
Citation: | Qiang ZHAO. Threshold Phenomena and Signals for Exotic Hadrons[J]. Nuclear Physics Review, 2020, 37(3): 260-271. DOI: 10.11804/NuclPhysRev.37.2019CNPC78 |
The constituent quark effective degrees of freedom have made great successes in organizing hadron spectra where mesons are composed of quark-antiquark and baryons are made of three quarks[1-2]. While the strong interactions between quarks or quark-antiquark are accounted for by quantum chromodynamics (QCD), our knowledge of its property in the non-perturbative regime is still far from satisfactory. Hadrons, as a composite system of quarks and gluons, can only become stable if they are in a color singlet. This constraint makes it interesting to perceive the existence of more sophisticated objects, the so-called "QCD exotics", beyond the
During the past years significant progresses have been achieved in experiment. With the availabilities of high statistic data from BaBar, Belle, CLEO-c, BESIII, and LHCb, strong evidences for exotic hadrons have been observed (see Ref. [3] for a recent review). An apparent feature is that these exotic candidates cannot be easily accommodated into the successful quark-model predicted spectra. Moreover, some states have unexpected production or decay modes which are not favored by conventional quark structures. Among these candidates the early case
To be brief with the present experimental status for the search for exotic hadrons, it is quite surprising and interesting to note the following observations in the heavy quarkonium mass regions: (i) All the states below open thresholds are consistent with the description of potential quark models. (ii) Most of these exotic candidates, which obviously deviate from the potential model predictions, have masses located in the vicinity of some
There are some general questions to be answered: What causes the deviations of mass locations above the open thresholds? If there is a mechanism accounting for such phenomena, should it also have impact on the states below threshold? Then, it would be natural to question, what kind of observables could be sensitive to such a mechanism? And what are the reliable criteria accounting for their structures?
In this brief review we do not intend to give answers to these questions since an indisputable answer certainly is unavailable. However, to think about these questions may help work out a way towards the correct answer. Keeping these in mind, we would try to understand some more detailed and direct questions as an initiative for the field.
As follows, we first give a brief review of the main ingredients of the quark model, and then introduce the open threshold phenomena which will add important dynamics to the effective degrees of freedom inside hadrons. We will point out the special role played by the triangle singularity mechanism as a novel phenomena of threshold effects. Then, a discussion on the
The nonrelativsitic potential quark model has different versions while the essential ingredients are the same[6]. With the explicit introduction of the constituent quark degrees of freedom the conventional quark model has described a broad scope of phenomena of hadron spectroscopy. One bold assumption made for the quark potential is the one-gluon exchange (OGE) type of interaction. This is because the OGE interaction is literally a short-ranged interaction and it is unexpected to contribute dominantly to physics of non-perturbative scale. In those conventional quark models the OGE potential introduces the short-ranged Coulomb-type spin-independent interaction, spin-spin interaction, and spin-orbital interactions in association with the long-ranged confinement potential. A typical quark model Hamiltonian[7] is written as
H|Ψ⟩=(H0+∑i≠jVij)|Ψ⟩=E|Ψ⟩ , |
(1) |
with
H0≡∑i(p2i+m2i)1/2≃∑i(mi+p2i2mi) , |
(2) |
and
Vij≡Hconfij+Hhypij+HSOij+HA , |
(3) |
where
Hconfij=−[34(c+brij)−αs(rij)rij]Fi⋅FjHhypij=−αs(rij)mimj{8π3si⋅sjδ3(r)+1r3ij[3si⋅rsj⋅rr2ij−si⋅sj]}Fi⋅FjHSOij≡HSO(cm)ij+HSO(Tp)ij . |
(4) |
In the above equation the spin-orbital coupling potential is decomposed into the c.m. contribution and Thomas processing contribution:
HSOij=−αs(rij)r3ij[1mi+1mj][simi+sjmj]⋅L Fi⋅Fj ,HSO(Tp)ij=−1rij∂Hconfij∂r[sim2i+sjm2j]⋅L . |
(5) |
The color operator
The above nonrelativistic Hamiltonian has been applied to both heavy and light quark system in the literature and the success was impressive. However, the connection between the quark model phenomenology and QCD is not obvious at all. Notice that the Hamiltonian in the heavy quark limit will be dominated by the static part
In Ref. [8] an quenched lattice QCD calculation of the static potentials between heavy quarks and quark-antiquark suggests that the potential in a color-singlet indeed behaves a similar way as the spin-independent
The inclusion of the open-channel contributions will lead to breakdown of the conventional quark model potential. This was recently demonstrated by the unquenched LQCD simulation. In Ref. [10] it was shown that the open threshold actually levels off the linear potential at large distance (see the right panel of Fig. 1). Meanwhile, a color octet part becomes color singlet and then follows the linear confinement behavior. Phenomenologically, it means that the creation of a pair of light
The impact of open channel contributions on the hadron spectroscopy① has been broadly investigated in the literature[11-15]. In particular, the
Weinberg's compositeness theorem provides a handle for understanding the structure of near-threshold states on the basis of effective field theory (EFT)[21-23]. The basic idea is to introduce the long-ranged interaction potential between two
By extending the QM Hamiltonian
H|Ψ⟩=(HcVV˜H0hh)|Ψ⟩=E|Ψ⟩ , |
(6) |
where
|Ψ⟩=(λ|Ψ0⟩χ(k)|h1h2⟩) . |
(7) |
In the above equation
λ=χ(k)⟨Ψ0|V|h1h2⟩E−Ec , |
(8) |
χ=λ⟨h1h2|V|Ψ0⟩E−mh1−mh2−|k|2/(2μ) , |
(9) |
where
By defining the binding energy
⟨Ψ|Ψ⟩=λ2{1+∫dk(2π)3⟨Ψ0|V|h1h2⟩2[EB+|k|2/(2μ)]2}=1 , |
(10) |
where the integral is the energy derivative of the self energy represented by the two-point loop function and
For near-threshold phenomena the probability interpretation becomes problematic if the poles appear on the second Riemann sheet (the nearest unphysical sheet to the physical one). In such a case the two-point loop function is no longer a real number and the states cannot be normalized. However, the observables can still be affected strongly by the poles when they are close enough to the physical one. Namely, the hadronic degrees of freedom inside such states can manifest themselves in observables. Thus, the concept of hadronic molecules is actually extended. Further discussions on the extension of the Weinberg's compositeness theorem can be found in the literature (see Ref. [16] and references therein).
The integral in Eq. (10) converges if the coupling function
1=λ2[1+μ2g202π√2μEB+O(γβ)] . |
(11) |
Or, it can be expressed as
g2eff≡λ2g20=2πγμ2(1−λ2) , |
(12) |
where
The presence of the nearby open threshold continuum naturally requires a renormalization of the bare state propagator via the self-energy corrections. The physical propagator can then be extracted by the two-state scattering amplitude. It will redefine the wavefunction renormalization constant
Apart from the possible existence of hadronic molecular states near threshold, there could also be leading contributions arising from the open-threshold phenomena even without a genuine pole structure present. This is referred to the kinematic ''triangle singularity''(TS) mechanism which has initiated a lot of discussions in the study of hadron spectroscopy.
The TS mechanism is also known as ''Landau singularity''[26] which describes a singular property of a triangle loop amplitude caused by a special on-shell kinematic condition. In Fig. 2 a typical triangle diagram is shown with kinematic variables. Without losing generality the corresponding scalar loop function can be expressed by the Feynman parametrization:
I(s1,s2,s3)=1i(2π)4∫d4q1(q21−m21+iϵ)(q22−m22+iϵ)(q23−m23+iϵ)=−116π2∫10∫10∫10da1 da2 da3 δ(1−a1−a2−a3)D−iϵ , |
(13) |
where
D≡3∑i,j=1aiajYij, Yij=12[m2i+m2j−(qi−qj)2] . |
The TS kinematics corresponds to such a necessary condition when all the internal particles approach their on-shell conditions simultaneously within the physical boundary. Mathematically, it can be constrained by the Landau equation,
det[Yij]=0 , |
(14) |
where
By fixing the internal masses
s±2=(m1+m3)2+12m22[(m21+m22−s3)(s1−m22−m23)−4m22m1m3±λ1/2(s1,m22,m23)λ1/2(s3,m21,m22)], |
(15) |
with
s±1=(m2+m3)2+12m21[(m21+m22−s3)(s2−m21−m23)−4m21m2m3±λ1/2(s2,m21,m23)λ1/2(s3,m21,m22)]. |
(16) |
Within the physical boundary only the solution of
To see the leading contributions from the TS mechanism, one can take the single dispersion representation of
I(s1,s2,s3)=1π∫∞(m1+m3)2ds′2s′2−s2−iϵ σ(s1,s′2,s3) , |
(17) |
where
σ(s1,s2,s3)=−116π∫10∫10∫10da1 da2 da3 δ(1−a1−a2−a3)δ(D) , |
(18) |
which results in
σ(s1,s2,s3)=σ+−σ−, |
(19) |
with
σ±(s1,s2,s3)=−116πλ1/2(s1,s2,s3)log[−s2(s1+s3−s2+m21+m23−2m22)−(s1−s3)(m21−m23)±λ1/2(s1,s2,s3)λ1/2(s2,m21,m23)]. |
(20) |
One can see that for the fixed
As the TS enhancement is closely associated with the thresholds of interest, it actually introduces rich but sometimes mysterious phenomena to threshold enhancements. Some of the key features can be itemized as follows[35]:
● Although the TS mechanism arises from the special kinematic condition for the triangle loop (we restrict to the scalar loop as an example), it unavoidably involves dynamics. For different decay processes the structure of the triangle loop will depend on the vertex couplings. For instance, in Refs. [35-36] it was shown that under the TS condition the scalar loop contribution is only part of the loop amplitude. However, we emphasize that the TS contribution should contain all the triangle loop amplitudes instead of the scalar loop exclusively[35].
● The nonvanishing vertex couplings suggest that the intermediate particle (e.g. particle 2 in Fig. 2) should have a width. As a consequence the logarithmic divergence will become limit and the TS contribution will become milder. A systematic treatment of the width effects by a complex mass was presented in Ref. [35].
● If the main contributions of a triangle loop amplitude is given by the TS mechanism, for some physical processes the motions of the internal particles could be treated nonrelativistically. Then, the scalar triangle loop can be directly integrated out, and the leading logarithmic singularity can be explicitly extracted. In particular, for nonrelativistic heavy meson loop transitions where the TS mechanism is present, the loop amplitudes can be analyzed in the nonrelativistic effective field theory (NREFT) framework and a power-counting scheme can be established[35].
● In contrast, for light hadron loop transitions sometimes the nonrelativistic approximation can hardly be justified, and analyses of the triangle loop in the Mandelstam representation should be more appropriate. For most cases an empirical form factor has to be included to cut off the ultraviolet divergence and model-dependence would be unavoidable. However, the absorptive part of the amplitude can still keep relatively model-independent[35,37].
Recognition of the presence of the TS mechanism in hadron productions and decays turns out to be crucial for our understanding various threshold phenomena. The first strong case manifesting the TS mechanism was proposed in Refs. [38-39]. Applications to physical processes can be found in Ref. [34] and two recent reviews[16,40].
As mentioned earlier, there are numerous newly observed enhancements located near some
In the meson sector the lowest-lying "stable" particles are pseudoscalar (P) and vector (V) mesons. Their
In Table 1 the possible quantum numbers accessible via the "stable" states are listed. In the heavy meson sector there are candidates that can fit in the category. The observation of
Two-body channel | S-wave (L=0) | P-wave (L=1) | Open charm | Open bottom |
PP | 0+(±) | 1−(±) | DˉD | BˉB |
PV | 1+(±) | 0−(±), 1−(∓), 2−(±) | D∗ˉD+c.c. | B∗ˉB+c.c. |
VV | 0+(+) | 1−(+) | D∗ˉD∗ | B∗ˉB∗ |
1+(−) | 0−(−), 1−(−), 2−(−) | |||
2+(+) | 1−(+), 2−(+), 3−(+) | |||
PA | 1−(−) | …… | DˉD1+c.c. | BˉB1+c.c. |
VA | 0−(±), 1−(∓), 2−(±) | …… | D∗ˉD1+c.c. | B∗ˉB1+c.c. |
As an example to demonstrate the threshold phenomena, we focus on the
1√2(D∗ˉD+DˉD∗), for X(3872),1√2(D∗ˉD−DˉD∗), for Zc(3900) . |
(21) |
Here,
Another advantage for the heavy meson system with a small binding energy is that it allows the implementation of the non-relativistice effective field theory (NREFT) approaches which are improvable order by order with the inclusion of local operators and pion exchanges, and the short-distance physics is encoded in the coefficients of the local operators. The compositeness theorem by Weinberg then connects the effective coupling constant of the physical state to the open channel continuum with the probability of finding the compact short-distance component in the wavefunction (see Eq. (12)).
The success of the EFT approaches can be recognized via the indication of a universality of the long-distance wavefunction which is insensitive to the binding mechanisms. It should be noted that the physical coupling,
To be slightly specific here, we discuss some interesting threshold phenomena with the exotic candidates
The strong attractive
The small binding energy, or large scattering length for the
It is crucial that the quantum numbers of
For scatterings between two heavy flavor mesons the heavy quark spin symmetry (HQSS) in the limit of infinitely large mass for the heavy quarks can be implemented. In the limit of infinitely large heavy quark mass the heavy quark spin will decouple from the light ones, thus, conserve in the scattering. For convenience, the heavy-light meson can be labelled by the total angular momentum carried by the light quark, i.e.
By assigning
Taking the pion exchange potential in the channel of
An interesting consequence is that in the limit of the HQSS the
The HQSS symmetry breaking also leads to isospin-breaking effects in
In the hadronic molecule scenario observables, which are driven by mechanisms involving the hadronic degrees of freedom, should be useful for probing the corresponding structures in the wavefunction. For instance, the strong decay of
The production mechanisms for both
As candidates for the hadronic molecules the production mechanisms for these two states seem to be very controversial. An intuitive argument would be that their productions should be driven by the productions of their constituent hadrons, i.e.
For
G(E)X=iZE+B+˜Σ′(E)+iΓ/2, |
(22) |
where
ig0√2=i(g22Z)1/2, |
(23) |
where the factor
The leading order transition amplitudes in Fig. 3 can be explicitly written as
iMa=−AXK√2√ZgE+B+˜Σ′(E)+iΓ/2pK⋅ϵ∗,iMb=BDDKμ2πg2√−2μE−iϵE+B+˜Σ′(E)+iΓ/2pK⋅ϵ∗, |
(24) |
where
The relative strength between
The production of
A novel phenomenon with the productions of
Similar phenomenon was predicted by Ref. [62] where the TS mechanism plays an important role to enhance the production rate for
In this proceeding we make a general review of threshold phenomena which are associated with many experimental observations of exotic candidates beyond the conventional quark model. We stress that the strong interactions between the open threshold hadrons can result in crucial changes to the quark potential in a quark model Hamiltonian and produce structures near threshold. Some of these structures can be accounted for as hadronic molecules depending on the analytic property of the scattering amplitudes in the complex energy plane. We also introduce the novel scenarios which are caused by the TS mechanism. This is a unique threshold phenomenon which was overlooked before, but turns out to be crucial for our understanding of those nontrivial threshold phenomena observed in experiment. As we know that, in principle, the QCD strong interaction could allow much richer hadron structures beyond the conventional quark model picture to exist, an unavoidable step towards a better understanding of the hadron spectroscopy is thus to understand the dynamics arising from the open thresholds. Future experimental data from BESIII, Belle, Belle-II, and LHCb, and progresses on LQCD may help gain a deeper insight into the nature of non-perturbative QCD.
Acknowledgement The author thanks collaborators for their contributions and discussions on the relevant studies presented in this proceeding. Financial support from the National Natural Science Foundation of China (11425525, 11521505), DFG and NSFC funds to the Sino-German CRC 110 "Symmetries and the Emergence of Structure in QCD" (11621131001), and National Key Basic Research Program of China under Contract(2015CB856700), are gratefully acknowledged.
More sophisticated approaches including multi-channel effects and keeping unitarity are often called coupled-channel method.
Such states are often interpreted as the eigen-states of the potential quark model Hamiltonian which only involves the quark-quark or quark-antiquark interactions, namely, the short-ranged interactions.
Here, we keep the mass term in order to connect the nonrelativistic quark model eigenvalues to the eigenvalues of Hc.
[1] |
GELL-MANN M. Phys Lett, 1964, 8: 214. DOI: 10.1016/S0031-9163(64)92001-3
|
[2] |
ZWEIG G. CERN-TH-401[R]. CERN, 1964.
|
[3] |
OLSEN S L, SKWARNICKI T, ZIEMINSKA D. Rev Mod Phys, 2018, 90(1): 015003. DOI: 10.1103/RevModPhys.90.015003
|
[4] |
AAIJ R, ADEVA B, ADINOLFI M, et al[LHCb Collaboration]. Phys Rev Lett, 2015, 115: 072001. DOI: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.115.072001
|
[5] |
AAIJ R, BETETA C A, ADEVA B, et al[LHCb Collaboration]. Phys Rev Lett, 2019, 122: 22. DOI: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.122.222001
|
[6] |
EICHTEN E, GOTTFRIED K, KINOSHITA T, et al. Phys Rev D, 1978, 17: 3090. DOI: 10.1103/PhysRevD.17.3090,10.1103/physrevd.21.313.2
|
[7] |
GODFREY S, ISGUR N. Phys Rev D, 1985, 32: 189. DOI: 10.1103/PhysRevD.32.189
|
[8] |
BALI G S, BOLDER B, EICKER N, et al[TXL and T(X)L Collaborations]. Phys Rev D, 2000, 62: 054503. DOI: 10.1103/PhysRevD.62.054503
|
[9] |
BALI G S. Phys Rept, 2001, 343: 1. DOI: 10.1016/S0370-1573(00)00079-X
|
[10] |
BULAVA J, HÖRZ B, KNECHTLI F, et al. Phys Lett B, 2019, 793: 493. DOI: 10.1016/j.physletb.2019.05.018
|
[11] |
EICHTEN E J, LANE K, QUIGG C. Phys Rev D, 2004, 69: 094019. DOI: 10.1103/PhysRevD.69.094019
|
[12] |
BARNES T, SWANSON E S. Phys Rev C, 2008, 77: 055206. DOI: 10.1103/PhysRevC.77.055206
|
[13] |
LI B Q, CHAO K T. Phys Rev D, 2009, 79: 094004. DOI: 10.1103/PhysRevD.79.094004
|
[14] |
LI B Q, MENG C, CHAO K T. Phys Rev D, 2009, 80: 014012. DOI: 10.1103/PhysRevD.80.014012
|
[15] |
LI B Q, CHAO K T. Commun Theor Phys, 2009, 52: 653. DOI: 10.1088/0253-6102/52/4/20
|
[16] |
GUO F K, HANHART C, MEISSNER U G, et al. Rev Mod Phys, 2018, 90(1): 015004. DOI: 10.1103/RevModPhys.90.015004
|
[17] |
CHEN H X, CHEN W, LIU X, et al. Phys Rept, 2016, 639: 1. DOI: 10.1016/j.physrep.2016.05.004
|
[18] |
ESPOSITO A, PILLONI A, POLOSA A D. Phys Rept, 2017, 668: 1. DOI: 10.1016/j.physrep.2016.11.002
|
[19] |
ALI A, LANGE J S, S STONE. Prog Part Nucl Phys, 2017, 97: 123. DOI: 10.1016/j.ppnp.2017.08.003
|
[20] |
LIU Y R, CHEN H X, CHEN W, et al. Prog Part Nucl Phys, 2019, 107: 237. DOI: 10.1016/j.ppnp.2019.04.003
|
[21] |
WEINBERG S. Phys Rev, 1963, 130: 776. DOI: 10.1103/PhysRev.130.776
|
[22] |
WEINBERG S. Phys Rev, 1963, 131: 440. DOI: 10.1103/PhysRev.131.440
|
[23] |
WEINBERG S. Phys Rev B, 1965, 137: 672. DOI: 10.1103/PhysRev.137.B672
|
[24] |
KAPLAN D B, SAVAGE M J, WISE M B. Phys Lett B, 1998, 424: 390. DOI: 10.1016/S0370-2693(98)00210-X
|
[25] |
KAPLAN D B, SAVAGE M J, WISE M B. Nucl Phys B, 1998, 534: 329. DOI: 10.1016/S0550-3213(98)00440-4
|
[26] |
LANDAU L D. Nucl Phys, 1959, 13: 181. DOI: 10.1016/0029-5582(59)90154-3
|
[27] |
BONNEVAY G, AITCHISON I J R, DOWKER J S. Nuovo Cim, 1961, 21: 3569.
|
[28] |
BARTON G, KACSER C. Nuovo Cim, 1961, 21: 3161.
|
[29] |
FRONSDAL C, NORTON R E. J Math Phys, 1964, 5: 100. DOI: 10.1063/1.1704053
|
[30] |
BRONZAN J B. Phys Rev B, 1964, 134: 687. DOI: 10.1103/PhysRev.134.B687
|
[31] |
NORTON R E. Phys Rev B, 1964, 135: 1381.
|
[32] |
LUCHA W, MELIKHOV D, SIMULA S. Phys Rev D, 2007, 75: 016001. DOI: 10.1103/PhysRevD.75.016001
|
[33] |
CUTKOSKY R E. J Math Phys, 1960, 1: 429. DOI: 10.1063/1.1703676
|
[34] |
LIU X H, OKA M, ZHAO Q. Phys Lett B, 2016, 753: 297. DOI: 10.1016/j.physletb.2015.12.027
|
[35] |
DU M C, ZHAO Q. Phys Rev D, 2019, 100(3): 036005. DOI: 10.1103/PhysRevD.100.036005
|
[36] |
ACHASOV N N, KOZHEVNIKOV A A, SHESTAKOV G N. Phys Rev D, 2015, 92(3): 036003. DOI: 10.1103/PhysRevD.92.036003
|
[37] |
XUE S R, JING H J, GUO F K, et al. Phys Lett B, 2018, 779: 402. DOI: 10.1016/j.physletb.2018.02.027
|
[38] |
WU J J, LIU X H, ZHAO Q, et al. Phys Rev Lett, 2012, 108: 081803. DOI: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.108.081803
|
[39] |
WU X G, WU J J, ZHAO Q, et al. Phys Rev D, 2013, 87(1): 014023. DOI: 10.1103/PhysRevD.87.014023
|
[40] |
GUO F K, LIU X H, SAKAI S. Progress in Particle and Nuclear Physics, 2020, 112: 103757. DOI: 10.1016/j.ppnp.2020.103757
|
[41] |
CHOI S K, OLSEN S L, ABE K, et al[Belle Collaboration]. Phys Rev Lett, 2003, 91: 262001. DOI: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.91.262001
|
[42] |
ABLIKIM M, ACHASOV M N, AI X C, et al[BESⅢ Collaboration]. Phys Rev Lett, 2013, 110: 252001. DOI: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.110.252001
|
[43] |
LIU Z Q, SHEN C P, YUAN C Z, et al[Belle Collaboration]. Phys Rev Lett, 2013, 110: 252002. DOI: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.110.252002
|
[44] |
XIAO T, DOBBS S, TOMARADZE A, et al. Phys Lett B, 2013, 727: 366. DOI: 10.1016/j.physletb.2013.10.041
|
[45] |
TORNQVIST N A. Z Phys C, 1994, 61: 525. DOI: 10.1007/BF01413192
|
[46] |
PATRIGNANI C, AGASHE K, AIELLI G, et al[Particle Data Group]. Chin Phys C, 2016, 40(10): 100001. DOI: 10.1088/1674-1137/40/10/100001
|
[47] |
VOLOSHIN M B. Phys Lett B, 2004, 579: 316. DOI: 10.1016/j.physletb.2003.11.014
|
[48] |
FLEMING S, KUSUNOKI M, MEHEN T, et al. Phys Rev D, 2007, 76: 034006. DOI: 10.1103/PhysRevD.76.034006
|
[49] |
BRAATEN E, STAPLETON J. Phys Rev D, 2010, 81: 014019. DOI: 10.1103/PhysRevD.81.014019
|
[50] |
JANSEN M, HAMMER H W, JIA Y. Phys Rev D, 2014, 89(1): 014033. DOI: 10.1103/PhysRevD.89.014033
|
[51] |
ABLIKIM M, ACHASOV M N, AHMED S, et al[BESIII Collaboration]. Phys Rev D, 2019, 100(11): 111102. DOI: 10.1103/PhysRevD.100.111102
|
[52] |
CHEN G Y, HUO W S, ZHAO Q. Chin Phys C, 2015, 39(9): 093101. DOI: 10.1088/1674-1137/39/9/093101
|
[53] |
WANG Q, HANHART C, ZHAO Q. Phys Rev Lett, 2013, 111(13): 132003. DOI: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.111.132003
|
[54] |
QIN W, XUE S R, ZHAO Q. Phys Rev D, 2016, 94(5): 054035. DOI: 10.1103/PhysRevD.94.054035
|
[55] |
CLEVEN M, ZHAO Q. Phys Lett B, 2017, 768: 52. DOI: 10.1016/j.physletb.2017.02.041
|
[56] |
CLEVEN M, WANG Q, GUO F K, et al. Phys Rev D, 2014, 90(7): 074039. DOI: 10.1103/PhysRevD.90.074039
|
[57] |
ABLIKIM M, ACHASOV M N, ALBAYRAK O, et al[BESⅢ Collaboration]. Phys Rev Lett, 2013, 111(24): 242001. DOI: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.111.242001
|
[58] |
WANG Q, HANHART C, ZHAO Q. Phys Lett B, 2013, 725(1-3): 106. DOI: 10.1016/j.physletb.2013.06.049
|
[59] |
WANG Q, CLEVEN M, GUO F K, et al. Phys Rev D, 2014, 89(3): 034001. DOI: 10.1103/PhysRevD.89.034001
|
[60] |
WU X G, HANHART C, WANG Q, et al. Phys Rev D, 2014, 89(5): 054038. DOI: 10.1103/PhysRevD.89.054038
|
[61] |
ABAZOV V M, ABBOTT B, ACHARYA B S, et al[D0 Collaboration]. Phys Rev D, 2018, 98(5): 052010. DOI: 10.1103/PhysRevD.98.052010
|
[62] |
GUO F K, HANHART C, MEISSNER U G, et al. Phys Lett B, 2013, 725: 127. DOI: 10.1016/j.physletb.2013.06.053
|
[63] |
ABLIKIM M, ACHASOV M N, AI X C, et al[BESⅢ Collaboration]. Phys Rev Lett, 2014, 112(9): 092001. DOI: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.112.092001
|
[64] |
GUO F K. Phys Rev Lett, 2019, 122(20): 202002. DOI: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.122.202002
|
Two-body channel | S-wave (L=0) | P-wave (L=1) | Open charm | Open bottom |
PP | 0+(±) | 1−(±) | DˉD | BˉB |
PV | 1+(±) | 0−(±), 1−(∓), 2−(±) | D∗ˉD+c.c. | B∗ˉB+c.c. |
VV | 0+(+) | 1−(+) | D∗ˉD∗ | B∗ˉB∗ |
1+(−) | 0−(−), 1−(−), 2−(−) | |||
2+(+) | 1−(+), 2−(+), 3−(+) | |||
PA | 1−(−) | …… | DˉD1+c.c. | BˉB1+c.c. |
VA | 0−(±), 1−(∓), 2−(±) | …… | D∗ˉD1+c.c. | B∗ˉB1+c.c. |