KK}^G`$ $`=`$ $`2\sqrt{2}E`$ (54)
$`\gamma _{\eta \eta }^G`$ $`=`$ $`EF(1+\mathrm{cos}^2\theta _p\sqrt{2}\mathrm{sin}\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}\theta _p)`$ (55)
$`\gamma _{\eta \eta ^{}}^G`$ $`=`$ $`F(\mathrm{sin}\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}\theta _p+2\sqrt{2}\mathrm{cos}\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}\theta _p)`$ (56)
$`\gamma _{\eta ^{}\eta ^{}}^G`$ $`=`$ $`EF(1+\mathrm{sin}^2\theta _p+\sqrt{2}\mathrm{sin}\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}\theta _p)`$ (57)
where $`\theta _p`$ is the pseudoscalar mixing angle defined as

$$\left(\begin{array}{c}\eta \\ \eta ^{}\end{array}\right)=\left(\begin{array}{cc}\mathrm{cos}\theta _p& \mathrm{sin}\theta _p\\ \mathrm{sin}\theta _p& \mathrm{cos}\theta _p\end{array}\right)\left(\begin{array}{c}(\varphi _1^1+\varphi _2^2)/\sqrt{2}\\ \varphi _3^3\end{array}\right)$$
(58)
with $`\theta _p37^o`$ MS77 .

The two-body partial decay widths of physical states $`𝐅_i`$ are:

$`\mathrm{\Gamma }[𝐅_i\pi \pi ]`$ $`=`$ $`3\left({\displaystyle \frac{q\gamma _{\pi \pi }^{i}{}_{}{}^{2}}{32\pi M_{𝐅_i}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}}}\right)\left[M_{𝐅_i}^22m_\pi ^2\right]^2`$ (59)
$`\mathrm{\Gamma }[𝐅_iK\overline{K}]`$ $`=`$ $`\left({\displaystyle \frac{q\gamma _{KK}^{i}{}_{}{}^{2}}{32\pi M_{𝐅_i}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}}}\right)\left[M_{𝐅_i}^22m_K^2\right]^2`$ (60)
$`\mathrm{\Gamma }[𝐅_i\eta \eta ]`$ $`=`$ $`2\left({\displaystyle \frac{q\gamma _{\eta \eta }^{i}{}_{}{}^{2}}{32\pi M_{𝐅_i}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}}}\right)\left[M_{𝐅_i}^22m_\eta ^2\right]^2`$ (61)
$`\mathrm{\Gamma }[𝐅_i\eta \eta ^{}]`$ $`=`$ $`\left({\displaystyle \frac{q\gamma _{\eta \eta ^{}}^{i}{}_{}{}^{2}}{32\pi M_{𝐅_i}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}}}\right)[M_{𝐅_i}^2(m_\eta ^2+m_\eta ^{}^2]^2`$ (62)
where $`q`$ is the center of mass momentum of the final state mesons, and for a general two-body decay $`ABC`$ is given as:

$$q=\frac{\sqrt{\left[m_A^2(m_B+m_C)^2\right]\left[m_A^2(m_Bm_C)^2\right]}}{2m_A}$$
(63)