Necessity of integral formalism

To describe the physical reality, there are two ways of constructing the dynamical equation of field, differential formalism and integral formalism. The importance of this fact is firstly emphasized by Yang in case of gauge field [Phys. Rev. Lett. 33 (1974) 445], where the fact has given rise to a deeper understanding for Aharonov-Bohm phase and magnetic monopole [Phys. Rev. D. 12 (1975) 3845]. In this paper we shall point out that such a fact also holds in general wave function of matter, it may give rise to a deeper understanding for Berry phase. Most importantly, we shall prove a point that, for general wave function of matter, in the adiabatic limit, there is an intrinsic difference between its integral formalism and differential formalism. It is neglect of this difference that leads to an inconsistency of quantum adiabatic theorem pointed out by Marzlin and Sanders [Phys. Rev. Lett. 93 (2004) 160408]. It has been widely accepted that there is no physical difference of using differential operator or integral operator to construct the dynamical equation of field. Nevertheless, our study shows that the Schrodinger differential equation (i.e., differential formalism for wave function) shall lead to vanishing Berry phase and that the Schrodinger integral equation (i.e., integral formalism for wave function), in the adiabatic limit, can satisfactorily give the Berry phase. Therefore, we reach a conclusion: There are two ways of describing physical reality, differential formalism and integral formalism; but the integral formalism is a unique way of complete description.Comment: 13Page; Schrodinger differential equation shall lead to vanishing Berry phas

Asymmetry of parallel flow on the Large Helical Device

An asymmetric parallel return flow, which modifies the parallel component of the flow, is expected to meet the zero divergence of the flow on a flux surface based on the common neoclassical theory for torus plasma. The full flow structure is measured by charge exchange spectroscopy on the Large Helical Device. Inboard/outboard asymmetry of the parallel flow is observed according to the full flow profile measurement. Flow asymmetry is considered to be induced by the Pfirsch–Schlüter flow closely associated with the radial electric field. A linear relationship between the integrated flow asymmetry and the electric potential difference is obtained in different magnetic fields and configurations. A model based upon the incompressibility of the flow is applied to acquire a geometric factor hB, which only connects to the magnetic configuration from the experiment. The asymmetric component of the parallel flow measured is compared with the asymmetric component of parallel flow calculated in the incompressibility conditions of flow on the magnetic flux surface. The measured asymmetric flow is consistent with the calculation in plasma with a small toroidal torque input in the inward shifted configuration. However, the measured asymmetric flow is significantly smaller than that calculated for plasma with a large toroidal torque or in the outward shifted configuration. One possible explanation for this variation could be radial transport due to anomalous perpendicular viscosity as well as strongly poloidally asymmetric radial flow

Energy Spectrum of Bloch Electrons Under Checkerboard Field Modulations

Two-dimensional Bloch electrons in a uniform magnetic field exhibit complex energy spectrum. When static electric and magnetic modulations with a checkerboard pattern are superimposed on the uniform magnetic field, more structures and symmetries of the spectra are found, due to the additional adjustable parameters from the modulations. We give a comprehensive report on these new symmetries. We have also found an electric-modulation induced energy gap, whose magnitude is independent of the strength of either the uniform or the modulated magnetic field. This study is applicable to experimentally accessible systems and is related to the investigations on frustrated antiferromagnetism.Comment: 8 pages, 6 figures (reduced in sizes), submitted to Phys. Rev.

Measurement of branching fractions for the inclusive Cabibbo-favored ~K*0(892) and Cabibbo-suppressed K*0(892) decays of neutral and charged D mesons

The branching fractions for the inclusive Cabibbo-favored ~K*0 and Cabibbo-suppressed K*0 decays of D mesons are measured based on a data sample of 33 pb-1 collected at and around the center-of-mass energy of 3.773 GeV with the BES-II detector at the BEPC collider. The branching fractions for the decays D+(0) -> ~K*0(892)X and D0 -> K*0(892)X are determined to be BF(D0 -> \~K*0X) = (8.7 +/- 4.0 +/- 1.2)%, BF(D+ -> ~K*0X) = (23.2 +/- 4.5 +/- 3.0)% and BF(D0 -> K*0X) = (2.8 +/- 1.2 +/- 0.4)%. An upper limit on the branching fraction at 90% C.L. for the decay D+ -> K*0(892)X is set to be BF(D+ -> K*0X) < 6.6%

Direct Measurements of the Branching Fractions for D0→K−e+νeD^0 \to K^-e^+\nu_e and D0→π−e+νeD^0 \to \pi^-e^+\nu_e and Determinations of the Form Factors f+K(0)f_{+}^{K}(0) and f+π(0)f^{\pi}_{+}(0)

The absolute branching fractions for the decays $D^0 \to K^-e ^+\nu_e$ and $D^0 \to \pi^-e^+\nu_e$ are determined using $7584\pm 198 \pm 341$ singly tagged $\bar D^0$ sample from the data collected around 3.773 GeV with the BES-II detector at the BEPC. In the system recoiling against the singly tagged $\bar D^0$ meson, $104.0\pm 10.9$ events for $D^0 \to K^-e ^+\nu_e$ and $9.0 \pm 3.6$ events for $D^0 \to \pi^-e^+\nu_e$ decays are observed. Those yield the absolute branching fractions to be $BF(D^0 \to K^-e^+\nu_e)=(3.82 \pm 0.40\pm 0.27)$ and $BF(D^0 \to \pi^-e^+\nu_e)=(0.33 \pm 0.13\pm 0.03)$. The vector form factors are determined to be $|f^K_+(0)| = 0.78 \pm 0.04 \pm 0.03$ and $|f^{\pi}_+(0)| = 0.73 \pm 0.14 \pm 0.06$. The ratio of the two form factors is measured to be $|f^{\pi}_+(0)/f^K_+(0)|= 0.93 \pm 0.19 \pm 0.07$.Comment: 6 pages, 5 figure

Measurements of J/psi Decays into 2(pi+pi-)eta and 3(pi+pi-)eta

Based on a sample of 5.8X 10^7 J/psi events taken with the BESII detector, the branching fractions of J/psi--> 2(pi+pi-)eta and J/psi-->3(pi+pi-)eta are measured for the first time to be (2.26+-0.08+-0.27)X10^{-3} and (7.24+-0.96+-1.11)X10^{-4}, respectively.Comment: 11 pages, 6 figure

BESII Detector Simulation

A Monte Carlo program based on Geant3 has been developed for BESII detector simulation. The organization of the program is outlined, and the digitization procedure for simulating the response of various sub-detectors is described. Comparisons with data show that the performance of the program is generally satisfactory.Comment: 17 pages, 14 figures, uses elsart.cls, to be submitted to NIM

A Measurement of Psi(2S) Resonance Parameters

Cross sections for e+e- to hadons, pi+pi- J/Psi, and mu+mu- have been measured in the vicinity of the Psi(2S) resonance using the BESII detector operated at the BEPC. The Psi(2S) total width; partial widths to hadrons, pi+pi- J/Psi, muons; and corresponding branching fractions have been determined to be Gamma(total)= (264+-27) keV; Gamma(hadron)= (258+-26) keV, Gamma(mu)= (2.44+-0.21) keV, and Gamma(pi+pi- J/Psi)= (85+-8.7) keV; and Br(hadron)= (97.79+-0.15)%, Br(pi+pi- J/Psi)= (32+-1.4)%, Br(mu)= (0.93+-0.08)%, respectively.Comment: 8 pages, 6 figure

The σ\sigma pole in J/ψ→ωπ+π−J/\psi \to \omega \pi^+ \pi^-

Using a sample of 58 million $J/\psi$ events recorded in the BESII detector, the decay $J/\psi \to \omega \pi^+ \pi^-$ is studied. There are conspicuous $\omega f_2(1270)$ and $b_1(1235)\pi$ signals. At low $\pi \pi$ mass, a large broad peak due to the $\sigma$ is observed, and its pole position is determined to be $(541 \pm 39)$ - $i$ $(252 \pm 42)$ MeV from the mean of six analyses. The errors are dominated by the systematic errors.Comment: 15 pages, 6 figures, submitted to PL

Study of J/ψ→ωK+K−J/\psi \to \omega K^+K^-

New data are presented on $J/\psi \to \omega K^+K^-$ from a sample of 58M $J/\psi$ events in the upgraded BES II detector at the BEPC. There is a conspicuous signal for $f_0(1710) \to K^+K^-$ and a peak at higher mass which may be fitted with $f_2(2150) \to K\bar K$. From a combined analysis with $\omega \pi ^+ \pi ^-$ data, the branching ratio $BR(f_0(1710)\to\pi\pi)/BR(f_0(1710) \to K\bar K)$ is $< 0.11$ at the 95% confidence level.Comment: 11 pages, 5 figures. Submitted to Phys. Lett.