1: %%ES TEMPORAL PARA CAMBIAR CITAS ANTES DE PARTIRLO
2:
3: %%CITAS
4:
5: %%APP
6:
7: \section{Introduction}
8: %************************
9:
10:
11:
12: %
13: \begin{table}
14:
15: \begin{tabular}{cccccccc}\hline
16: Baryon &~~~~$S$~~~~&~~~~$J^P$~~~~&~~~~ $I$~~~~&~~~~$S_{ h}^\pi$~~~~&
17: Quark content
18:
19: \\
20: & & & & &
21: \\\hline
22: $\Xi_{cc}$& 0 &$\frac12^+$& $\frac12$ &$1^+$&$ccl$
23: \\
24: $\Xi^*_{cc}$ & 0 &$\frac32^+$&$\frac12$ &$1^+$&$ccl$
25: \\
26: $\Omega_{cc}$ & $-1$ &$\frac12^+$& 0 &$1^+$&$ccs$
27: \\
28: $\Omega^*_{cc}$ & $-1$ &$\frac32^+$&$0$&$1^+$&$ccs$
29: \\\\
30: $\Xi_{bb}$& 0 &$\frac12^+$& $\frac12$ &$1^+$&$bbl$
31: \\
32: $\Xi^*_{bb}$ & 0 &$\frac32^+$&$\frac12$ &$1^+$&$bbl$
33: \\
34: $\Omega_{bb}$ & $-1$ &$\frac12^+$& 0 &$1^+$&$bbs$
35: \\
36: $\Omega^*_{bb}$ & $-1$ &$\frac32^+$&$0$&$1^+$&$bbs$
37: \\\\
38: $\Xi'_{bc}$& 0 &$\frac12^+$& $\frac12$ &$0^+$&$bcl$
39: \\
40: $\Xi_{bc}$ & 0 &$\frac12^+$&$\frac12$ &$1^+$&$bcl$
41: \\
42: $\Xi^*_{bc}$& 0 &$\frac32^+$& $\frac12$ &$1^+$&$bcl$
43: \\
44: $\Omega'_{bc}$ & $-1$ &$\frac12^+$& 0 &$0^+$&$bcs$
45: \\
46: $\Omega_{bc}$ & $-1$ &$\frac12^+$& 0 &$1^+$&$bcs$
47: \\
48: $\Omega^*_{bc}$ & $-1$ &$\frac32^+$&$0$&$1^+$&$bcs$
49: \\
50: \hline
51: \end{tabular}
52: \caption{Quantum numbers of doubly heavy baryons analyzed in this study. $S$, $J^P$ are strangeness and the spin parity
53: of the baryon, $I$ is the isospin, and
54: $S_{h}^\pi$ is the spin parity of the heavy
55: degrees of freedom. $l$ denotes a light $u$ or
56: $d$ quark .}
57: \label{tab:summ}
58: \end{table}
59:
60: %=========================================
61:
62: Even though only recently the mass of a doubly heavy baryon has been
63: measured experimentally~\cite{Mattson:2002vu}, the subject has been
64: attracting attention for a long time. Magnetic moments of doubly
65: charmed baryons were evaluated back in the 70's by
66: Lichtenberg~\cite{Lichtenberg:1976fi} within a nonrelativistic approach.
67: The infinite heavy quark mass limit was already used in the 90's to
68: relate the spectrum of doubly heavy baryons to the one of mesons with
69: a single heavy quark~\cite{Savage:1990di}, or to analyze their semileptonic
70: decay~\cite{White:1991hz}. In hadrons with a heavy quark and working in the
71: infinite heavy quark mass limit the dynamics of the light degrees of
72: freedom becomes independent of the heavy quark flavor and spin. This
73: is known as heavy quark symmetry (HQS)~\cite{Nussinov:1986hw,Shifman:1986sm,Politzer:1988wp,Politzer:1988bs,Isgur:1989vq,Isgur:1989ed}.
74: This symmetry was developed into an effective theory
75: (HQET)~\cite{Georgi:1990um} that allowed a systematic, order by order,
76: evaluation of corrections in inverse powers of the heavy quark masses.
77: Unfortunately ordinary HQS can not be applied directly to hadrons
78: containing two heavy quarks as the kinetic energy term needed in those
79: systems to regulate infrared divergences breaks heavy flavor
80: symmetry~\cite{Thacker:1990bm}. For those hadrons the symmetry that
81: survives is heavy quark spin symmetry (HQSS)~\cite{Jenkins:1992nb}, which
82: amounts to the decoupling of the heavy quark spins in the infinite
83: heavy quark mass limit. In that limit one can consider the total spin
84: of the two heavy quark subsystem ($S_h$) to be well defined. In this
85: work we shall assume this is a good approximation for the actual heavy
86: quark masses. This approximation, which is the only one related to the
87: infinite heavy quark mass limit that we shall use, will certainly
88: simplify the solution of the baryon three--quark problem.
89:
90:
91: Solving the three--body problem is not an easy task and here we shall
92: do it by means of a variational approach. The approach, with obvious
93: changes, was already applied with good results in the study of baryons
94: with one heavy quark~\cite{Albertus:2003sx}. This method, that leads to
95: simple and manageable wave functions, is made possible by the
96: simplifications introduced in the problem by the fact that we can
97: consider $S_h$ to be well defined. We shall consider several simple
98: phenomenological quark--quark interactions {\bf Esto hay que rehacerlo
99: asi que quito la cita }which
100: free parameters have been adjusted in the meson sector and are thus
101: free of three--body ambiguities. The use of different interactions
102: will allow us to estimate part of the theoretical uncertainties
103: affecting our calculation.
104:
105: Our simple variational calculation reproduces the results for static
106: properties obtained in Ref.~\cite{Silvestre-Brac:1996bg} by solving more involved
107: Faddeev type equations. Static properties like masses and magnetic
108: moments of doubly heavy baryons have also been studied in other
109: models. Masses have been calculated in the relativistic quark model
110: assuming a light quark heavy diquark structure~\cite{Ebert:2002ig}, the
111: potential approach and sum rules of QCD~\cite{Kiselev:2001fw}, the
112: nonperturbative QCD approach~\cite{Narodetskii:2001bq}, the Bethe--Salpeter
113: equation applied to the light quark heavy diquark~\cite{Tong:1999qs}, the
114: nonrelativistic quark model with harmonic oscillator
115: potential~\cite{Itoh:2000um} or with the use of QCD derived
116: potentials~\cite{Vijande:2004at,Gershtein:2000nx}, the relativistic quasi--potential quark
117: model~\cite{Ebert:1996ec}, with the use of the Feynman-Hellman theorem and
118: semi-empirical mass formulas~\cite{Roncaglia:1995az,Roncaglia:1994ex}, or in
119: HQET~\cite{Korner:1994nh}. There are also lattice determinations by the
120: UKQCD Collaboration~\cite{Flynn:2003vz}. Similarly, magnetic moments have
121: been evaluated in a nonrelativistic approach~\cite{Lichtenberg:1976fi}, in
122: the relativistic three--quark model~\cite{Faessler:2006ft}, the
123: relativistic quark model using different forms of the relativistic
124: kinematics~\cite{Julia-Diaz:2004vh}, in the skyrmion model~\cite{Oh:1991ws}, in the
125: Dirac equation formalism~\cite{Jena:1986xs}, or using the MIT bag
126: model~\cite{Bose:1980vy}.
127:
128:
129: %---------OJO, ESTO VA A SEMILEPTONIC%--------
130: We shall further use our manageable wave functions to study
131: semileptonic decays of doubly, $J=1/2$, baryons. We shall evaluate
132: form factors, decay widths and angular asymmetry parameters. Previous
133: calculations of semileptonic decay widths have been done in different
134: relativistic quark model approaches ~\cite{Ebert:2004ck,Faessler:2001mr,Guo:1998yj},
135: or with the use of HQET~\cite{Sanchis-Lozano:1994vh}.
136: %------------------------------------------------
137: % Y DE AQUI COJER LOS CACHOS QUE HAGAN FALTA
138: %-------------------------------------------------
139: {\bf esto cambiara mucho asi que no me molesto en rehacer las regs}
140: The paper is organized as follows. In Sect.~\ref{sec:3bp} we study the
141: Hamiltonian of the system (Subsect.~\ref{subsec:h}) and briefly
142: introduce the different inter-quark interactions used in this work
143: (Subsect.~\ref{subsec:qqi}). The variational wave functions are
144: discussed in Sect.~\ref{sec:vwf}. In Sect.~\ref{sec:sp} we present
145: results for the static properties: masses
146: (Subsect. \ref{subsec:masses}), charge and mass densities and radii
147: (Subsect.~\ref{subsec:chmdr}), and magnetic moments
148: (Subsect.~\ref{subsec:mm}). Semileptonic decays are analyzed in
149: Sect.~\ref{sec:sd}. After the presentation of general formulas, in
150: Subsect.~\ref{subsec:ff} we relate the form factors to matrix elements
151: and show how the latter ones are evaluated within our model. In
152: Subsect.~\ref{subsec:results} we present our results for the form
153: factors, differential and total semileptonic decay widths, and angular
154: asymmetry parameters. The findings of this work are summarized in
155: Sect.~\ref{sec:summary}. The paper also includes three appendices: in
156: appendix~\ref{DPapp:vp} we give the variational wave function
157: parameters for the five different inter--quark interactions used. In
158: appendix~\ref{DPapp:fg123} we relate the form factors for semileptonic
159: decay to the two basic integrals in terms of which all of them can be
160: obtained. Finally, in appendix~\ref{DPapp:integrals} we give explicit
161: expressions for those basic integrals.
162:
163: In Table~\ref{tab:summ} we summarize the quantum numbers of the
164: doubly heavy baryons considered in this study.
165:
166:
167:
168:
169: \section{Three Body Problem}
170: \label{sec:3bp}
171: \subsection{Intrinsic Hamiltonian}
172: \label{subsec:h}
173: %
174: \begin{figure}[t]
175: %\vspace{-3cm}
176: \resizebox{10.cm}{7.cm}{\includegraphics{DP_coord3.eps}}
177: %\vspace{-15cm}
178: \caption{ Definition of different coordinates used through this
179: work.}\label{fig:coor}
180: \end{figure}
181: %
182:
183: In the Laboratory (LAB) frame (see Fig.~\ref{fig:coor}), the
184: Hamiltonian ($H$) of the three quark ($h_1,\,h_2,\,q$, where
185: $h_1,\,h_2=c,b$ and $q=l(u,\,d),\,s$) system reads:
186: %
187: \begin{eqnarray}
188: H&=& \sum_{j=h_1,\,h_2,\,q} \left (m_j
189: -\frac{\stackrel{\rightarrow}{\nabla}\stackrel{}{^2}_{\hspace{-.1cm}\vec x_j}}{2m_j}\right ) +
190: V_{h_1h_2} + V_{h_1q}+V_{h_2 q }
191: \end{eqnarray}
192: where $m_{h_1},\,m_{h_2},\,m_q$ are the quark masses and the
193: quark-quark interaction terms $V_{jk}$ depend on the quark
194: spin-flavor quantum numbers and the quark coordinates ($\vec{x}_{h_1},
195: \vec{x}_{h_2},\, \vec{x}_q$ for the $h_1,\,h_2,\,q$ quarks
196: respectively). To separate the Center of Mass (CM) free motion,
197: we go to the light quark frame ($\vec{R},\vec{r}_1,\vec{r}_2$),
198: %
199: \begin{eqnarray}
200: \vec{R}&=&\frac{m_{h_1}\vec{x}_{h_1} + m_{h_2}\vec{x}_{h_2} + m_q \vec{x}_q}
201: {m_{h_1}+m_{h_2}+m_q} \nonumber \\
202: \vec{r}_1 & = & \vec{x}_{h_1} - \vec{x}_q \nonumber \\
203: \vec{r}_2 & = & \vec{x}_{h_2} - \vec{x}_q
204: \end{eqnarray}
205: %
206: where $\vec{R}$ and $\vec{r}_1,\, \vec{r}_2$ are the CM position in
207: the LAB frame and the relative positions of the $h_1,\,h_2$ heavy quarks
208: with respect to the light quark $q$. The Hamiltonian now reads
209: \begin{eqnarray}
210: H&=&
211: -\frac{\stackrel{\rightarrow}{\nabla}
212: \stackrel{}{^2}_{\hspace{-.1cm}\vec{R}}}{2 \overline M} +
213: H^{\rm int}
214: \end{eqnarray}
215: \begin{eqnarray}
216: H^{\rm
217: int}&=&\sum_{j=1,2}\,H_j^{sp}+V_{h_1h_2}(\vec r_1-\vec r_2,\, spin)-
218: \frac{\stackrel{\rightarrow}{\nabla}_1\cdot\stackrel{\rightarrow}{\nabla}_2}
219: {m_q}+\overline M
220: \nonumber\\
221: H_j^{sp}&=&-\frac{\stackrel{\rightarrow}{\nabla}\stackrel{}{^2}_{\hspace{-0.2cm}j}
222: }{2\mu_j}+V_{h_jq}(\vec r_j,\, spin),\ j=1,2
223: \label{eq:hint}
224: \end{eqnarray}
225: %
226: where $\overline M = m_{h_1}+m_{h_2}+m_{q}$, $\mu_{j} = \left (
227: 1/m_{h_j} + 1/m_q\right)^{-1}$ and $\stackrel{\rightarrow}{\nabla}_{j}
228: = \partial/\partial_{\vec{r}_j},\ j=1,2$. The intrinsic Hamiltonian
229: $H^{\rm int}$ describes the dynamics of the baryon. It consists of the
230: sum of two single particle Hamiltonian $H^{sp}_j$, each of them
231: describing the dynamics of a heavy-light quark system, plus the
232: heavy--heavy interaction term, including the Hughes-Eckart term
233: ($\stackrel{\rightarrow}{\nabla}_1\cdot
234: \stackrel{\rightarrow}{\nabla}_2$), and the sum of the quark masses
235: $\overline M$. We will use a variational approach to solve it.
236: %
237:
238:
239: \subsection{Quark--Quark Interactions}
240: \label{subsec:qqi}
241:
242: We have examined five different interactions, one suggested by Bhaduri
243: and collaborators~\cite{BD81} (BD) and four suggested by
244: B. Silvestre-Brac and C. Semay~\cite{Silvestre-Brac:1996bg,SS93} (AL1, AL2, AP1 y
245: AP2). All of them contain a confinement term, plus Coulomb and
246: hyperfine terms coming from one-gluon exchange, and differ from each
247: other in the form factors used for the hyperfine terms, the power of
248: the confining term or the use of a form factor in the one gluon
249: exchange Coulomb potential. All free parameters in the potentials had
250: been adjusted to reproduce the light ($\pi$, $\rho$, $K$, $K^*$, etc.)
251: and heavy-light ($D$, $D^*$, $B$, $B^*$, etc.) meson
252: spectra\footnote{To get the quark--quark interaction starting from a
253: quark-antiquark one the usual $V_{ij}^{qq} = V_{ij}^{q \bar q}/2$
254: prescription, coming from a $\vec{\lambda}_i\vec{\lambda}_j$ color
255: dependence ($\vec{\lambda}$ are the Gell-Mann matrices) of the whole
256: potential, has been assumed. }. All details on the above interactions
257: can be found in Refs.~\cite{BD81,Silvestre-Brac:1996bg,SS93}.
258:
259:
260:
261: These interactions were also used in Ref.~\cite{Silvestre-Brac:1996bg} to obtain,
262: within a Faddeev calculation, the spectrum and static properties of
263: heavy baryons. Our simpler variational method will not only give
264: equally good results for the observables analyzed in~\cite{Silvestre-Brac:1996bg}, but
265: it will also provide us with easy to handle wave functions that can be
266: used to evaluate other observables.
267:
268:
269:
270:
271: \section{Variational Wave Functions}\label{sec:vwf}
272: %
273: For the above mentioned interactions, we have that both the total spin and
274: the internal orbital angular momentum given
275: as
276: %
277: \begin{eqnarray}
278: {\vec
279: S} &=& \left ( {\vec \sigma}_{h_1} + {\vec \sigma}_{h_2} +
280: {\vec \sigma}_q \right )/2\nonumber\\
281: {\vec L} &=& {\vec l}_1 + {\vec l}_2, \qquad {\rm with}~~ {\vec
282: l}_j=-{\rm i}~~{\vec r}_j \times {\stackrel{\rightarrow}{\nabla}}_j, \quad j=1,2
283: \end{eqnarray}
284: commute with the intrinsic Hamiltonian and are thus well defined. We
285: are interested in the ground state of baryons with total angular
286: momentum $J=1/2,\,3/2$\ so that we can assume the orbital angular
287: momentum of the baryons to be $L=0$. This implies that the spatial
288: wave function can only depend on the relative distances $r_1$, $r_2$
289: and $r_{12}=|\vec{r}_1-\vec{r}_2|$. Furthermore when the heavy quark
290: mass is infinity ($m_h \to \infty$), the total spin of the heavy
291: degrees of freedom, $\vec{S}_{\rm heavy} = \left ( {\vec \sigma}_{h_1}
292: + {\vec \sigma}_{h_2} \right )/2$, commutes with the intrinsic
293: Hamiltonian, since the spin--spin terms in the potentials vanish in
294: this limit. We can then assume the spin of the heavy degrees of
295: freedom to be well defined.
296:
297: With these simplifications we have used the following intrinsic wave
298: functions in our variational approach\footnote{We omit the
299: antisymmetric color wave function and the plane wave for the center of
300: mass motion which are common to all cases.}
301: %
302: \begin{itemize}
303: \item {\it $\Xi_{h_1h_2},\,\Omega_{h_1h_2}-$type baryons: }
304: %
305: \begin{eqnarray}
306: |\Xi_{h_1h_2},\,\Omega_{h_1h_2}; J=\frac12, M_J \rangle &=&
307: \sum_{M_{S_h}M_{S_q}} ( 1\frac12\frac12|M_{S_h}M_{S_q}M_J)\ |h_1h_2;1M_{S_h}
308: \rangle \otimes |q;\frac12 M_{S_q}\rangle \nonumber\\
309: &&\hspace{3cm}\times\Psi_{h_1h_2}^{\Xi,\,\Omega}(r_1,r_2,r_{12})
310: \end{eqnarray}
311: %
312: where $M_J$ is the third component of the baryon total angular
313: momentum while $|h_1h_2;S_h,M_{S_h}\rangle$ and $|q;\frac12
314: M_{S_q}\rangle $ represent spin states of the $h_1h_2$ subsystem and
315: the light quark respectively. $(j_1j_2j|m_1m_2m)$ is a Clebsch-Gordan
316: coefficient. For $h_1=h_2$ we need
317: $\Psi_{h_1h_1}^{\Xi,\,\Omega}(r_1,r_2,r_{12})
318: =\Psi_{h_1h_1}^{\Xi,\,\Omega}(r_2,r_1,r_{12})$ to guarantee a complete
319: symmetry of the wave function under the exchange of the two heavy
320: quarks.
321: \item {\it $\Xi^*_{h_1h_2},\,\Omega^*_{h_1h_2}-$type baryons: }
322: %
323: \begin{eqnarray}
324: |\Xi^*_{h_1h_2},\,\Omega^*_{h_1h_2}; J=\frac32, M_J \rangle &=&
325: \sum_{M_{S_h}M_{S_q}} ( 1\frac12\frac32|M_{S_h}M_{S_q}M_J)\ |h_1h_2;1M_{S_h}
326: \rangle \otimes |q;\frac12 M_{S_q}\rangle \nonumber\\
327: &&\hspace{3cm}\times\Psi_{h_1h_2}^{\Xi^*,\,\Omega^*}(r_1,r_2,r_{12})
328: \end{eqnarray}
329: %
330: Similarly to the case before for $h_1=h_2$ we need $\Psi_{h_1h_1}
331: ^{\Xi^*,\,
332: \Omega^*}(r_1,r_2,r_{12})
333: =\Psi_{h_1h_1}^{\Xi^*,\,\Omega^*}(r_2,r_1,r_{12})$.
334: \item {\it $\Xi'_{h_1h_2},\,\Omega'_{h_1h_2}-$type baryons: }
335: %
336: \begin{eqnarray}
337: |\Xi'_{h_1h_2},\,\Omega'_{h_1h_2}; J=\frac12, M_J \rangle &=&
338: |h_1h_2;00 \rangle \otimes |q;\frac12 M_{J}\rangle \nonumber\\
339: &&\hspace{3cm}\times\Psi_{h_1h_2}^{\Xi',\,\Omega'}(r_1,r_2,r_{12})
340: \end{eqnarray}
341: %
342: In this case $h_1\ne h_2$ and we do not need the orbital part to have a
343: definite symmetry under the exchange of the two quarks.
344: \end{itemize}
345: %
346:
347: The spatial wave functions $\Psi(r_1,r_2,r_{12})$ in the above
348: expressions will be determined by the variational principle: $\delta
349: \langle B | H^{\rm int}| B \rangle = 0$. For simplicity, we shall
350: assume a Jastrow--type functional form\footnote{ A similar form lead
351: to very good results in the case of baryons with a single heavy
352: quark~\cite{Albertus:2003sx}.}:
353:
354:
355: \begin{eqnarray}
356: \Psi_{h_1h_2}^{B} (r_1,r_2,r_{12}) &=& N\, F^{B}(r_{12})\,
357: \phi_{h_1q}(r_1)\,\phi_{h_2q}(r_2)
358: \end{eqnarray}
359: %
360: where $N$ is a constant, which is determined from
361: normalization
362: %
363: \begin{eqnarray}
364: 1=\int d^3r_1 \int d^3 r_2\ \left |\Psi_{h_1h_2}^{B}(r_1,r_2,r_{12})
365: \right |^2 = 8\pi^2 \int_0^{+\infty}dr_1~r_1^2~ \int_0^{+\infty}dr_2~r_2^2
366: \int_{-1}^{+1} d\mu~\left |\Psi_{h_1h_2}^{B}(r_1,r_2,r_{12})
367: \right |^2
368: \end{eqnarray}
369: %
370: with $\mu$ being the cosine of the angle between the vectors $\vec
371: {r}_1$ and $\vec {r}_2$ ($r_{12}=(~r_1^2+r_2^2-2 r_1 r_2
372: \mu)^{1/2}$).
373:
374: The functions $\phi_{h_1q}$ and $\phi_{h_2q}$ will be taken as the
375: $S-$wave ground states $\varphi_j(r_j)$ of the single particle
376: Hamiltonians $H^{sp}_{j}$ of Eq.~(\ref{eq:hint}) modified at large
377: distances
378: %
379: \begin{eqnarray}
380: \phi_{h_jq} (r_j) &=& (1+\alpha_j\,r_j)\,\varphi_j(r_j),\ \ j=1,2
381: \label{eq:onebody}
382: \end{eqnarray}
383: The heavy--heavy correlation function $F^{B}$ will be given by a
384: linear combination of gaussians\footnote{Note that $F^{B}$ should
385: vanish at large distances because of the confinement potential. The
386: confinement potential is also responsible for the non--vanishing
387: values of the parameters $\alpha_j,\ j=1,2$ in
388: Eq.~(\protect\ref{eq:onebody}).}
389: %
390: \begin{eqnarray}
391: F^{B}(r_{12}) &=&
392: \sum_{j=1}^4 a_j e^{-b_j^2(r_{12}+d_j)^2},\quad a_1=1
393: \label{eq:f12}
394: \end{eqnarray}
395: %
396: The value of one of the $a_j$ parameters can be absorbed into the
397: normalization constant $N$, so that we fix $a_1=1$. The values that
398: we get for all parameters are given in appendix~\ref{DPapp:vp}
399:
400:
401: \section{Static Properties}\label{sec:sp}
402:
403: \subsection{Masses}
404: \label{subsec:masses}
405: The mass of the baryon is simply given by the expectation value of the
406: intrinsic Hamiltonian. Our results (VAR) appear in
407: Table~\ref{tab:xiomegamasses} where we compare them with the ones
408: obtained in Ref.~\cite{Silvestre-Brac:1996bg} with the use of the same inter-quark
409: interactions but within a Faddeev approach (FAD). For that purpose we have
410: eliminated from the latter
411: a small three-body force contribution of the type
412: $V_{123}= {\rm constant}/m_{h_1}m_{h_2}m_q$ that was also
413: included in the evaluation of Ref.~\cite{Silvestre-Brac:1996bg}. We will show their full
414: results in the following tables. Whenever comparison is
415: possible we find an excellent agreement between the two
416: calculations. In some cases the variational masses are even lower than
417: the Faddeev ones. Besides we give predictions for states that were not
418: considered in the study of Ref.~\cite{Silvestre-Brac:1996bg}.
419: \begin{table}
420: \begin{tabular}{lcccccc}
421: & & AL1 & AL2 &AP1 &AP2 &BD \\ \hline\tstrut
422:
423: $\Xi_{cc}$\hspace{.5cm} &VAR& 3612 & 3619 & 3629 & 3630 & 3639 \\
424: &FAD~\cite{Silvestre-Brac:1996bg}& 3609 & 3616 & 3625 & 3628 & 3633 \\ \\
425:
426: $\Xi_{cc}^*$ &VAR& 3706 & 3715 & 3722 & 3729 & 3722 \\ \\
427: $ \Xi_{bb} $ &VAR& 10197 & 10180 & 10207 & 10179 & 10202 \\
428: &FAD~\cite{Silvestre-Brac:1996bg}& 10194 & 10175 & 10204 & 10176 & 10197 \\ \\
429: $\Xi_{bb}^*$ &VAR& 10236 & 10219 & 10245 & 10219 & 10235 \\ \\
430: $\Xi_{bc}$ &VAR& 6919 & 6912 & 6933 & 6917 & 6936
431: \\
432: &FAD~\cite{Silvestre-Brac:1996bg}& 6916 & 6913 & 6928 & 6907 & 6934 \\ \\
433: $\Xi_{bc}'$ &VAR& 6948 & 6942 & 6957 & 6944 & 6965 \\\\
434: $\Xi_{bc}^*$ &VAR& 6986 & 6981 & 7000 & 6987 & 6993 \\ \hline
435:
436:
437: \end{tabular}\hspace{1cm}
438: \begin{tabular}{lc|ccccc}
439: & & AL1 & AL2 &AP1 &AP2 &BD \\ \hline\tstrut
440:
441: $\Omega_{cc}$ \hspace{.5cm} &VAR& 3702 & 3718 & 3711 & 3710 & 3743
442: \\
443: &FAD~\cite{Silvestre-Brac:1996bg}& 3711 & 3718 & 3710 & 3709 & 3741\\ \\
444:
445:
446:
447: $\Omega_{cc}^*$ &VAR& 3783 & 3802 & 3800 & 3802 & 3805 \\ \\
448: $\Omega_{bb}$ &VAR& 10260 & 10249 & 10259 &10226 &10274
449: \\
450: &FAD~\cite{Silvestre-Brac:1996bg}& 10267 & 10246 & 10258 &10224 &10271\\
451: \\
452:
453:
454: $\Omega_{bb}^*$ &VAR& 10297 & 10287 & 10301 &10269 &10302\\ \\
455: $\Omega_{bc}$ &VAR& 6986 & 6986 & 6990 & 6969 & 7013
456: \\
457: &FAD~\cite{Silvestre-Brac:1996bg}& 7003 & 6996 & 6996 & 6971 & 7023 \\
458: \\
459:
460:
461:
462: $\Omega_{bc}'$ &VAR& 7009 & 7010 & 7011 & 6994 & 7033 \\ \\
463: $\Omega_{bc}^*$ &VAR& 7046 & 7047 & 7055 & 7037 & 7057 \\ \hline %
464: \end{tabular}
465: \caption{Doubly heavy $\Xi$ and $\Omega$ baryons masses in MeV. VAR
466: stands for the results of our variational calculation. FAD stands for
467: the results obtained in Ref.~\cite{Silvestre-Brac:1996bg} using the same interquark interactions
468: but within a Faddeev approach.}
469: \label{tab:xiomegamasses}
470: \end{table}
471:
472: In Tables~\ref{tab:ximassesdiffmod} and \ref{tab:omegamassesdiffmod}
473: we compare our results with other theoretical calculations. Our
474: central values correspond to the results obtained with the AL1
475: potential, while the errors quoted take into account the variation
476: when using different potentials. The same presentation is used for
477: the results obtained in Ref.~\cite{Silvestre-Brac:1996bg} for which we now show their full
478: values including the contribution of the three-body force. All calculations give
479: similar results that vary within a few per cent. From the experimental
480: point of view the SELEX Collaboration~\cite{Mattson:2002vu} has recently
481: measured the value of $M_{\Xi_{cc}}$. This experimental value is 100
482: MeV smaller that our result. Note nevertheless that in
483: Ref.~\cite{Mattson:2002vu} no account is given of the systematic
484: error. There are also lattice determinations by the UKQCD
485: Collaboration~\cite{Flynn:2003vz} of the $M_{\Xi_{cc}},\, M_{\Xi^*_{cc}}$
486: and $M_{\Omega_{cc}},\,M_{\Omega^*_{cc}}$ masses. Our results, as most
487: other theoretical values, are within errors of the lattice data.
488:
489: \begin{table}[h!!]
490: \begin{tabular}{lcccccccccccccc}
491: & This work&\cite{Silvestre-Brac:1996bg}&
492: \cite{Ebert:2002ig}&\cite{Kiselev:2001fw}&\cite{Narodetskii:2001bq}&\cite{Tong:1999qs}&\cite{Itoh:2000um}
493: &\cite{Vijande:2004at}&\cite{Gershtein:2000nx}&\cite{Ebert:1996ec}&\cite{Roncaglia:1995az,Roncaglia:1994ex}&\cite{Korner:1994nh}&Exp.~\cite{Mattson:2002vu}
494: &Lattice~\cite{Flynn:2003vz}\\\hline
495: $\Xi_{cc}$\hspace{.5cm} &$3612^{+17}$
496: &$3607^{+24}$&3620&3480&3690&3740&3646&3524&3478&3660&3660&3610&$3519\pm1$&$3549\pm 95$ \\
497: $\Xi^*_{cc}$ &$3706^{+23}$ & &3727&3610&&3860&3733&3548&3610&3810&3740&3680& &$3641\pm97$\\
498: $\Xi_{bb}$ &$10197^{+10}_{-17}$&$10194^{+10}_{-19}$
499: &10202&10090&10160&10300&&&10093&10230&10340&&&\\
500: $\Xi^*_{bb}$ &$10236^{+9}_{-17}$& &10237&10130&&10340&&&10133&10280&10370&&&\\
501: $\Xi_{bc}$ &$6919^{+17}_{-7}$ &$6915^{+17}_{-9}$ &6933&6820&6960&7010&&&6820&6950&7040&&& \\
502: $\Xi'_{bc}$ &$6948^{+17}_{-6}$ &&6963&6850&&7070&&&6850&7000&6990&&&\\
503: $\Xi^*_{bc}$ &$6986^{+14}_{-5}$ &&6980&6900&&7100&&&6900&7020&7060&&& \\
504: \end{tabular}
505: \caption{Doubly heavy $\Xi$ masses in MeV as obtained in different
506: models. Our central values, and the ones of Ref.~\cite{Silvestre-Brac:1996bg}, have
507: been evaluated with the AL1 potential. We also give the experimental
508: value for $M_{\Xi_{cc}}$ measured by the SELEX
509: Collaboration~\cite{Mattson:2002vu} (Notice this experimental mass does not
510: show the systematic error), and the lattice results for $M_{\Xi_{cc}}$
511: and $M_{\Xi^*_{cc}}$ evaluated by the UKQCD
512: Collaboration~\cite{Flynn:2003vz}.}
513:
514: \label{tab:ximassesdiffmod}
515: \end{table}
516:
517: \begin{table}[h!!!]
518: \begin{tabular}{lcccccccccccc}
519: & This work&\cite{Silvestre-Brac:1996bg}&
520: \cite{Ebert:2002ig}&\cite{Kiselev:2001fw}&\cite{Narodetskii:2001bq}&\cite{Tong:1999qs}&\cite{Itoh:2000um}
521: &\cite{Gershtein:2000nx}&\cite{Ebert:1996ec}&\cite{Roncaglia:1995az,Roncaglia:1994ex}&\cite{Korner:1994nh}
522: &Lattice~\cite{Flynn:2003vz}\\\hline
523: $\Omega_{cc}$\hspace{.5cm} &$3702^{+41}$ &$3710^{+29}_{-2}$& 3778&3590&3860&3760&3749&3590&3760&3740&3710&$3663\pm 97$\\
524: $\Omega^*_{cc}$ &$3783^{+22}$ && 3872&3690&&3900&3826&3690&3890&3820&3760&$3734\pm 98$ \\
525: $\Omega_{bb}$ &$10260^{+14}_{-34}$ &$10267^{+4}_{-43}$&
526: 10359&10180&10340&10340&&10180&10320&10370&&\\
527: $\Omega^*_{bb}$ &$10297^{+5}_{-28}$ && 10389&10200&&10380&&10200&10360&10400&&\\
528: $\Omega_{bc}$ &$6986^{+27}_{-17}$ &$7003^{+20}_{-32}$&7088&6910&7130&7050&&6910&7050&7090&&\\
529: $\Omega'_{bc}$ &$7009^{+24}_{-15}$& &7116&6930&&7110&&6930&7090&7060&&\\
530: $\Omega^*_{bc}$ &$7046^{+11}_{-9}$ &&7130&6990&&7130&&6990&7110&7120&& \\
531: \end{tabular}
532: \caption{Same as Table~\ref{tab:ximassesdiffmod} for doubly heavy $\Omega$
533: baryons.}
534:
535:
536: \label{tab:omegamassesdiffmod}
537: \end{table}
538:
539: The lattice calculation of Ref.~\cite{Flynn:2003vz} has also made an independent
540: determination of the splittings which are given by
541: \begin{eqnarray}
542: \left. M_{\Xi_{cc}^*}-M_{\Xi_{cc}}\right|_{lattice}= 87\pm19\,\mathrm{MeV}\hspace{2cm}
543: \left. M_{\Omega_{cc}^*}-M_{\Omega_{cc}}\right|_{lattice}= 67\pm16\,\mathrm{MeV}
544: \end{eqnarray}
545: Our results agree with the above splittings within errors.
546:
547: \subsection{Charge and mass densities and radii}
548: \label{subsec:chmdr}
549: The baryon charge density at the point $P$ (coordinate vector $\vec{r}$ in
550: the CM frame, see Fig.~\ref{fig:coor}) is given by:
551: %
552: \begin{eqnarray}
553: \rho_e^{B} (\vec{r}\,)
554: & = & \int d^3 r_1 d^3 r_2\ \Big |
555: \Psi_{h_1h_2}^{B}(r_1,r_2,r_{12}) \Big |^2 \left \{ e_{h_1} \delta^3
556: (\vec{r}-\vec{y}_{h_1}) + e_{h_2} \delta^3 (\vec{r}-\vec{y}_{h_2}) + e_{q}
557: \delta^3 (\vec{r}-\vec{y}_q) \right \} \nonumber \\
558: & \equiv & \rho_e^{B} (\vec{r}\,)\big|_{h_1}
559: + \rho_e^{B}(\vec{r}\,)\big|_{h_2} +
560: \rho_e^{B}(\vec{r}\,)\big|_{q} \label{eq:dens}
561: \end{eqnarray}
562: %
563: where $e_{h_1,\,h_2,\,q}$ are the quark charges in proton charge units
564: $e$, and from Fig.~\ref{fig:coor} we have\footnote{There exists the
565: obvious restriction
566: $m_{h_1}\vec{y}_{h_1}+m_{h_2}\vec{y}_{h_2}+m_{q}\vec{y}_q=\vec 0$.}
567: $\vec{y}_{h_1}=\vec{y}_q+\vec{r}_1$,
568: $\vec{y}_{h_2}=\vec{y}_q+\vec{r}_2$ and $\vec{y}_q= - \left
569: (m_{h_1}\vec{r}_1+m_{h_2}\vec{r}_2 \right)/\overline M$. Since our
570: $L=0$ wave functions only depend on scalars ($r_1,r_2$ and $r_{12}$)
571: the charge density is spherically symmetric ($\rho_e^{B} (\vec{r}\,) =
572: \rho_e^{B} (|\vec{r}~|)$).
573:
574: The charge form factor is defined as usual
575: %
576: \begin{eqnarray}
577: {\cal F}_e^{B} (\vec{q}~) = \int d^3 r\ e^{{\rm
578: i}\vec{q}\cdot\vec{r}}\rho_e^{B} (r)\label{eq:fe}
579: \end{eqnarray}
580: and it only depends on $|\vec{q}~|$. Its value at $\vec{q}=\vec 0$
581: gives the baryon charge in units of the proton charge.
582:
583: The charge mean square radii are defined
584: %
585: \begin{equation}
586: \langle r^2 \rangle_e^{B} =
587: \int d^3 r\ r^2 \rho_e^{B} (r) =
588: 4\pi \int_0^{+\infty}dr\ r^4 \rho_e^{B} (r)
589: \label{eq:r2q}
590: \end{equation}
591: %
592: \begin{figure}
593: %\vspace{-3cm}
594: \resizebox{13.cm}{10.cm}{\includegraphics{DP_Fforma1.eps}}\vspace{.5cm}\\
595: %\vspace{-15cm}
596: \caption{ Charge form factor of the $\Xi_{cc},\,\Xi_{bb}$
597: and $\Xi^*_{cc},\,\Xi^*_{bb}$ baryons evaluated with the AL1~\cite{Silvestre-Brac:1996bg,SS93}
598: (solid line) and BD~\cite{BD81} (dashed line) potentials. We show the two
599: possible charge states.}
600: \label{fig:cffxi}
601: \end{figure}
602: \begin{figure}
603: \vspace{-1cm}
604: \resizebox{13.cm}{10.cm}{\includegraphics{DP_Fforma2.eps}}
605: %\vspace{-15cm}
606: \caption{ Charge form factor of the
607: $\Omega_{cc},\,\Omega_{bb}$ and $\Omega^*_{cc},\,\Omega^*_{bb}$ baryons
608: evaluated with the AL1 (solid line)
609: and BD (dashed line) potentials.
610: }\label{fig:cffomega}
611: \end{figure}
612: %
613: In Figs.~\ref{fig:cffxi}, \ref{fig:cffomega} and \ref{fig:cffbc} we
614: show the charge form factors for the different doubly heavy baryons
615: under study including the two different charge states for the doubly
616: heavy $\Xi$ ones. We show the calculations with both the AL1 potential
617: of Refs.~\cite{Silvestre-Brac:1996bg,SS93} and the BD potential of
618: Ref.~\cite{BD81}. The differences between the two calculations are
619: minor in most cases.
620:
621: \begin{figure}
622: %\vspace{-3cm}
623: \resizebox{13.cm}{15.cm}{\includegraphics{DP_Fforma3.eps}}
624: %\vspace{-15cm}
625: \caption{Charge form factor of the $\Xi_{bc},\,\Xi^*_{bc},\,\Xi'_{bc}$
626: and $\Omega_{bc},\,\Omega^*_{bc}\,\Omega'_{bc}$ baryons evaluated with the AL1
627: (solid line) and BD (dashed line) potentials. For the $\Xi$ baryons we show the
628: two possible charge states.
629: }\label{fig:cffbc}
630: \end{figure}
631:
632: In Table~\ref{tab:xiomegacr} we show the charge mean square
633: radii. With the exceptions of the $\Xi_{bc}^0$ and $\Omega_{bc}^0$, we
634: find good agreement with the results obtained in Ref.~\cite{Silvestre-Brac:1996bg}
635: within a Faddeev calculation. The possible presence of a $S_h=0$
636: contribution in the wave functions of Ref.~\cite{Silvestre-Brac:1996bg} could be the
637: possible explanation for this discrepancy. We also compare with the
638: results obtained, for a few states, in Ref.~\cite{Julia-Diaz:2004vh} with the
639: use a relativistic quark model in the instant form. The agreement is
640: bad in this case.
641: \begin{table}[h!!!]
642: \begin{tabular}{lccc}
643: &This work & \cite{Silvestre-Brac:1996bg}&\cite{Julia-Diaz:2004vh}\\ \hline
644:
645: $\Xi_{cc}^+$\hspace{.5cm} &$-0.030^{+0.003}_{-0.016}$ &$-0.038^{+0.004}_{-0.016}$&$0.1$ \\
646: $\Xi_{cc}^{++}$ & $0.298^{+0.034}_{-0.028}$ &$0.315^{+0.035}_{-0.030}$&$1.3$ \\
647: \\
648: $\Xi_{cc}^{*+}$ &$-0.042^{+0.007}_{-0.019}$& & \\
649: $\Xi_{cc}^{*++}$ &$0.341^{+0.041}_{-0.042}$&&\\ \\
650: $ \Xi_{bb}^0 $ &$0.221^{+0.033}_{-0.025}$& $0.242^{+0.035}_{-0.027}$&\\
651: $ \Xi_{bb}^- $ &$-0.133^{+0.014}_{-0.016}$& $-0.143^{+0.006}_{-0.018}$&\\ \\
652: $\Xi_{bb}^{*-}$ &$-0.142^{+0.018}_{-0.018}$& &\\ \\
653: $\Xi_{bb}^{*0}$ &$0.238^{+0.035}_{-0.031}$& &\\ \\
654: $\Xi_{bc}^0$ &$-0.057^{+0.006}_{-0.013}$& $-0.072^{+0.008}_{-0.017}$&\\
655: $\Xi_{bc}^+$ &$0.279^{+0.026}_{-0.031}$& $0.306^{+0.035}_{-0.011}$&\\ \\
656: $\Xi_{bc}'^0$ &$-0.065^{+0.010}_{-0.015}$& & \\
657: $\Xi_{bc}'^+$ &$0.283^{+0.036}_{-0.025}$& & \\
658: \\
659: $\Xi_{bc}^{*0}$ &$-0.065^{+0.010}_{-0.018}$& &\\
660: $\Xi_{bc}^{*+}$ &$0.305^{+0.031}_{-0.039}$&& \\
661: \hline
662: \end{tabular}\hspace{0.9cm}
663: \begin{tabular}{lccc}
664: &This work &\cite{Silvestre-Brac:1996bg}&\cite{Julia-Diaz:2004vh} \\ \hline
665:
666: $\Omega_{cc}^+$\hspace{0.5cm} &$0.013^{+0.001}_{-0.002}$&$0.009_{-0.003}$&$0.2$\\ \\
667:
668:
669:
670: $\Omega_{cc}^{*+}$ &$0.009^{+0.001}_{-0.002}$& & \\ \\
671: $\Omega_{bb}^-$ &$-0.086^{+0.008}_{-0.001}$& $-0.090^{+0.007}_{-0.002}$&\\ \\
672:
673:
674: $\Omega_{bb}^{*-}$ &$-0.092^{+0.011}_{-0.001}$& &\\ \\
675: $\Omega_{bc}^0$ &$-0.016_{+0.003}$& $-0.025^{+0.002}_{-0.003}$& \\\\
676:
677:
678:
679: $\Omega_{bc}'^0$ &$-0.019^{+0.003}_{-0.003}$&&\\ \\
680: $\Omega_{bc}^{*0}$ &$-0.021^{+0.004}_{-0.002}$& &\\ \hline %
681: \vspace{2.7cm}
682:
683: \end{tabular}
684: \caption{Charge mean square radii in fm$^2$ for doubly heavy $\Xi$ and
685: $\Omega$ baryons. Our central values, and the ones of
686: Ref.~\cite{Silvestre-Brac:1996bg}, have been evaluated with the AL1 potential.}
687: \label{tab:xiomegacr}
688: \end{table}
689: %
690:
691:
692: The baryon mass density, $\rho_m^{B} (r)$ is readily obtained from
693: Eq.~(\ref{eq:dens}) with the obvious substitutions
694: $(e_{h_1},e_{h_2},e_q) \to (m_{h_1}/\overline M,m_{h_2}/\overline
695: M,m_q/\overline M)$.
696: %
697: \begin{eqnarray}
698: \rho_m^{B} (\vec{r}\,) &=&
699: \int d^3 r_1 d^3 r_2\ \Big |
700: \Psi_{h_1h_2}^{B}(r_1,r_2,r_{12}) \Big |^2 \left \{ \frac{m_{h_1}}{\overline M} \delta^3
701: (\vec{r}-\vec{y}_{h_1}) + \frac{m_{h_2}}{\overline M} \delta^3 (\vec{r}-\vec{y}_{h_2}) +
702: \frac{m_{q}}{\overline M}
703: \delta^3 (\vec{r}-\vec{y}_q) \right \} \nonumber \\
704: & \equiv & \rho_m^{B} (\vec{r}\,)\big|_{h_1}
705: + \rho_m^{B}(\vec{r}\,)\big|_{h_2} +
706: \rho_m^{B}(\vec{r}\,)\big|_{q}
707: \label{eq:mdens}
708: \end{eqnarray}
709: where we have normalized $\rho_m^{B} (r)$ to 1. Finally the mass mean
710: square radii are defined
711: %
712: \begin{equation}
713: \langle r^2 \rangle_m^{B} = \int d^3 r\ r^2 \rho_m^{B} (r) =
714: 4\pi \int_0^{+\infty}dr\ r^4 \rho_m^{B} (r)
715: \label{eq:r2m}
716: \end{equation}
717:
718:
719:
720:
721:
722:
723: In Figs.~\ref{fig:rhomxi},\ref{fig:rhomomega}, \ref{fig:rhombc} we
724: show the mass densities for the different doubly heavy baryons under
725: study. We show the mass densities, as defined in Eq.~(\ref{eq:mdens}),
726: for each quark flavor in the baryon and for the AL1 potential of
727: Refs.~\cite{Silvestre-Brac:1996bg,SS93} and the BD potential of Ref.~\cite{BD81}. There
728: are visible differences at small $r$ mainly for light quarks. The
729: differences at large $r$ values are less significant as densities are
730: very small in those cases.
731: \begin{figure}
732: %\vspace{-3cm}
733: \resizebox{13.cm}{10.cm}{\includegraphics{DP_Dmasa1.eps}}\vspace{.5cm}\\
734: %\vspace{-15cm}
735: \caption{ Mass densities of the $\Xi_{cc},\,\Xi_{bb}$ and
736: $\Xi^*_{cc},\,\Xi^*_{bb}$ baryons. Solid line: $l(u,d)$ quark mass
737: density evaluated with the AL1 potential; long--dashed line: $c$ or
738: $b$ quark mass density evaluated with the AL1 potential; short--dashed
739: line: $l(u,d)$ quark mass density evaluated with the BD potential;
740: dotted line: $c$ or $b$ quark mass density evaluated with the BD
741: potential.}
742: \label{fig:rhomxi}
743: \end{figure}
744: \begin{figure}
745: %\vspace{-1cm}
746: \resizebox{13.cm}{10.cm}{\includegraphics{DP_Dmasa2.eps}}
747: %\vspace{-15cm}
748: \caption{ Mass densities of the $\Omega_{cc},\,\Omega_{bb}$ and
749: $\Omega^*_{cc},\,\Omega^*_{bb}$ baryons. Solid line: $s$ quark mass
750: density evaluated with the AL1 potential; long--dashed line: $c$ or
751: $b$ quark mass density evaluated with the AL1 potential;
752: short--dashed line: $s$ quark mass density evaluated with the BD
753: potential; dotted line: $c$ or $b$ quark mass density evaluated with
754: the BD potential. }\label{fig:rhomomega}
755: \end{figure}
756: \begin{figure}
757: %\vspace{-3cm}
758: \resizebox{13.cm}{15.cm}{\includegraphics{DP_Dmasa3.eps}}
759: %\vspace{-15cm}
760: \caption{Mass densities of the $\Xi_{bc},\,\Xi^*_{bc},\,\Xi'_{bc}$ and
761: $\Omega_{bc},\,\Omega^*_{bc},\,\Omega'_{bc}$ baryons. Solid line:
762: $l(u,d)$ or $s$ quark mass density evaluated with the AL1 potential;
763: long--dashed line: $b$ quark mass density evaluated with the AL1
764: potential, short--dashed line: $c$ quark mass density evaluated with
765: the AL1 potential; dotted line: $l(u,d)$ or $s$ quark mass density
766: evaluated with the BD potential; long-dashed dotted line: $b$ quark
767: mass density evaluated with the BD potential; short-dashed dotted
768: line: $c$ quark mass density evaluated with the BD potential.
769: }\label{fig:rhombc}
770: \end{figure}
771:
772: The mass mean square radii are shown in Table~\ref{tab:xiomegamr}. We
773: find very good agreement with the results obtained in
774: Ref. ~\cite{Silvestre-Brac:1996bg} within a
775: Faddeev approach.
776: \begin{table}[h!!!!!!!!]
777: \begin{tabular}{lcc}
778: & This work&\cite{Silvestre-Brac:1996bg} \\ \hline\tstrut
779:
780: $\Xi_{cc}$\hspace{.5cm} &$0.081^{+0.002}_{-0.007}$& $0.083^{+0.002}_{-0.007}$\\\\
781:
782: $\Xi_{cc}^{*}$ &$0.089^{+0.002}_{-0.009}$& \\\\
783:
784: $ \Xi_{bb} $ &$0.032_{-0.002}$& $0.033_{-0.002}$\\\\
785:
786: $\Xi_{bb}^*$ &$0.034_{-0.003}$& \\ \\
787:
788: $\Xi_{bc}$ &$0.045_{-0.004}$& $0.046^{+0.001}_{-0.003}$ \\ \\
789: $\Xi_{bc}'$ &$0.044^{+0.001}_{-0.002}$& \\\\
790:
791: $\Xi_{bc}^{*}$ &$0.048_{-0.004}$& \\
792: \hline
793: \end{tabular}\hspace{0.9cm}
794: \begin{tabular}{lcc}
795: & This work& \cite{Silvestre-Brac:1996bg} \\ \hline\tstrut
796:
797: $\Omega_{cc}$\hspace{.5cm} &$0.078_{-0.006}$&$0.078_{-0.005}$ \\ \\
798:
799: $\Omega_{cc}^*$ &$0.085^{+0.002}_{-0.008}$& \\ \\
800: $\Omega_{bb}$ &$0.032_{-0.003}$&$0.032_{-0.002}$ \\ \\
801:
802:
803: $\Omega_{bb}^*$ &$0.034_{-0.004}$& \\ \\
804: $\Omega_{bc}$ &$0.043_{-0.003}$&$0.045_{-0.003}$ \\ \\
805:
806:
807: $\Omega_{bc}'$ &$0.044_{-0.004}$&\\ \\
808: $\Omega_{bc}^*$ &$0.047_{-0.005}$& \\ \hline %
809: \end{tabular}
810: \caption{ Mass mean square radii in fm$^2$ for doubly heavy $\Xi$ and
811: $\Omega$ baryons. Our central values, and the ones of
812: Ref.~\cite{Silvestre-Brac:1996bg}, have been evaluated with the AL1 potential.}
813: \label{tab:xiomegamr}
814: \end{table}
815: %
816:
817:
818:
819:
820: \subsection{Magnetic moments}
821: \label{subsec:mm}
822: The orbital part of the magnetic moment is defined in terms of the
823: velocities $\vec{v}$ of the quarks, with respect to the position of
824: the CM, and it reads
825: %
826: \begin{eqnarray}
827: {\mu}^{B} &=& \int d^3 r_1 d^3 r_2 \left(\Psi_{h_1h_2}^{B}(r_1,r_2,r_{12})\right)^* \left \{
828: \frac{e_{h_1}}{2m_{h_1}} (\vec{y}_{h_1} \times m_{h_1}\vec{v}_{{h_1}})_z \right.\nonumber \\
829: &+&\left. \frac{e_{h_2}}{2m_{h_2}} (\vec{y}_{h_2} \times
830: m_{h_2}\vec{v}_{h_2})_z +
831: \frac{e_{q}}{2m_{q}} (\vec{y}_q \times m_{q}
832: \vec{v}_{y_q})_z \right \}\Psi_{h_1h_2}^{B}(r_1,r_2,r_{12})
833: \end{eqnarray}
834: %
835: with\footnote{Note that the classical kinetic energy has a term on
836: $\vec{v}_{h_1}\cdot\vec{v}_{h_2}$ and then the operator
837: $m_{h_1} \vec{v}_{h_1}$ is not proportional to
838: $-i\stackrel{\to}{\nabla}_{y_{h_1}}$, but it is rather given by
839: $m_{h_1} \vec{v}_{h_1}={(\overline M-m_{h_1})}/{\overline M}\cdot
840: (-i\stackrel{\to}{\nabla}_{y_{h_1}})
841: -{m_{h_2}}/{\overline M}\cdot(-i\stackrel{\to}{\nabla}_{y_{h_2}})
842: =(-i\stackrel{\to}{\nabla}_1)$. Similarly
843: $m_{h_2} \vec{v}_{h_2}=(-i\stackrel{\to}{\nabla}_2)$.}
844: $m_{h_1}\vec{v}_{h_1} = - i \vec{\nabla}_1$,
845: $m_{h_2}\vec{v}_{h_2} = - i \vec{\nabla}_2$ and $m_q\vec{v}_{q}
846: = i \left ( \vec{\nabla}_1 + \vec{\nabla}_2 \right)$. Since our orbital wave
847: function has $L=0$, the orbital
848: magnetic moment vanishes. The magnetic moment of the baryon is then
849: entirely given by the spin contribution.
850: %
851: \begin{eqnarray}
852: \langle B;\, J,\,M_J=J|\ \frac{e_{h_1}}{2m_{h_1}} (\vec{\sigma}_{h_1})_z
853: + \frac{e_{h_2}}{2m_{h_2}} (\vec{\sigma}_{h_2})_z +
854: \frac{e_{q}}{2m_{q}} (\vec{\sigma}_q)_z\ | B;\,J,\, M_J=J\rangle
855: \end{eqnarray}
856: Those matrix elements are trivially evaluated with the
857: results
858: \begin{eqnarray}
859: \Xi_{h1h_2},\ \Omega_{h1h_2}&\longrightarrow&
860: \frac{2}{3}\left( \frac{e_{h_1}}{2m_{h_1}}+\frac{e_{h_2}}{2m_{h_2}}-\frac12
861: \ \frac{e_{q}}{2m_{q}} \right)\nonumber\\
862: \Xi^*_{h1h_2},\ \Omega^*_{h1h_2}&\longrightarrow&
863: \frac{e_{h_1}}{2m_{h_1}}+\frac{e_{h_2}}{2m_{h_2}}+
864: \frac{e_{q}}{2m_{q}} \nonumber\\
865: \Xi'_{h1h_2},\ \Omega'_{h1h_2}&\longrightarrow&
866: \frac{e_{q}}{2m_{q}}
867: \end{eqnarray}
868:
869: In Table~\ref{tab:xiomegamm} we give our numerical results. Our
870: central values, as the ones obtained in Ref.~\cite{Silvestre-Brac:1996bg} within a
871: Faddeev approach, have been evaluated with the use of the AL1
872: potential. When compared to the values obtained in Ref.~\cite{Silvestre-Brac:1996bg} we
873: find very good agreement with just a few exceptions
874: ($\Xi_{bc}^0,\,\Xi_{bc}^+,\,\Omega_{bc}^0$). The discrepancy for the
875: latter baryons may come from a possible non negligible $S_h=0$
876: contribution to their wave functions in the calculation of
877: Ref.~\cite{Silvestre-Brac:1996bg}. In our case we have fixed $S_h=1$ which we think is
878: a very good approximation since in the limit of infinite heavy quark
879: masses the spin of the heavy quark degrees of freedom is well defined.
880: We also compare our results to the ones obtained in
881: Refs.\cite{Lichtenberg:1976fi,Faessler:2006ft,Julia-Diaz:2004vh,Oh:1991ws,Jena:1986xs,Bose:1980vy} using
882: different approaches\footnote{Note the definitions of $\Xi_{bc}$ and
883: $\Xi'_{bc}$ are interchanged in Ref.~\cite{Faessler:2006ft}, with
884: $\Xi_{bc}$ having $S_h=0$ and $\Xi'_{bc}$ having $S_h=1$. The same
885: applies to $\Omega_{bc}$ and $\Omega'_{bc}$.}. The differences are
886: large in some cases and sometimes even the signs are opposite. Being
887: $L=0$ a good approximation and with $m_b\gg m_u,\,m_d,\,m_s$, and to a
888: lesser extent $m_c\gg m_u,\,m_d,\,m_s$, the values of the magnetic
889: moments are essentially determined by the spin contribution of the
890: light quark. To the extent that a fixed $S_h$ is also a good
891: approximation one would not expect to obtain different signs in
892: different models.
893: \begin{table}[h!!!]
894: \begin{tabular}{lcccccccc}
895: & This work& \cite{Silvestre-Brac:1996bg}&\cite{Lichtenberg:1976fi}&\cite{Faessler:2006ft}&\cite{Julia-Diaz:2004vh}&\cite{Oh:1991ws}
896: &\cite{Jena:1986xs}&\cite{Bose:1980vy} \\ \hline
897:
898: $\Xi_{cc}^+$\hspace{.5cm} &$0.785^{+0.050}_{-0.030}$ &$0.784^{+0.050}_{-0.029}$&0.806
899: &0.72&$0.72$&$0.89\sim0.98$&$0.778\sim0.790$&0.86\\
900: $\Xi_{cc}^{++}$&$-0.208^{+0.035}_{-0.086}$
901: &$-0.206^{+0.034}_{-0.086}$&$-0.124$&0.13&$-0.10$&$-0.47$&$-0.172\sim-0.154$&0.17\\
902: \\
903: $\Xi_{cc}^{*+}$ &$-0.311^{+0.052}_{-0.130}$ &$$ &$-0.186$&
904: &&$-1.17\sim-0.98$&&0.20\\
905: $\Xi_{cc}^{*++}$&$2.67^{+0.27}_{-0.15}$ &$$ &2.60 &&&$3.16\sim3.18$&&2.54\\ \\
906: $ \Xi_{bb}^0 $
907: &$-0.742^{+0.044}_{-0.091}$&$-0.742^{+0.044}_{-0.092}$&&$-0.53$&&&$-0.726\sim-0.705$&0.61\\
908: $ \Xi_{bb}^- $ &$0.251^{+0.045}_{-0.021}$ &$0.251^{+0.046}_{-0.021}$ &&0.18
909: &&&$0.226\sim0.236$&0.14\\ \\
910: $\Xi_{bb}^{*0}$ &$1.87^{+0.27}_{-0.13}$ &$$ && &&&&1.37\\
911: $\Xi_{bb}^{*-}$ &$-1.11^{+0.06}_{-0.14}$ &$$ &&& &&&$-0.95$\\ \\
912: $\Xi_{bc}^0$
913: &$0.518^{+0.048}_{-0.020}$&$0.058^{+0.059}_{-0.054}$&& 0.42 &&&&\\
914: $\Xi_{bc}^+$ &$-0.475^{+0.040}_{-0.088}$ &$-0.198^{+0.057}_{-0.056}$ &&$-0.12$
915: &&&& \\ \\
916:
917: $\Xi_{bc}'^0$ &$-0.993^{+0.065}_{-0.137}$ &$$ &&$-0.76$&&& $-0.385\sim-0.366$ & \\
918: $\Xi_{bc}'^+$ &$1.99^{+0.27}_{-0.13}$ &$$ && 1.52 & && $1.50\sim1.54$ &\\
919: \\
920: $\Xi_{bc}^{*0}$ &$-0.712^{+0.059}_{-0.133}$ &$$ &&&&& &$-0.39$\\
921: $\Xi_{bc}^{*+}$ &$2.27^{+0.27}_{-0.14}$ &$$ &&&&& &2.04\\
922: \hline
923: \end{tabular}\vspace{1cm}\\%\hspace{0.9cm}
924: \begin{tabular}{lcccccccc}
925: & This work&\cite{Silvestre-Brac:1996bg}&\cite{Lichtenberg:1976fi}&\cite{Faessler:2006ft}&\cite{Julia-Diaz:2004vh}&\cite{Oh:1991ws}
926: & \cite{Jena:1986xs}&\cite{Bose:1980vy}\\ \hline
927:
928: $\Omega_{cc}^+$\hspace{.5cm} &$0.635^{+0.012}_{-0.015}$ &$0.635^{+0.011}_{-0.015}$ &0.688&0.67
929: &$0.72$&$0.59\sim0.64$&$0.657\sim0.663$&0.84\\ \\
930:
931:
932:
933: $\Omega_{cc}^{*+}$ &$0.139^{+0.009}_{-0.017}$ &$$ &0.167&
934: &&$-0.20\sim0.03$&&0.39\\ \\
935: $\Omega_{bb}^-$ &$0.101^{+0.007}_{-0.007}$ &$0.101^{+0.007}_{-0.006}$ &&0.04& &&
936: $0.105\sim0.108$&0.084\\ \\
937:
938:
939: $\Omega_{bb}^{*-}$ &$-0.662^{+0.022}_{-0.024}$ &$$& & &&&&$-1.28$\\ \\
940: $\Omega_{bc}^0$ &$0.368^{+0.010}_{-0.011}$&$0.009^{+0.038}_{-0.029}$ &&0.45&&&&\\
941: \\
942:
943:
944: $\Omega_{bc}'^0$ &$-0.542^{+0.021}_{-0.024}$ &$$&
945: &$-0.61$&&& $-0.130\sim-0.125$ &\\ \\
946: $\Omega_{bc}^{*0}$ &$-0.261^{+0.015}_{-0.021}$ &$$& &&&&&$-0.22$\\ \hline %
947: %\vspace{2.32cm}
948:
949: \end{tabular}
950: \caption{Magnetic moments, in nuclear magnetons ($|e|/2m_p$, with
951: $m_p$ the proton mass), of doubly heavy $\Xi$ and $\Omega$
952: baryons. Our central values, and the ones of Ref.~\cite{Silvestre-Brac:1996bg}, have
953: been evaluated with the AL1 potential.}
954: \label{tab:xiomegamm}
955: \end{table}
956: %
957:
958:
959: %
960: %
961: %
962: %
963: %
964: %
965: %
966: %
967: %
968: %
969:
970:
971: \section{Semileptonic decay}
972: \label{sec:sd}
973: In this section we shall use the wave functions obtained with the
974: variational method to study different doubly $B(1/2^+)\to B'(1/2^+)$
975: baryon semileptonic decays involving a $b\to c $ transition at the
976: quark level.
977:
978: The differential decay width reads
979: \begin{equation}
980: {\rm d}\Gamma=
981: 8 |V_{cb}|^2 m_{B'} G_F^{\,2}
982: \frac{d^3p^\prime}{(2\pi)^32E^\prime_{B'} }
983: \frac{d^3k}{(2\pi)^32E_{\bar \nu_l} } \frac{d^3k^\prime}{(2\pi)^32E^\prime_{l}
984: } (2\pi)^4 \delta^4(p-p^\prime-k-k^\prime)\ {\cal
985: L}^{\alpha\beta}(k,k')
986: {\cal H}_{\alpha\beta}(p,p')
987: \end{equation}
988: where $|V_{cb}|$ is the modulus of the corresponding
989: Cabibbo--Kobayashi--Maskawa matrix element, $m_{B'}$ is the mass of
990: the final baryon, $G_F= 1.1665\times
991: 10^{-11}$\,MeV$^{-2}$\cite{Eidelman:2004wy} is the Fermi decay constant,
992: $p$, $p'$, $k$ and $k'$ are the four-momenta of the initial baryon,
993: final baryon, final anti-neutrino and final lepton respectively, and
994: ${\cal L}$ and ${\cal H}$ are the lepton and hadron tensors.
995:
996: The lepton tensor
997: is given as
998: \begin{eqnarray}
999: {\cal L}^{\mu\sigma}(k,k')&=& k'^\mu k^\sigma +k'^\sigma k^\mu
1000: - g^{\mu\sigma} k\cdot k^\prime + {\rm i}
1001: \epsilon^{\mu\sigma\alpha\beta}k'_{\alpha}k_\beta \label{eq:lep}
1002: \end{eqnarray}
1003: where we use the convention $\epsilon^{0123}=-1$, $g^{\mu\mu}=(+,-,-,-)$.
1004:
1005: The hadron tensor is given as
1006: \begin{eqnarray}
1007: {\cal H}_{\mu\sigma}(p,p') &=& \frac12 \sum_{r,r'}
1008: \left\langle B', r'\
1009: \vec{p}^{\,\prime}\left|\,
1010: \overline \Psi^c(0)\gamma_\mu(I-\gamma_5)\Psi^b(0)\right| B, r\ \vec{p} \right\rangle
1011: \ \left\langle B', r'\
1012: \vec{p}^{\,\prime}\left|\,\overline \Psi^c(0)\gamma_\sigma(I-\gamma_5)
1013: \Psi^b(0) \right| B, r\ \vec{p} \right\rangle^*
1014: \label{eq:wmunu}
1015: \end{eqnarray}
1016: with $\left|B, r\ \vec p\right\rangle\, (\left|B', r'\
1017: \vec{p}\,'\right\rangle)$ representing the initial (final) baryon with
1018: three--momentum $\vec p$ ($\vec{p}\,'$) and spin third component $r$
1019: ($r'$). The baryon states are normalized such that $\langle r\
1020: \vec{p}\, |\, r' \ \vec{p}^{\,\prime} \rangle = (2\pi)^3 (E(\vec
1021: p\,)/m)\,\delta_{rr'}\, \delta^3(\vec{p}-\vec{p}^{\,\prime})$. The
1022: hadron matrix elements can be parametrized in terms of six form
1023: factors as
1024: \begin{eqnarray}
1025: \left\langle B', r'\ \vec{p}^{\,\prime}\left|\,\overline \Psi^c(0)\gamma_\mu(I-\gamma_5)\Psi^b(0)
1026: \right| B, r\ \vec{p}
1027: \right\rangle& =& {\bar u}^{B'}_{r'}(\vec{p}^{\,\prime})\Big\{
1028: \gamma_\mu\left(F_1(w)-\gamma_5 G_1(w)\right)+ v_\mu\left(F_2(w)-\gamma_5
1029: G_2(w)\right)\nonumber\\
1030: &&\hspace{1.5cm}+v^\prime_\mu\left(F_3(w)-\gamma_5 G_3(w)
1031: \right)\Big\}u^{B}_r(\vec{p}\,) \label{eq:def_ff}
1032: \end{eqnarray}
1033: %
1034: where $u^{B,B'}$ are dimensionless Dirac spinors, normalized as ${\bar
1035: u} u = 1$, and $v_\mu = p_\mu/m_{B}$ ($v^\prime_\mu =
1036: p^\prime_\mu/m_{B'}$) is the four velocity of the initial $B$ (final
1037: $B'$) baryon. The form factors are functions of the velocity transfer
1038: $w=v\cdot v^\prime$ or equivalently of the four momentum transfer
1039: ($q=p-p'$) square $q^2= m_{B}^2 + m_{B'}^2 - 2m_{B}m_{B'}w$. In the
1040: decay $w$ ranges from $w=1$, corresponding to zero recoil of the final
1041: baryon, to a maximum value given by $w=w_{\rm max}= (m_{B}^2 +
1042: m_{B'}^2)/(2m_{B}m_{B'})$ which depends on the transition.
1043:
1044: Neglecting lepton masses, we have for the differential decay rates
1045: from transversely $(\Gamma_T)$ and longitudinally $(\Gamma_L)$
1046: polarized $W$'s (the total width is
1047: $\Gamma=\Gamma_L+\Gamma_T$)~\cite{Korner:1991ph}
1048: %
1049: \begin{eqnarray}
1050: \frac{{\rm d}\Gamma_T}{{\rm d}w}&=&
1051: \frac{G^2_F |V_{cb}|^2}{12\pi^3}m_{B'}^3\sqrt{w^2-1}\,q^2
1052: \Big\{ (w-1)|F_1(w)
1053: |^2+(w+1)|G_1(w)|^2 \Big\} \nonumber\\
1054: &&\nonumber\\
1055: \frac{{\rm d}\Gamma_L}{{\rm d}w}&=&
1056: \frac{G^2_F |V_{cb}|^2}{24\pi^3}m_{B'}^3\sqrt{w^2-1}
1057: \Big\{(w-1)|{\cal F}^V(w)|^2 + (w+1)|{\cal
1058: F}^A(w)|^2 \Big\} \nonumber\\
1059: &&\nonumber\\
1060: {\cal F}^{V,A}(w) &=& \Big[ (m_{B}\pm m_{B'}) F_1^{V,A}(w) +
1061: (1\pm w)\left(m_{B'} F_2^{V,A}(w)+m_{B}
1062: F_3^{V,A}(w)\right)\Big],\nonumber\\&& \quad F_j^V \equiv F_j(w) , ~ F_j^A \equiv
1063: G_j(w),~ j=1,2,3\nonumber\\
1064: \label{eq:dg}
1065: \end{eqnarray}
1066:
1067: One can also evaluate the polar angle distribution~\cite{Korner:1991ph}:
1068: %
1069: \begin{equation}
1070: \frac{{\rm d}^2\Gamma}{{\rm d}w\,{\rm d}\cos\theta} = \frac38
1071: \left(\frac{{\rm d}\Gamma_T}{{\rm d}w} +
1072: 2\frac{{\rm d}\Gamma_L}{{\rm d}w} \right)\Big\{1+2\alpha^\prime\cos\theta +
1073: \alpha^{\prime\prime} \cos^2\theta \Big\}
1074: \label{eq:asymmetry1}
1075: \end{equation}
1076: %
1077: where $\theta$ is the angle between $\vec{k}^\prime$ and
1078: $\vec{p}^{\,\prime}$ measured in the off--shell $W$ rest frame, and
1079: $\alpha^\prime$ and $\alpha^{\prime\prime}$ are asymmetry parameters
1080: given by
1081: %
1082: \begin{eqnarray}
1083: \alpha^\prime &=& - \frac{G^2_F
1084: |V_{cb}|^2}{6\pi^3}
1085: {m_{B'}^3}\frac{
1086: q^2\,(w^2-1)\,F_1(w)G_1(w)}{{\rm d}\Gamma_T/{{\rm d}w}+
1087: 2\,{\rm d}\Gamma_L/{{\rm d}w}} \nonumber\\%\label{eq:asy1i} \\
1088: &&\nonumber\\
1089: \alpha^{\prime\prime} &=& \frac{{\rm d}\Gamma_T/{{\rm d}w}
1090: - 2\,{\rm d}\Gamma_L/{{\rm d}w}}
1091: {{\rm d}\Gamma_T/{{\rm d}w}+
1092: 2\,{\rm d}\Gamma_L/{{\rm d}w}} %\label{eq:asy1f}
1093: \label{eq:asymmetry2}
1094: \end{eqnarray}
1095: %
1096: These asymmetry parameters are functions of the velocity
1097: transfer $w$ and on averaging over $w$ the numerators and denominators
1098: are integrated separately and thus we have
1099: %
1100: \begin{eqnarray}
1101: \langle \alpha' \rangle &=& - \frac{G^2_F |V_{cb}|^2}{6\pi^3}
1102: \frac{m_{B'}^3}{\Gamma_T}\frac{ \int_1^{w_{\rm max}}
1103: q^2\,(w^2-1)\,F_1(w)G_1(w) {\rm d }w}{1+2R_{L/T}}
1104: ,
1105: \quad \langle \alpha^{\prime\prime} \rangle =
1106: \frac{1-2R_{L/T}
1107: } {1+2R_{L/T}}, \qquad R_{L/T} = \frac{\Gamma_L}{\Gamma_T} \label{eq:rlt}
1108: \label{eq:averageasymmetry}
1109: \end{eqnarray}
1110:
1111: \subsection{Form factors}
1112: \label{subsec:ff}
1113: To obtain the form factors we have to evaluate the matrix elements
1114: \begin{equation}
1115: \left\langle B', r'\ \vec{p}^{\,\prime}\left|\,\overline \Psi^c(0)\gamma_\mu(I-\gamma_5)\Psi^b(0)
1116: \right| B, r\ \vec{p}
1117: \right\rangle
1118: \end{equation}
1119: which in our model are given by
1120: \begin{equation}
1121: \sqrt{\frac{E_{B}(\vec p\,)}{m_{B}}}\ \sqrt{\frac{E_{B'}(\vec
1122: p\,')\,}{m_{B'}}}\
1123: {}_{\stackrel{}{\stackrel{}{NR}}}\left\langle B', r'\ \vec{p}^{\,\prime}\left|\,\overline \Psi^c(0)\gamma_\mu(I-\gamma_5)\Psi^b(0)
1124: \right| B, r\ \vec{p}
1125: \right\rangle_{NR}
1126: \end{equation}
1127: where the suffix ``$NR$'' denotes our nonrelativistic states and the
1128: factors $\sqrt{E/m}$ take into account the different normalization.
1129: We shall work in the initial baryon rest frame so that $\vec p=\vec
1130: 0,\,\vec p\,'=-\vec q$, and take $\vec q$ in the positive $z$
1131: direction. Furthermore we shall use the spectator
1132: approximation. Having all this in mind we have in momentum space
1133: \begin{eqnarray}
1134: &&\hspace {-1.5cm}\sqrt{\frac{E_{B'}(-\vec q\,)}{m_{B'}}}\
1135: {}_{\stackrel{}{\stackrel{}{NR}}}\left\langle B', r'\ -\vec{q}\left|\,\overline \Psi^c(0)\gamma_\mu(I-\gamma_5)\Psi^b(0)
1136: \right| B, r\ \vec{0}
1137: \right\rangle_{NR}\nonumber\\
1138: &&\hspace{1.cm}=2\sqrt{\frac{E_{B'}(-\vec q\,)}{m_{B'}}}\ \sum_{s_1}\sum_{s_2} \left(\frac12\frac12 S_h
1139: \bigg|s_1, s_2-s_1, s_2\right) \left(S_h\frac12\frac12
1140: \bigg|s_2, r-s_2, r\right)\nonumber\\
1141: &&\hspace{3.35cm}\times\left(\frac12\frac12 S'_h
1142: \bigg|r'-r+s_1, s_2-s_1, r'-r+s_2\right) \left(S'_h\frac12\frac12
1143: \bigg|r'-r+s_2, r-s_2, r'\right)\nonumber\\
1144: &&\hspace{3.35cm}\times\int d\,^3q_1\, d\,^3q_2\,
1145: \left(\Phi^{B'}_{c\,h_2}(\vec q_1-\frac{m_{h_2}+m_q}{\overline M\,'}\,\vec q,
1146: \,\vec{q}_2+\frac{m_{h_2}}{\overline M\,'}\,\vec q\,)\right)^*\
1147: \Phi^B_{b\,h_2}(\vec{q}_1,\vec{q}_2)
1148: \nonumber\\
1149: &&\hspace{3.35cm}\times\sqrt{\frac{m_b}{E_b(\vec{q}_1)}}\sqrt{\frac{m_c}
1150: {E_c(\vec{q}_1-\vec q\,)}}\ \bar{u}^c_{r'-r+s_1}(\vec{q}_1-\vec q\,)
1151: \gamma_\mu(I-\gamma_5)\,u^b_{s_1}(\vec{q}_1)
1152: \end{eqnarray}
1153: where $\Phi^B_{b\,h_2}(\vec{q}_1,\vec{q}_2)$
1154: ($\Phi^{B'}_{c\,h_2}(\vec{q}_1,\vec{q}_2)$) is the Fourier transform
1155: of the coordinate space wave function
1156: $\Psi^B_{b\,h_2}(r_1,r_2,r_{12})$
1157: ($\Psi^{B'}_{c\,h_2}(r_1,r_2,r_{12})$) with $\vec q_1,\,\vec q_2$
1158: being the conjugate momenta to the space variables $\vec r_1,\,\vec
1159: r_2$. The factor of two comes from the fact that: i) for $bc-$baryon
1160: decays, the charm quark resulting from the $b\to c$ transition could be
1161: either the particle 1 or the particle 2 in the final $cc$ baryon,
1162: while ii) for $bb-$baryon decays, there exist two equal contributions
1163: resulting for the decay of each of the two bottom quarks of the
1164: initial baryon.
1165:
1166:
1167: The actual calculation is done in coordinate space where we have
1168: \begin{eqnarray}
1169: &&\hspace {-1.5cm}\sqrt{\frac{E_{B'}(-\vec q\,)}{m_{B'}}}\
1170: {}_{\stackrel{}{\stackrel{}{NR}}}\left\langle B', r'\ -\vec{q}\left|\,\overline \Psi^c(0)\gamma_\mu(I-\gamma_5)\Psi^b(0)
1171: \right| B, r\ \vec{0}
1172: \right\rangle_{NR}\nonumber\\
1173: &&\hspace{1.cm}=2\sqrt{\frac{E_{B'}(-\vec q\,)}{m_{B'}}}\ \sum_{s_1}\sum_{s_2} \left(\frac12\frac12 S_h
1174: \bigg|s_1, s_2-s_1, s_2\right) \left(S_h\frac12\frac12
1175: \bigg|s_2, r-s_2, r\right)\nonumber\\
1176: &&\hspace{3.35cm}\times\left(\frac12\frac12 S'_h
1177: \bigg|r'-r+s_1, s_2-s_1, r'-r+s_2\right) \left(S'_h\frac12\frac12
1178: \bigg|r'-r+s_2, r-s_2, r'\right)\nonumber\\
1179: &&\hspace{3.35cm}\times\int d\,^3r_1\, d\,^3r_2\,
1180: \Psi^{B'}_{c\,h_2}(r_1,r_2,r_{12})
1181: \ e^{i\frac{m_{h_2}}{\overline M\,'}\,\vec
1182: q\cdot\vec r_2}\,
1183: e^{-i\frac{m_{h_2}+m_q}{\overline M\,'}\,\vec
1184: q\cdot\vec r_1}
1185: \nonumber\\
1186: &&\hspace{3.35cm}\times\sqrt{\frac{m_b}{E_b(\vec{l}\ )}}\sqrt{\frac{m_c}
1187: {E_c(\vec{l}-\vec q\,)}}\ \bar{u}^c_{r'-r+s_1}(\vec{l}-\vec q\,)
1188: \gamma_\mu(I-\gamma_5)\,u^b_{s_1}(\vec{l}\ )\ \Psi^B_{b\,h_2}(r_1,r_2,r_{12})
1189: \label{eq:coor}
1190: \end{eqnarray}
1191: where $\vec l=-i\stackrel{\rightarrow}{\nabla}_1$ represents an
1192: internal momentum which is much smaller than the heavy quark masses
1193: $m_b,\,m_c$. On the other hand $|\vec q\,|$ can be large\footnote{At
1194: $q^2=0$ one has $|\vec q\,|=(m_B^2-m_{B'}^2) /2m_B$ which is $\approx
1195: m_B/3$ for the transitions under study.}. Thus, to evaluate the above
1196: expression we have made use of an expansion in $\vec l$, introduced in
1197: Ref.~\cite{Albertus:2004wj}, where second order terms in $\vec l$ are
1198: neglected, while all orders in $|\vec q\,|$ are kept. For instance
1199: $E_c(\vec l-\vec q\,)$ is approximated by $E_c(\vec l-\vec q\,)\approx
1200: E_c(\vec q\,)\times (1-\vec l\cdot\vec q\,/E_c^2(\vec q\,))$ with
1201: $E_c(\vec q\,)=\sqrt{m_c^2+\vec q\,^2}$.
1202:
1203: The three vector and three axial form factors can be extracted from the set of
1204: equations\footnote{Remember $\vec q$ is in the $z$ direction. Notice also that,
1205: for $\vec p=\vec 0$, $w$ is just a function of $|\vec q\,|$.}
1206: \begin{eqnarray}
1207: \left\langle B',1/2\ -\vec{q}\left|\,\overline \Psi^c(0)\gamma_1\Psi^b(0)
1208: \right| B, -1/2\ \vec{0}
1209: \right\rangle&=&\sqrt{\frac{E_{B'}(-\vec q\, )+m_{B'}}{2m_{B'}}}
1210: \,\frac{|\vec q\,|}{E_{B'}(-\vec q\, )+m_{B'}}\
1211: F_1(|\vec q\,|)\nonumber\\
1212: \left\langle B', 1/2\ -\vec{q}\left|\,\overline \Psi^c(0)\gamma_3\Psi^b(0)
1213: \right| B, 1/2\ \vec{0}
1214: \right\rangle&=&\sqrt{\frac{E_{B'}(-\vec q\, )+m_{B'}}{2m_{B'}}}\
1215: |\vec q\,|\,\left(
1216: \frac{F_1(|\vec q\,|)}{E_{B'}(-\vec q\, )+m_{B'}}+\frac{F_3(|\vec q\,|)}{m_{B'}}\right)\nonumber\\
1217: \left\langle B', 1/2\ -\vec{q}\left|\,\overline \Psi^c(0)\gamma_0\Psi^b(0)
1218: \right| B, 1/2 \ \vec{0}
1219: \right\rangle&=&\sqrt{\frac{E_{B'}(-\vec q\, )+m_{B'}}{2m_{B'}}}\left(
1220: F_1(|\vec q\,|)+F_2(|\vec q\,|)+\frac{E_{B'}(-\vec q\, )}{m_{B'}}\,F_3(|\vec q\,|)\right)\nonumber\\
1221: \label{eq:f123}
1222: \end{eqnarray}\vspace{.25cm}
1223: %
1224: %
1225: %
1226: for the vector form factors and
1227: \begin{eqnarray}
1228: \left\langle B',1/2\ -\vec{q}\left|\,\overline \Psi^c(0)\gamma_1\gamma_5\Psi^b(0)
1229: \right| B, -1/2\ \vec{0}
1230: \right\rangle&=&\sqrt{\frac{E_{B'}(-\vec q\, )+m_{B'}}{2m_{B'}}}
1231: \ (-G_1(|\vec q\,|))\nonumber\\
1232: \left\langle B', 1/2\ -\vec{q}\left|\,\overline \Psi^c(0)\gamma_3\gamma_5\Psi^b(0)
1233: \right| B, 1/2\ \vec{0}
1234: \right\rangle&=&\sqrt{\frac{E_{B'}(-\vec q\, )+m_{B'}}{2m_{B'}}}\ \
1235: \left(-G_1(|\vec q\,|)+\frac{|\vec q\,|^2\,G_3(|\vec q\,|)}{m_{B'}(E_{B'}(-\vec q\,
1236: )+m_{B'})}\right)\nonumber\\
1237: \left\langle B',1/2\ -\vec{q}\left|\,\overline \Psi^c(0)\gamma_0\gamma_5\Psi^b(0)
1238: \right| B,1/2\ \vec{0}
1239: \right\rangle&=&\sqrt{\frac{E_{B'}(-\vec q\, )+m_{B'}}{2m_{B'}}}\,
1240: \frac{|\vec q\,|}{E_{B'}(-\vec q\, )+m_{B'}}\bigg(
1241: -G_1(|\vec q\,|)+G_2(|\vec q\,|)\nonumber\\
1242: &&\hspace{5.75cm}+\frac{E_{B'}(-\vec q\, )}{m_{B'}}\,G_3(|\vec q\,|)\bigg)\nonumber\\
1243: \label{eq:g123}
1244: \end{eqnarray}
1245: for the axial ones. All the left hand side terms can be evaluated using Eq.(\ref{eq:coor}) with
1246: the approximation mentioned above.
1247:
1248: For each transition there are only two different coordinate space
1249: integrals from which all different matrix elements can be
1250: evaluated. Those integrals are
1251: \begin{eqnarray}
1252: {\cal I}^{B'B}(|\vec q\,|)&=&\int\, d\,^3r_1\, d\,^3r_2\,
1253: e^{i\frac{m_{h_2}}{\overline M\,'}\,\vec
1254: q\cdot\vec r_2}\,
1255: e^{-i\frac{m_{h_2}+m_q}{\overline M\,'}\,\vec
1256: q\cdot\vec r_1}\ \left[\Psi^{B'}_{c\,h_2}(r_1,r_2,r_{12})\right]^*\ \Psi^{B}_{b\,h_2}(r_1,r_2,r_{12}) \nonumber\\
1257: {\cal K}^{B'B}(|\vec q\,|)&=&\frac{1}{|\vec q\,|^2}\int\, d\,^3r_1\, d\,^3r_2\,
1258: e^{i\frac{m_{h_2}}{\overline M\,'}\,\vec
1259: q\cdot\vec r_2}\,
1260: e^{-i\frac{m_{h_2}+m_q}{\overline M\,'}\,\vec
1261: q\cdot\vec r_1}\ \left[\Psi^{B'}_{c\,h_2}(r_1,r_2,r_{12})\right]^*\
1262: \vec l\cdot\vec q\ \Psi^{B}_{b\,h_2}(r_1,r_2,r_{12})
1263: \label{eq:integrales}
1264: \end{eqnarray}
1265: In appendix~\ref{DPapp:fg123} we relate the form factors to the
1266: integrals ${\cal I}^{B'B}(|\vec q\,|)$ and ${\cal K}^{B'B}(|\vec
1267: q\,|)$ for the different $S_h,\,S'_h$ combinations, while in
1268: appendix~\ref{DPapp:integrals} we give the actual expressions we use to
1269: evaluate those integrals.
1270:
1271: \subsubsection{Current conservation}
1272: In the limit $m_b=m_c$ and for $B'=B$ (and thus $S_h=S'_h$) vector
1273: current conservation provides a relation among the vector $F_2$ and
1274: $F_3$ form factors, namely
1275: \begin{equation}
1276: F_2(w)=F_3(w)
1277: \label{eq:cc}
1278: \end{equation}
1279: On the other hand the matrix element of the zeroth component of the
1280: vector current evaluated at $w=1$ just counts the number of heavy
1281: quarks so that we should have
1282: \begin{equation}
1283: F_1(1)+F_2(1)+F_3(1)=2
1284: \label{eq:baryonnumber}
1285: \end{equation}
1286: In this limiting situation the integrals ${\cal I}^{BB}(|\vec q\,|)$
1287: and ${\cal K}^{BB}(|\vec q\,|)$ are related by\footnote{One just has to
1288: integrate by parts in the ${\cal K}^{BB}(|\vec q\,|)$ expression}%
1289: \begin{equation}
1290: {\cal K}^{BB}(|\vec q\,|)=\frac{m_{h_2}+m_q}{2\overline M}\
1291: {\cal I}^{BB}(|\vec q\,|)
1292: \end{equation}
1293: Besides one has that ${\cal I}^{BB}(0)=1$.
1294:
1295: Using now the relations in Eq.(\ref{eq:appf123}) in
1296: appendix~\ref{DPapp:fg123} we see that our model satisfies the
1297: constraint in Eq.(\ref{eq:baryonnumber}) exactly. On the other hand
1298: we violate current conservation . For instance, and again using the
1299: relations in Eq.(\ref{eq:appf123}), we obtain for $w=1$
1300: \begin{equation}
1301: F_2(1)=F_3(1)+2(1-\frac{m_B}{\overline M})
1302: \end{equation}
1303: which shows that current conservation is violated by a term
1304: proportional to the binding energy of the baryon divided by the sum of
1305: the masses of its constituents. Improvements on vector current
1306: conservation would require at minimum the introduction of two--body
1307: currents~\cite{Buchmann:1994bt}, going thus beyond the spectator
1308: approximation, that we have not considered in this analysis. This
1309: deficiency is shared by all previous
1310: calculations~\cite{Ebert:2004ck,Faessler:2001mr,Guo:1998yj,Sanchis-Lozano:1994vh}.
1311:
1312: Note also that, for transitions that do not conserve the spin
1313: of the heavy quark subsystem $S_h$
1314: (i.e. $\Xi'^0_{bc} \to \Xi^+_{cc} l \bar\nu_l)$ we have in the
1315: $m_b=m_c$ limit and at zero reocoil that
1316: \begin{equation}
1317: F_1(1)+F_2(1)+F_3(1)=0
1318: \end{equation}
1319: %
1320: due to the orthogonality of the initial and final baryon wave--functions.
1321:
1322: %
1323: %
1324: %
1325: \subsection{Results}
1326: \label{subsec:results}
1327: \begin{figure}
1328: %\vspace{-3cm}
1329: \resizebox{12cm}{12cm}{\includegraphics{DP_FG1.eps}}
1330: %\vspace{-15cm}
1331: \caption{ Vector $F_1,\,F_2,\,F_3$ and axial $G_1,\,G_2,\,G_3$ form factors
1332: for doubly $\Xi(J=1/2)$ baryons
1333: decays evaluated with the AL1 potential.}
1334: \label{fig:ffxi}
1335: \end{figure}
1336: \begin{figure}
1337: \vspace{-1cm}
1338: \resizebox{12.cm}{12cm}{\includegraphics{DP_FG2.eps}}
1339: %\vspace{-15cm}
1340: \caption{ Same as Fig.~\ref{fig:ffxi} for doubly heavy $\Omega(J=1/2)$ baryons
1341: decays.
1342: }
1343: \label{fig:ffomega}
1344: \end{figure}
1345: In Figs.~\ref{fig:ffxi}, \ref{fig:ffomega} we show the form factors
1346: for the different transitions evaluated with the AL1
1347: potential. Variations when using a different potential are at the
1348: level a few per cent at most. The results for doubly heavy $\Xi$
1349: decays are almost identical to the corresponding ones for doubly heavy
1350: $\Omega$ decays. The fact that we have two heavy quarks and that the
1351: light one acts as a spectator makes the results almost independent of
1352: the light quark mass.
1353:
1354: In Figs.~\ref{fig:dgdwxi}, \ref{fig:dgdwomega} we show now our results
1355: for the differential $d\Gamma_T/dw$, $d\Gamma_L/dw$ and $d\Gamma/dw$
1356: decay widths evaluated with the AL1 and BD potentials. The differences
1357: between the results obtained with the two inter-quark interactions
1358: could reach 30\% for some transitions and for some regions of $w$. As
1359: a consequence of the apparent SU(3) symmetry in the form factors we
1360: also find that the results for doubly heavy $\Xi$ and $\Omega$ decays
1361: are very close to each other. This apparent SU(3) symmetry goes over
1362: to the integrated decay widths and asymmetry parameters.
1363:
1364: \begin{figure}
1365: %\vspace{-3cm}
1366: \resizebox{13.cm}{12.cm}{\includegraphics{DP_Xis.eps}}\vspace{.5cm}\\
1367: %\vspace{-15cm}
1368: \caption{ $d\Gamma/dw$, $d\Gamma_L/dw$ and $d\Gamma_T/dw$ semileptonic
1369: decay widths in units of $|V_{cb}|^2\cdot10^{-11}$\,GeV, for doubly
1370: $\Xi(J=1/2)$ baryons decays. Solid line, long--dashed line and
1371: short--dashed line: $d\Gamma/dw$, $d\Gamma_L/dw$ and $d\Gamma_T/dw$
1372: evaluated with the AL1 potential; dotted line, long--dashed dotted
1373: line and short--dashed dotted line: $d\Gamma/dw$, $d\Gamma_L/dw$ and
1374: $d\Gamma_T/dw$ evaluated with the BD potential.}
1375: \label{fig:dgdwxi}
1376: \end{figure}
1377: \begin{figure}
1378: \vspace{-1cm}
1379: \resizebox{13.cm}{12.cm}{\includegraphics{DP_Oms.eps}}
1380: %\vspace{-15cm}
1381: \caption{ Same as Fig.~\ref{fig:dgdwxi} for doubly heavy
1382: $\Omega(J=1/2)$ baryons decays. }
1383: \label{fig:dgdwomega}
1384: \end{figure}
1385:
1386:
1387:
1388: In Table~\ref{tab:semi} we give our results for the semileptonic decay
1389: width (transverse $\Gamma_T$, longitudinal $\Gamma_L$ and total
1390: $\Gamma$) for the different processes under study. Our central values
1391: have been evaluated using the AL1 potential while the errors show the
1392: variations when changing the interaction. The biggest variations
1393: appear for the BD potential for which one obtains results which are
1394: larger by $7\sim12\%
1395: $. In Table~\ref{tab:gamma} we compare our
1396: results to the ones calculated in different models. For that purpose
1397: we need a value for $|V_{cb}|$ for which we take $|V_{cb}|=0.0413$.
1398: Our results are in reasonable agreement with the ones in
1399: Ref.~\cite{Ebert:2004ck} where they use a relativistic quark model
1400: evaluated in the quark-diquark approximation, and with the
1401: $\Gamma(\Xi_{bc}\to\Xi_{cc})$ value of Ref.~\cite{Sanchis-Lozano:1994vh} obtained
1402: using HQET. The value for the latter width but now evaluated in the
1403: relativistic three--quark model calculation of Ref.~\cite{Faessler:2001mr}
1404: is much smaller than in any other calculation. On the other hand in
1405: Ref.~\cite{Guo:1998yj}, where they use the Bethe--Salpeter equation applied
1406: to a quark-diquark system, they obtain much larger results for all
1407: transitions.
1408: \begin{table}
1409: \begin{tabular}{lccc}
1410: &$\Gamma_T$ & $\Gamma_L$& $\Gamma$ \\ \hline\\
1411: $\Xi_{bb}\to\Xi_{bc}\,l\bar\nu_l$\hspace{1cm} & $0.97^{+0.10}_{-0.02}$ &
1412: $1.28^{+0.19}_{-0.04} $
1413: &$ 2.25^{+0.29}_{-0.06}$\\ \\
1414: %
1415: $\Xi_{bc}\to\Xi_{cc}\,l\bar\nu_l$ & $1.15^{+0.08}_{-0.01}$ &$ 1.86^{+0.}_{-0.02}$
1416: &$ 3.01^{+0.30}_{-0.03} $ \\ \\
1417: %
1418: $\Xi_{bb}\to\Xi_{bc}'\,l\bar\nu_l$ & $0.73^{+0.08}_{-0.02}$ & $0.52^{+0.07}_{-0.01} $
1419: & $1.24 ^{+0.15}_{-0.03}$ \\ \\
1420: %
1421: $\Xi_{bc}'\to\Xi_{cc}\,l\bar\nu_l$ & $0.89^{+0.05}_{-0.02}$ & $0.70^{+0.06}_{-0.01} $
1422: & $1.59^{+0.11}_{-0.03}$ \\ \hline
1423: %
1424: \end{tabular}\hspace{1cm}
1425: \begin{tabular}{lccc}
1426: &$\Gamma_T$ & $\Gamma_L$& $\Gamma$ \\ \hline\\
1427: $\Omega_{bb}\to\Omega_{bc}\,l\bar\nu_l$\hspace{1cm} & $1.06^{+0.07}_{-0.01}$&
1428: $1.45^{+0.16}_{-0.01}$ & $2.51^{+0.23}_{-0.02}$\\ \\
1429: %
1430: $\Omega_{bc}\to\Omega_{cc}\,l\bar\nu_l$ &$ 1.15^{+0.06}$ &$1.88^{+0.17}$
1431: &$3.03^{+0.23}$\\ \\
1432: %
1433: $\Omega_{bb}\to\Omega_{bc}'\,l\bar\nu_l$ & $0.79^{+0.08}$ & $0.57^{+0.07} $
1434: &$1.36^{+0.15}$\\ \\
1435: %
1436: $\Omega_{bc}'\to\Omega_{cc}\,l\bar\nu_l$ & $0.89^{+0.05}$ &
1437: $0.70^{+0.05}$&$1.59^{+0.10} $ \\\hline
1438: \end{tabular}
1439: \caption{Semileptonic decay widths in units of
1440: $|V_{cb}|^2\cdot10^{-11}$\,GeV. $\Gamma_T$ and $\Gamma_L$ stand for the
1441: transverse and longitudinal contributions to the width $\Gamma$.
1442: The central values have been obtained with the AL1 potential.
1443: $l$ stands for a light charged lepton, $l=e,\,\mu$}
1444: \label{tab:semi}
1445: \end{table}
1446: %
1447: %
1448: %
1449: %
1450: \begin{table}
1451: \begin{tabular}{lccccc}
1452: &This work &\cite{Ebert:2004ck}&\cite{Faessler:2001mr}&\cite{Guo:1998yj}&\cite{Sanchis-Lozano:1994vh}\\ \hline\\
1453: $\Gamma(\Xi_{bb}\to\Xi_{bc}\,l\bar\nu_l)$\hspace{1cm} &$ 3.84^{+0.49}_{-0.10}$&
1454: 3.26&&28.5&\\ \\
1455: %
1456: $\Gamma(\Xi_{bc}\to\Xi_{cc}\,l\bar\nu_l)$ &$ 5.13^{+0.51}_{-0.05} $ & 4.59&0.79&8.93&4.0\\ \\
1457: %
1458: $\Gamma(\Xi_{bb}\to\Xi_{bc}'\,l\bar\nu_l)$ & $2.12 ^{+0.26}_{-0.05}$ &1.64&&4.28&\\ \\
1459: %
1460: $\Gamma(\Xi_{bc}'\to\Xi_{cc}\,l\bar\nu_l)$ & $2.71^{+0.19}_{-0.05}$ & 1.76&&7.76&\\ \hline
1461: %
1462: \end{tabular}\hspace{1cm}
1463: \begin{tabular}{lccc}
1464: &This work &\cite{Ebert:2004ck}&\cite{Guo:1998yj}\\ \hline\\
1465: $\Gamma(\Omega_{bb}\to\Omega_{bc}\,l\bar\nu_l)$\hspace{1cm} & $4.28^{+0.39}_{-0.03}$& 3.40&28.8\\ \\
1466: %
1467: $\Gamma(\Omega_{bc}\to\Omega_{cc}\,l\bar\nu_l)$ &$5.17^{+0.39}$&4.95&\\ \\
1468: %
1469: $\Gamma(\Omega_{bb}\to\Omega_{bc}'\,l\bar\nu_l)$ &$2.32^{+0.26}$& 1.66&\\ \\
1470: %
1471: $\Gamma(\Omega_{bc}'\to\Omega_{cc}\,l\bar\nu_l)$ &$2.71^{+0.17} $ &1.90&\\\hline
1472: \end{tabular}
1473: \caption{Semileptonic decay widths in units of $10^{-14}$\,GeV. We have
1474: used a value $|V_{cb}|=0.0413$. $l$ stands for a light charged lepton, $l=e,\,\mu$}
1475: \label{tab:gamma}
1476: \end{table}%
1477: %
1478: %
1479: %
1480: %
1481: %
1482: %
1483: %
1484:
1485: In Table~\ref{tab:asimetrias} we compile our results for the average
1486: angular asymmetries $\alpha'$ and $\alpha''$, as well as the $R_{L/T}$
1487: ratio, introduced in Eq.(\ref{eq:averageasymmetry}). The central
1488: values have been obtained with the AL1 potential. Being all quantities
1489: ratios the variation when changing the inter-quark interaction are in
1490: most cases small.
1491: \begin{table}
1492: \begin{tabular}{lccc}
1493: & $\left<\alpha'\right>$ &
1494: $\left<\alpha''\right>$ &$R_{L/T}$\\ \hline \\
1495: %%%%%%%%%%%%
1496: $\Xi_{bb}\to\Xi_{bc}\,l\bar\nu_l$\hspace{1cm} &$-0.13^{+0.01}$&$-0.45_{-0.02}$&
1497: $1.33^{+0.06}_{-0.01}$ \\\\
1498:
1499: $\Xi_{bc}\to\Xi_{cc}\,l\bar\nu_l$ &$-0.12^{+0.01}$&$-0.53_{-0.01}$&
1500: $1.62^{+0.07}$ \\\\
1501:
1502: $\Xi_{bb}\to\Xi_{bc}'\,l\bar\nu_l$ & $-0.19$ & $-0.17_{-0.01}$ &
1503: $0.71^{+0.01}_{-0.01}$ \\ \\
1504:
1505:
1506: $\Xi_{bc}'\to\Xi_{cc}\,l\bar\nu_l$ & $-0.19$ & $-0.23_{-0.01}$ &
1507: $0.79^{+0.02}$ \\ \hline
1508: \end{tabular}\hspace{1cm}
1509: %------------------------------------------------------------------
1510: \begin{tabular}{lccc}
1511: & $\left<\alpha'\right>$ &
1512: $\left<\alpha''\right>$ &$R_{L/T}$\\ \hline \\
1513: %%%%%%%%%%%%
1514: $\Omega_{bb}\to\Omega_{bc}\,l\bar\nu_l$ \hspace{1cm}
1515: &$ -0.13^{+0.01}$ & $-0.47_{-0.01}$&$1.37^{+0.06}$ \\ \\
1516: %
1517:
1518: %
1519: %-----------------------------------------------------------------
1520: $\Omega_{bc}\to\Omega_{cc}\,l\bar\nu_l$
1521: & $-0.12^{+0.01}$ &$-0.53_{-0.01}$ &$1.63^{+0.06}$
1522: \\ \\
1523:
1524: %-----------------------------------------------------------------
1525: $\Omega_{bb}\to\Omega_{bc}'\,l\bar\nu_l$
1526: & $-0.19_{-0.01}$ & $-0.18_{-0.01}$&$0.72^{+0.02}$
1527: \\ \\
1528: %
1529:
1530: %------------------------------------------------------------------
1531: $\Omega_{bc}'\to\Omega_{cc}\,l\bar\nu_l$
1532: & $-0.19$ & $-0.23_{-0.01}$ & $0.79^{+0.02}$\\\hline
1533: %
1534:
1535: \end{tabular}
1536: \caption{Averaged values of the asymmetry parameters $\alpha'$ and $\alpha''$
1537: evaluated as indicated in
1538: Eq.(\ref{eq:averageasymmetry}). We also show the ratio $R_{L/T}=\Gamma_L/\Gamma_T$.
1539: The central values have been obtained with the AL1 potential.
1540: $l$ stands for a light charged lepton, $l=e,\,\mu$}
1541: \label{tab:asimetrias}
1542: \end{table}
1543:
1544:
1545:
1546: \section{Summary}
1547: \label{sec:summary}
1548:
1549: We have evaluated static properties and semileptonic decays for the
1550: ground state of doubly heavy $\Xi$ and $\Omega$ baryons. The
1551: calculations have been done in the framework of a nonrelativistic
1552: quark model with the use of five different inter-quark
1553: interactions. The use of different quark-quark potentials allows us to
1554: obtain an estimation of the theoretical uncertainties. In order to
1555: build our wave functions we have made use of the constraints imposed
1556: by the infinite heavy quark mass limit. In this limit the spin--spin
1557: interactions vanish and the total spin of the two heavy quarks is well
1558: defined. With this approximation we have used a simple variational
1559: approach, with Jastrow type orbital wave functions, to solve the
1560: involved three-body problem.
1561:
1562: Among the static properties, our results for the masses are in very
1563: good agreement with previous results obtained with the same
1564: inter-quark interactions but within a more complicated Faddeev
1565: approach~\cite{Silvestre-Brac:1996bg}. In some cases we even get lower, and thus
1566: better, masses. We have calculated mass densities and charge
1567: densities (charge form factors) finding that the corresponding mean
1568: square radii are again in good agreement with the Faddeev calculation
1569: of Ref.~\cite{Silvestre-Brac:1996bg}. We have also evaluated magnetic moments. Being
1570: the total orbital angular momentum of the baryon $L=0$, the magnetic
1571: moments come from the spin contributions alone. With the exception
1572: of $\Xi_{bc}^0$, $\Xi_{bc}^+$ and $\Omega_{bc}^0$ we agree perfectly
1573: with the Faddeev calculation in Ref.~\cite{Silvestre-Brac:1996bg}. For the magnetic
1574: moments of $\Xi_{bc}^0$, $\Xi_{bc}^+$ and $\Omega_{bc}^0$ the
1575: discrepancies between the two calculation are very large. The origin
1576: might be attributed to the presence of a non--negligible $S_h=0$ component in
1577: the wave functions of Ref.~\cite{Silvestre-Brac:1996bg}. In our case we have $S_h=1$
1578: which we think is a good approximation based on the infinite heavy
1579: quark mass limit. This assertion seems to be corroborated by the
1580: results obtained in the relativistic calculation of
1581: Ref.~\cite{Faessler:2006ft}, at least for the $\Xi_{bc}^0$ and
1582: $\Omega_{bc}^0$ cases.
1583:
1584: We have used our simple wave functions to study the semileptonic decay
1585: of doubly $\Xi(J=1/2)$ and $\Omega(J=1/2)$ baryons. We have worked in
1586: the spectator approximation with one--body currents alone. In the
1587: $m_b=m_c$ case and for $B=B'$ baryons we have checked that our model
1588: satisfies baryon number conservation. On the other hand we have a
1589: small vector current violation by an amount given by the binding
1590: energy over the mass of the baryon. With this model we have evaluated
1591: form factors, asymmetry parameters, differential decay widths and
1592: total decay widths. Our results for the latter are in reasonable
1593: agreement with the ones obtained in Ref.~\cite{Ebert:2004ck} using a
1594: relativistic quark model in the quark--diquark approximation, while
1595: they are much smaller than the ones obtained in Ref.~\cite{Guo:1998yj} by
1596: means of the Bethe--Salpeter equation applied to a quark-diquark
1597: system.
1598:
1599: For the weak form factors the results exhibit an apparent SU(3)
1600: symmetry when going from $\Xi$ to $\Omega$ baryons. This is due to the
1601: fact that we have two heavy quarks and the light one acts as a
1602: spectator in the weak transition. This apparent symmetry appears also
1603: in the decay widths and asymmetry parameters. On the other hand SU(3)
1604: violating effects are clearly visible in some static quantities like
1605: the charge form factors and radii, the light quark mass densities ,
1606: and the magnetic moments, that depend strongly on the light quark
1607: charge and/or mass. \\
1608: