Reuse & Permissions

It is not necessary to obtain permission to reuse this article or its components as it is available under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International license. This license permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided attribution to the author(s) and the published article's title, journal citation, and DOI are maintained. Please note that some figures may have been included with permission from other third parties. It is your responsibility to obtain the proper permission from the rights holder directly for these figures.

Export citation

Export citation

Choose format for download:

Download Citation
  • Letter
  • Open Access

Probing the long-range structure of the Tcc+ with the strong and electromagnetic decays

Lu Meng1, Guang-Juan Wang2, Bo Wang3,4,*, and Shi-Lin Zhu5,†

  • 1Ruhr-Universität Bochum, Fakultät für Physik und Astronomie, Institut für Theoretische Physik II, D-44780 Bochum, Germany
  • 2Advanced Science Research Center, Japan Atomic Energy Agency, Tokai, Ibaraki 319-1195, Japan
  • 3School of Physical Science and Technology, Hebei University, Baoding 071002, China
  • 4Key Laboratory of High-precision Computation and Application of Quantum Field Theory of Hebei Province, Baoding 071002, China
  • 5School of Physics and Center of High Energy Physics, Peking University, Beijing 100871, China

  • *Corresponding author. wangbo@hbu.edu.cn
  • †Corresponding author. zhusl@pku.edu.cn

Phys. Rev. D 104, L051502 – Published 28 September, 2021

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevD.104.L051502

Abstract

Very recently, the LHCb Collaboration reported the doubly charmed tetraquark state Tcc+ below the D*+D0 threshold about 273 keV. As a very near-threshold state, its long-distance structure is very important. In the molecular scheme, we relate the coupling constants of Tcc+ with D*0D+ and D*+D0 to its binding energy and mixing angle of two components with a coupled-channel effective field theory. With the coupling constants, we investigate the kinetically allowed strong decays Tcc+→D0D0π+, Tcc+→D+D0π0 and radiative decays D+D0γ. Our results show that the decay width of Tcc+→D0D0π+ is the largest one, which is just the experimental observation channel. Our theoretical total strong and radiative widths are in favor of the Tcc+ as a |D*+D0⟩ dominated bound state. The total strong and radiative width in the single channel limit and isospin singlet limit are given as 59.7−4.4+4.6  keV and 46.7−2.9+2.7  keV, respectively. Our calculation is cutoff-independent and without prior isospin assignment. The absolute partial widths and ratios of the different decay channels can be used to test the structure of Tcc+ state when the updated experimental results are available.

View figure in article

Physics Subject Headings (PhySH)

Article Text

References (62)

  1. R. Aaij et al. (LHCb Collaboration), arXiv:2109.01038.
  2. R. Aaij et al. (LHCb Collaboration), arXiv:2109.01056.
  3. I. Polyakov, Proceedings of the EPS-HEP Conference 2021: Recent LHCb Results on Exotic Meson Candidates, https://indico.desy.de/event/28202/contributions/105627/.
  4. F. Muheim, Proceedings of the EPS-HEP Conference 2021: Highlights from the LHCb Experiment, https://indico.desy.de/event/28202/contributions/102717/.
  5. J. Carlson, L. Heller, and J. A. Tjon, Phys. Rev. D 37, 744 (1988).
  6. B. Silvestre-Brac and C. Semay, Z. Phys. C 57, 273 (1993).
  7. C. Semay and B. Silvestre-Brac, Z. Phys. C 61, 271 (1994).
  8. S. Pepin, F. Stancu, M. Genovese, and J. M. Richard, Phys. Lett. B 393, 119 (1997).
  9. B. A. Gelman and S. Nussinov, Phys. Lett. B 551, 296 (2003).
  10. J. Vijande, F. Fernandez, A. Valcarce, and B. Silvestre-Brac, Eur. Phys. J. A 19, 383 (2004).
  11. D. Janc and M. Rosina, Few Body Syst. 35, 175 (2004).
  12. Y. Cui, X.-L. Chen, W.-Z. Deng, and S.-L. Zhu, High Energy Phys. Nucl. Phys. 31, 7 (2007), arXiv:hep-ph/0607226.
  13. F. S. Navarra, M. Nielsen, and S. H. Lee, Phys. Lett. B 649, 166 (2007).
  14. J. Vijande, E. Weissman, A. Valcarce, and N. Barnea, Phys. Rev. D 76, 094027 (2007).
  15. D. Ebert, R. N. Faustov, V. O. Galkin, and W. Lucha, Phys. Rev. D 76, 114015 (2007).
  16. S. H. Lee and S. Yasui, Eur. Phys. J. C 64, 283 (2009).
  17. Y. Yang, C. Deng, J. Ping, and T. Goldman, Phys. Rev. D 80, 114023 (2009).
  18. M.-L. Du, W. Chen, X.-L. Chen, and S.-L. Zhu, Phys. Rev. D 87, 014003 (2013).
  19. G. Q. Feng, X. H. Guo, and B. S. Zou, arXiv:1309.7813.
  20. Y. Ikeda, B. Charron, S. Aoki, T. Doi, T. Hatsuda, T. Inoue, N. Ishii, K. Murano, H. Nemura, and K. Sasaki, Phys. Lett. B 729, 85 (2014).
  21. R. Aaij et al. (LHCb Collaboration), Phys. Rev. Lett. 119, 112001 (2017).
  22. S.-Q. Luo, K. Chen, X. Liu, Y.-R. Liu, and S.-L. Zhu, Eur. Phys. J. C 77, 709 (2017).
  23. M. Karliner and J. L. Rosner, Phys. Rev. Lett. 119, 202001 (2017).
  24. E. J. Eichten and C. Quigg, Phys. Rev. Lett. 119, 202002 (2017).
  25. Z.-G. Wang, Acta Phys. Pol. B 49, 1781 (2018).
  26. G. K. C. Cheung, C. E. Thomas, J. J. Dudek, and R. G. Edwards (Hadron Spectrum Collaboration), J. High Energy Phys. 11 (2017) 033.
  27. W. Park, S. Noh, and S. H. Lee, Nucl. Phys. A983, 1 (2019).
  28. A. Francis, R. J. Hudspith, R. Lewis, and K. Maltman, Phys. Rev. D 99, 054505 (2019).
  29. P. Junnarkar, N. Mathur, and M. Padmanath, Phys. Rev. D 99, 034507 (2019).
  30. C. Deng, H. Chen, and J. Ping, Eur. Phys. J. A 56, 9 (2020).
  31. G. Yang, J. Ping, and J. Segovia, Phys. Rev. D 101, 014001 (2020).
  32. M.-Z. Liu, T.-W. Wu, M. Pavon Valderrama, J.-J. Xie, and L.-S. Geng, Phys. Rev. D 99, 094018 (2019).
  33. Y. Tan, W. Lu, and J. Ping, Eur. Phys. J. Plus 135, 716 (2020).
  34. Q.-F. Lü, D.-Y. Chen, and Y.-B. Dong, Phys. Rev. D 102, 034012 (2020).
  35. E. Braaten, L.-P. He, and A. Mohapatra, Phys. Rev. D 103, 016001 (2021).
  36. D. Gao, D. Jia, Y.-J. Sun, Z. Zhang, W.-N. Liu, and Q. Mei, arXiv:2007.15213.
  37. J.-B. Cheng, S.-Y. Li, Y.-R. Liu, Z.-G. Si, and T. Yao, Chin. Phys. C 45, 043102 (2021).
  38. S. Noh, W. Park, and S. H. Lee, Phys. Rev. D 103, 114009 (2021).
  39. R. N. Faustov, V. O. Galkin, and E. M. Savchenko, Universe 7, 94 (2021).
  40. Y.-R. Liu, H.-X. Chen, W. Chen, X. Liu, and S.-L. Zhu, Prog. Part. Nucl. Phys. 107, 237 (2019).
  41. T. D. Cohen and P. M. Hohler, Phys. Rev. D 74, 094003 (2006).
  42. J. M. Dias, S. Narison, F. S. Navarra, M. Nielsen, J. M. Richard, S. Narison, and J. M. Richard, Phys. Lett. B 703, 274 (2011).
  43. N. Li and S.-L. Zhu, Phys. Rev. D 86, 074022 (2012).
  44. N. Li, Z.-F. Sun, X. Liu, and S.-L. Zhu, Phys. Rev. D 88, 114008 (2013).
  45. H. Xu, B. Wang, Z.-W. Liu, and X. Liu, Phys. Rev. D 99, 014027 (2019).
  46. R. Chen, Q. Huang, X. Liu, and S.-L. Zhu, arXiv:2108.01911 [Phys. Rev. D (to be published)].
  47. E. Braaten and M. Kusunoki, Phys. Rev. D 69, 074005 (2004).
  48. E. Braaten and H. W. Hammer, Phys. Rep. 428, 259 (2006).
  49. T. D. Cohen, B. A. Gelman, and U. van Kolck, Phys. Lett. B 588, 57 (2004).
  50. E. Braaten and M. Kusunoki, Phys. Rev. D 72, 054022 (2005).
  51. L. Meng, B. Wang, and S.-L. Zhu, Sci. Bull. 66, 1413 (2021).
  52. X.-K. Dong, F.-K. Guo, and B.-S. Zou, Phys. Rev. Lett. 126, 152001 (2021).
  53. R. Higa, P. Premarathna, and G. Rupak, arXiv:2009.09324.
  54. D. Gamermann, J. Nieves, E. Oset, and E. Ruiz Arriola, Phys. Rev. D 81, 014029 (2010).
  55. D. Gamermann and E. Oset, Phys. Rev. D 80, 014003 (2009).
  56. F. Aceti and E. Oset, Phys. Rev. D 86, 014012 (2012).
  57. T. Sekihara, Phys. Rev. C 95, 025206 (2017).
  58. P. A. Zyla et al. (Particle Data Group Collaboration), Prog. Theor. Exp. Phys. 2020, 083C01 (2020).
  59. D. Ebert, R. N. Faustov, and V. O. Galkin, Phys. Lett. B 537, 241 (2002).
  60. H.-M. Choi, Phys. Rev. D 75, 073016 (2007).
  61. D. Becirevic and B. Haas, Eur. Phys. J. C 71, 1734 (2011).
  62. B. Wang, B. Yang, L. Meng, and S.-L. Zhu, Phys. Rev. D 100, 016019 (2019).

Outline

Information

Sign In to Your Journals Account

Filter

Filter

Article Lookup

Enter a citation