1: %\documentclass[aps,preprint,showpacs,prl]{revtex4}
2: %\documentclass[aps,showpacs,prl,twocolumn]{revtex4}
3: \documentclass[aps,showpacs,prl]{revtex4}
4: \usepackage{graphicx,float}
5:
6:
7: \begin{document}
8: %\input psfig
9:
10: \preprint{}
11:
12: %\begin{flushright}
13: %DOE/ER/40762-277\\
14: %UMPP\#03-042
15: %\end{flushright}
16:
17: \count255=\time\divide\count255 by 60
18: \xdef\hourmin{\number\count255}
19: \multiply\count255 by-60\advance\count255 by\time
20: \xdef\hourmin{\hourmin:\ifnum\count255<10 0\fi\the\count255}
21:
22: \newcommand{\xbf}[1]{\mbox{\boldmath $ #1 $}}
23:
24: \title{New near-threshold mesons}
25:
26:
27: \author{Thomas D. Cohen}
28: \affiliation{Department of Physics, University of Maryland,
29: College Park, MD 20742-4111, USA}
30: \author{Boris A. Gelman}
31: \affiliation{Department of Physics,
32: University of Arizona, Tucson, AZ 85721, USA}
33:
34: \author{Shmuel Nussinov}
35: \affiliation{School of Physics and Astronomy,
36: Tel Sackler Faculty of Exact Sciences, Tel Aviv University,
37: Tel Aviv, Israel \\ and \\
38: Department of Physics and Astronomy, University of South Carolina,
39: SC 29208, USA}
40:
41: %\author{Thomas D. Cohen$^{*}$, Boris A. Gelman$^{**}$
42: %and Shmuel Nussinov$^{***}$}
43: %\affiliation{$^{*}$ Department of Physics, University of Maryland,
44: %College Park, MD 20742-4111, USA \\
45: %$^{*}$ Department of Physics and Astronomy, University of Arizona, Tucson,
46: %AZ 85721, USA \\
47: %$^{***}$ Tel Sackler Faculty of Exact Sciences, Tel Aviv University, Tel Aviv,
48: %Israel and \\
49: %Department of Physics and Astronomy, University of South Carolina,
50: %SC 29208, USA}
51:
52: \date{September 2003}
53:
54:
55:
56:
57: \def\D{D^{*}_{sJ} (2317)}
58: \def\r{\rangle}
59: \def\th{\Theta(+)}
60: \def\aa{a_{0}(980)}
61: \def\ff{f_{0}(980)}
62: \def\a{a_{0}}
63: \def\f{f_{0}}
64: \def\e{\epsilon}
65: \def\P{{\cal P}_i}
66: \def\Ha{{\cal H}_a}
67: \def\Hb{{\cal H}_b}
68:
69:
70:
71: \begin{abstract}
72:
73: We show that under a number of rather plausible assumptions QCD spectrum
74: may contain a number of mesons which have not been predicted or
75: observed. Such states will have the quantum numbers of two
76: existing mesons and masses very close to the
77: dissociation threshold into the two mesons. Moreover, at least
78: one of the two mesonic constituents itself must be very close to its
79: dissociation threshold. In particular, one might expect the existence of
80: loosely bound systems of $D$ and $\D$; similarly, $K$ and $\ff$, $\bar{K}$ and
81: $\ff$, $K$ and $\aa$ and $\bar{K}$ and $\aa$ can be bound.
82: The mechanism for binding in these
83: cases is the S-wave kaon exchange. The nearness of one of the
84: constituents to its decay threshold into a kaon plus a remainder,
85: implies that the range of the kaon exchange force becomes
86: abnormally long---significantly longer than $1/m_K$ which
87: greatly aids the binding.
88:
89:
90:
91:
92: \end{abstract}
93:
94: \pacs{12.38.Aw, 12.40.Yx, 14.80.-j, 21.30.Fe, 21.45.+v}
95:
96: %12.38.-t Quantum chromodynamics
97: %12.38.Aw General properties of QCD (dynamics, confinement, etc.)
98: %12.38.Lg Other nonperturbative calculations
99: %12.39.-x Phenomenological quark models
100: %12.39.Jh Nonrelativistic quark model
101: %12.40.Yx Hadron mass models and calculations
102: %14.80.-j Other particles (including hypothetical)
103: %14.40.Ev Other strange mesons
104: %21.30.Fe Forces in hadronic systems and effective interactions
105: %21.45.+v Few-body systems
106:
107: %11.15.Pg Expansions for large numbers of components (e.g., 1/Nc expansions)
108: %12.39.-x Phenomenological quark models
109: %13.75.Gx Pion-baryon interactions
110: %14.20.Gk Baryon resonances with S=0
111: %25.40.Cm Elastic proton scattering
112: %25.40.Dn Elastic neutron scattering
113: %25.60.Bx Elastic scattering
114: %13.88.+e Polarization in interactions and scattering
115:
116: \maketitle
117:
118: \section{Introduction}
119:
120: The particle data book abounds with hadronic resonances \cite{PDG}. However,
121: there are comparatively few states which are very close to the
122: threshold for decay into other mesons. Recently a new near-threshold
123: state---the narrow $\D$ ($I=0$ and possibly $J^P=0^+$) at about $40\, MeV$
124: below $KD$ threshold---was found at BABAR \cite{BB}, CLEO \cite{CL} and
125: Belle \cite{BL}.
126:
127: Note, that the $\D$ state can be interpreted in a number of ways: (a) as the
128: missing triplet S-wave
129: $(J^P=0^+)$ $|c\bar{s} \rangle$ ``quarkonium state''; (b) as a
130: ``single bag'' $\left (|c\,\bar{s}\,u\,\bar{u}\rangle +
131: |c\,\bar{s}\,d\,\bar{d}\rangle \right ) /\sqrt{2}$ isosinglet
132: state; or (c) as an isosinglet ``molecular'' bound state $\left
133: (|K^+\, D^0\r + |K^0\, D^+ \r \right )/\sqrt{2}$ of two separate
134: hadrons. The two hadrons in the last case can be bound---just
135: like the deuteron---by an attractive potential due to the
136: t-channel exchange of various light mesons. The Lagrangian has
137: ``off-diagonal'' terms such as $q\,\bar{q}$ pair creation and
138: annihilation and/or ``bag'' fissioning and rejoining
139: interconnecting states of type (a) and (b), and (b) and (c)
140: respectively. As a result we expect that $\D$ is a superposition
141: of all three states in (a), (b) and (c). The question is then
142: which one dominates the state $|\D \r$.
143:
144: Regardless of how one chooses to interpret the state there is one
145: key fact about this state which will play a major role in what
146: follows: the state is extremely close to the $KD$ threshold.
147: This situation parallels a case of the pseudoscalar isosinglet
148: and isotriplet mesons---$\ff$ and $\aa$---which are very close to
149: the $K\bar{K}$ threshold. These states can correspond to any
150: one of the three cases above provided the quark pair $c\bar{s}$ is
151: replaced by $s\bar{s}$ \cite{RJ}.
152:
153: In Ref.~\cite{SN} one of us argued in favor of interpretations (b)
154: and (c). The argument in \cite{SN} was based on the fact that the
155: mass difference of approximately $20 \, MeV$ between $\D$ and the
156: state $D^{*}_{0}$ $(J^P=0^+)$ with a mass of about $2300\, MeV$
157: (BELLE \cite{Dq}) is significantly smaller than an approximate
158: $100\, MeV$ split between any two ``strangeness analogue''
159: $X_{\bar{s}}-X_{\bar{q}} \ (q=u, \, d$) mesonic or baryonic state
160: \cite{NS}. Likewise, the isotriplet ($P$-wave) $s\bar{s}$
161: state is $40\, MeV$ lighter than the isotriplet $S$-wave $\phi
162: (1020)$ rather than being more than $350 \, MeV$ heavier, as is
163: the case for all other nonets. This is an argument against the
164: ``minimal'' interpretation of $\ff$ and $\aa$ states as $s\bar{s}$ pairs.
165: To the extent that $\ff$, $\aa$ and $\D$ are indeed of
166: type (b) or (c) then the following prediction can be made. A ``QCD
167: inequality'' \cite{NL} implies yet another pseudoscalar $c
168: \bar{c}$ state approximately $100\, MeV$ below the threshold
169: \cite{SN}. This state can be discovered via the $\eta \eta_c$
170: decay mode in BABAR and Belle. Ordinary $c \bar{c}$ states are
171: accounted for and such a state would have to be interpreted as
172: being exotic.
173:
174: Of course, one can take a far more agnostic position as far as
175: the interpretation of the $\D$ or the $\ff$ and $\aa$. Since
176: the three interpretations were expressed in terms of model
177: concepts rather than QCD degrees of freedom, one can argue that
178: even in principle there is no way to distinguish between them.
179: However one chooses to interpret these states, we can rely on the
180: fact that they have $J^P=0^+$ and are only very slightly below the
181: corresponding break-up thresholds: $40 - 50 \, MeV$ below $KD$ and
182: $10 - 20 \, MeV$ below $K\bar{K}$ thresholds respectively. This fact
183: greatly facilitates
184: the possibility that these mesons will be bound weakly
185: into ``molecular''-like states: $|D \D \r$ and $|K \f\r$, $|K\a \r$,
186: $|\bar{K}\f \r$, $|\bar{K}\a \r$. While any of these
187: states would be interesting to observe, the $|\D \, D\r$ is of
188: particular interest owing to the fact that by quantum numbers
189: alone ($S=1, \, C=2$) it is manifestly exotic.
190:
191:
192: \begin{figure}[ht]
193: \begin{minipage}[t]{0.31\columnwidth}
194: \centering
195: \includegraphics[height=5cm]{fig1.eps}
196: \caption{$|K \f \r \ \left (|\bar{K} \f \r \right )$
197: bound state:\\ $t$-channel $K$ exchange.}
198: \label{fig1}
199: \end{minipage}
200: \hfill
201: \begin{minipage}[t]{0.31\columnwidth}
202: \centering
203: \includegraphics[height=5cm]{fig2.eps}
204: \caption{$|K \a \r \left ( |\bar{K} \a \r \right )$
205: bound state:\\ $t$-channel $K$ exchange.}
206: \label{fig2}
207: \end{minipage}
208: \hfill
209: \begin{minipage}[t]{0.31\columnwidth}
210: \centering
211: \includegraphics[height=5cm]{fig3.eps}
212: \caption{$|D \D \r$ bound state: $t$-channel $K$ exchange.}
213: \label{fig3}
214: \end{minipage}
215: \hfill
216: \end{figure}
217:
218: \section{The binding mechanism}
219:
220: The key to our analysis is the following fact. If there exists a
221: meson $\Ha$ quite near to the break-up threshold into a $K$ plus
222: another meson, $\Hb$, then there will be an unnaturally
223: long-ranged force between mesons $\Ha$ and $\Hb$ due to $K$
224: exchange. Now suppose the $K$-exchange force leads to an
225: attractive $S$-wave interaction. This in turn will lead to tendency
226: toward binding. Of course, if the state formed is deeply bound,
227: then the fact the interaction is comparatively long ranged plays
228: no important role. Indeed, if the state is deeply bound, the
229: $K$-exchange mechanism clearly does not dominate and one would
230: need to understand the physics at the quark level. However, if the
231: state formed is relatively loosely bound, the unnaturally
232: long-ranged character of the potential becomes essential to the
233: binding. As we show below, for a large range of parameters, this
234: is precisely what occurs: the $K$-exchange is strong enough to
235: bind the two mesons together but is weak enough so that the
236: resulting bound state is dominated by ranges where the
237: $K$-exchange is expected to be important. Note, that if we are in
238: such a weakly bound region, it is legitimate to use a
239: nonrelativistic Schr\"odinger equation to describe the dynamics.
240:
241: We begin the analysis by deriving the interaction due to the $K$-exchange.
242: Consider two ``heavy'' mesons ${\cal H}_a$ and ${\cal
243: H}_b$ ($\Ha = \f$ ($\a$)--case (1)---or $\D$---case (2); $\Hb =
244: K$ ($\bar{K}$)---case (1)---or $D$---case (2)) of the same spin and opposite
245: parity. The mesons
246: need only be heavy in the sense that their masses are much larger
247: than the ultimate binding energy between them. In this regime,
248: the binding potential, $V(r)$ ($r=|r_a-r_b|$), can be obtained from a
249: one-kaon exchange amplitude shown in the Feynman diagrams of
250: Figures~\ref{fig1}, \ref{fig2}, \ref{fig3}. They can be evaluated in the
251: limit in which
252: the recoil energies of the mesons ${\cal H}_a$ and ${\cal H}_b$
253: are neglected (such a limit is justified near the ${\cal H}_a \,
254: {\cal H}_b$ threshold). In this limit the energy transfer carried by an
255: off-shell $K$ meson is $\epsilon =
256: m_b+m_K-m_a$, where $m_a,\, m_b ,\, m_K$ are the masses of
257: ${\cal H}_a$, ${\cal H}_b$ and $K$ mesons respectively.
258: In the cases of interest here this
259: energy is $\epsilon \lesssim 50 \, MeV$, {\it i.e.} much smaller than
260: the mass of $K$ meson. The $\epsilon$ can be viewed
261: as the binding energy of $K$ and $\Hb$ into $\Ha$.
262:
263: Keeping the leading term in $1/m_K$ expansion of the
264: kaon propagator and taking the Fourier transform of the amplitude
265: one obtains an attractive Yukawa-like potential:
266: \begin{equation}
267: V(r)=-\,{{\rm g}^{2}_{i} \over 16 \pi \, m_a\, m_b} \,\,
268: {{\rm exp}\left [-r\, \sqrt{2m_K \ \e_i} \right]\over r} =
269: \alpha_i \,\, {{\rm exp}\left [-\kappa_i \, r\right]\over r}\, ,
270: \label{V}
271: \end{equation}
272: where ${\rm g}_i$
273: (${\rm g}_1 = {\rm g}_{K\bar{K}\f(\a)}$,
274: ${\rm g}_2 = {\rm g}_{KD\D}$)
275: is (the mass dimension two) coupling constant of the $S$-wave
276: Yukawa coupling $K\Ha\Hb$. The factor
277: $4 \ m_a \ m_b$ in the denominator in Eq.~(\ref{V}) comes from the
278: non-relativistic normalization of the scalar wave functions of
279: ${\cal H}_a$ and ${\cal H}_b$. Consequently, the coupling
280: constant $\alpha_i =-\,{\rm g}^{2}_{i} /\left ( 16 \pi \, m_a\, m_b \right)$
281: is dimensionless.
282:
283: The potential in Eq.~(\ref{V}) can be interpreted as the
284: (asymptomatic) profile function of the field strength of the
285: virtual $K$ inside the $H_a$ bound state (up to the coupling
286: constants). It has the form of an outgoing spherical wave with a
287: purely imaginary momentum $k_i=i\, \kappa_i$ with $\kappa_i$
288: equal to $\sqrt{2\, m_K \, \e_i}$. Note that the $\kappa_i$ in
289: Eq.~(\ref{V}) replaces $m_K$ in the standard Yukawa-like potential
290: yielding much longer range potentials. This effect is huge for
291: possible $DD^{*}$ loosely state considered by
292: T$\ddot{\rm{o}}$rnqvist \cite{TO}. As in our case, $\e=m_D
293: +m_{\pi}-m_{D^*}$ is tiny. However, in that case, the interaction is
294: in $P$-wave with a derivative $\pi D D^{*}$ coupling. As a result,
295: the increase in
296: the range in this case is essentially compensated by the corresponding
297: decrease in the strength of the coupling. This is not the case
298: for the $S$-wave momentum independent couplings relevant in our
299: case.
300:
301: \section{Estimated binding energies}
302:
303: The central result of this paper is that for a wide range of
304: ``reasonable'' interactions between $\Ha$ and $\Hb$ binding results.
305:
306: In the two cases considered here---(1) $|K\f \r$, $|K\a \r$, $|\bar{K}\f \r$,
307: $|\bar{K}\a \r$ and
308: (2) $|D\D \r$---the values of $\kappa_i$ are:
309: \begin{equation}
310: 100 \, \lesssim \kappa_1 \lesssim 140 \,\, MeV \,, \,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,
311: 200 \, \lesssim \kappa_2 \lesssim 220 \,\, MeV \,.
312: \label{kappa12}
313: \end{equation}
314: The variation in Eq.~(\ref{kappa12}) is due to the
315: differences in binding energies for various $D$ and $K$ charge sates.
316:
317: The binding energies of the $|\Ha \Hb \r$ ``molecules'' can now be determined
318: from the Schr\"odinger
319: equation with a potential given in Eq.~(\ref{V}) and reduced masses
320: $\mu_1 = 2 \ m_K/3 \approx 330 \, MeV$ (case (1)) and
321: $\mu_2 \approx 1030 \, MeV$ (case (2)).
322: The binding energies and the typical sizes of the ground state wave functions
323: (given by $\sqrt{<r^2>}$) for a number of couplings $\alpha_i$ and values
324: of $\kappa_i$ (Eq.~(\ref{kappa12})) are shown in
325: Tables~\ref{tabl1}, \ref{tabl2},\ref{tabl3} (case (1)) and
326: Tables~\ref{tabl4}, \ref{tabl5},\ref{tabl6} (case (2)) \cite{LS}.
327:
328: In Ref.~\cite{CI} the value of the coupling constant
329: ${\rm g}^{2}_{K\bar{K}\f}/(4\pi)$ was determined to be $0.6 \ GeV^2$.
330: The corresponding dimensionless coupling is
331: $\alpha_{K\bar{K}\f}=-\ {\rm g}^{2}_{K\bar{K}\f}/(16\pi \ m^{2}_{K}) \approx
332: -\ 0.6$. We also assume that the same value is
333: applicable in the case of $K\a$ and $D\D $ systems.
334:
335: \begin{table}[ht]
336: \begin{minipage}[t]{0.48\columnwidth}
337: %\begin{center}
338: \begin{tabular}{|c|c|c|}
339: \hline
340: $\alpha$ & ${\rm E_{B},}\,\, MeV$ & $\sqrt{<r^2>},\,\, fm$ \\
341: \hline $-0.4$ & $-2.9 $ & $36.1$ \\
342: \hline $-0.6$ & $-17.3$ & $17.1$ \\
343: \hline $-0.8$ & $-44.4$ & $11.8$ \\
344: \hline
345: \end{tabular}
346: %\end{center}
347: \caption{$|K \ \f \r$ ($|K \ \a \r$): the binding energies and
348: the size of the ground sate wave function for the potential in
349: Eq.~(\ref{V}) with $\kappa=100 \ MeV$.} \label{tabl1}
350: \end{minipage}
351: \hfill
352: \begin{minipage}[t]{0.48\columnwidth}
353: %\begin{center}
354: \begin{tabular}{|c|c|c|}
355: \hline
356: $\alpha$ & ${\rm E_B},\,\, MeV$ & $\sqrt{<r^2>},\, \, fm$ \\
357: \hline $-0.4$ & $-0.3 $ & $125 $ \\
358: \hline $-0.6$ & $-8.3 $ & $26.7$ \\
359: \hline $-0.8$ & $-28.4$ & $15.2$ \\
360: \hline
361: \end{tabular}
362: %\end{center}
363: \caption{$|K \ \f \r$ ($|K \ \a \r$): the binding energies and
364: the size of the ground sate wave function for the potential in
365: Eq.~(\ref{V}) with $\kappa=140 \ MeV$.} \label{tabl2}
366: \end{minipage}
367: \end{table}
368:
369: \begin{table}[ht]
370: \begin{minipage}[t]{0.48\columnwidth}
371: %\begin{center}
372: \begin{tabular}{|c|c|c|}
373: \hline
374: $\alpha$ & ${\rm E_B},\,\, MeV$ & $\sqrt{<r^2>},\, \, fm$ \\
375: \hline $-0.2$ & $-0.6 $ & $41.1$ \\
376: \hline $-0.4$ & $-25.5$ & $8.9 $ \\
377: \hline $-0.6$ & $-90.0$ & $5.0 $ \\
378: \hline
379: \end{tabular}
380: %\end{center}
381: \caption{$|D \ \D \r$: the binding energies and the size of the
382: ground sate wave function for the potential in Eq.~(\ref{V}) with
383: $\kappa=200 \ MeV$.} \label{tabl3}
384: \end{minipage}
385: \hfill
386: \begin{minipage}[t]{0.48\columnwidth}
387: %\begin{center}
388: \begin{tabular}{|c|c|c|c|}
389: \hline
390: $\alpha$ & ${\rm E_B},\,\, MeV$ & $\sqrt{<r^2>},\,\, fm$ \\
391: \hline $-0.2$ & $-0.2 $ & $72.1$ \\
392: \hline $-0.4$ & $-22.0$ & $8.8 $ \\
393: \hline $-0.6$ & $-82.8$ & $5.3 $ \\
394: \hline
395: \end{tabular}
396: %\end{center}
397: \caption{$|D \ \D \r$: the binding energies and the size of the
398: ground sate wave function for the potential in Eq.~(\ref{V}) with
399: $\kappa=220 \ MeV$.} \label{tabl4}
400: \end{minipage}
401: \end{table}
402:
403:
404: For this value of the coupling constant the binding energy of $|K\f \r$,
405: $|K\a\r$, $|\bar{K}\f \r$, $|\bar{K}\a\r$ systems ranges from about $8$ to
406: $20 \ MeV$ (for various values of $\kappa$), Tables~\ref{tabl1},
407: \ref{tabl2}. In the case of $|D\D \r$
408: the binding energy is about $80 - 90 \ MeV$,
409: Tables~\ref{tabl3}, \ref{tabl4}.
410:
411: The potential given in Eq.~(\ref{V}) treats
412: $\f$ ($\a$), $K$, $D$ and $\D$ as though they were point-like
413: particles. The spatial
414: extent of the $K$ and $D$ mesons are approximately $0.4$ and $0.3
415: \ fm$. The $\f$($\a$) and $\D$ mesons are presumably even larger
416: (particularly if the interpretations (b) and (c) discussed in the Introduction
417: are correct).
418: Hence, the Yukawa potential in Eq.~(\ref{V}) cannot apply at
419: distances shorter than perhaps $0.5 \, fm$.
420: The large width (short lifetimes), $\Gamma_{\f/\a}= 50 \, - \,
421: 100 \ MeV$ and $\tau \sim (1.3 \, - \,0.7)\times 10^{-23} \ sec$,
422: makes observations of such states difficult. Roughly speaking,
423: since $\tau < T$, with $T$ being the time for completing one period in
424: the bound state, $T \sim 2 \, m_{\f}\,\ m_K /\kappa$, the $\f$ and
425: $\a$ decay before ``realizing'' that they are bound. The size of $\f$ ($\a$)
426: is of order of $1-2 \ fm$ and its velocity in traversing
427: the orbit is approximately $200\, MeV/500 \, MeV \approx 0.4$, so
428: that $T > (2.5\, - \,5) \times 10^{-23}$ seconds.
429:
430: \begin{table}[ht]
431: \begin{minipage}[t]{0.48\columnwidth}
432: %\begin{center}
433: \begin{tabular}{|c|c|c|}
434: \hline
435: $\alpha$ & ${\rm E_B},\,\, MeV$ & $\sqrt{<r^2>},\, \, fm$ \\
436: \hline $-0.4$ & $-8.71$ & $13.7$ \\
437: \hline $-0.6$ & $-27.9$ & $8.5 $ \\
438: \hline $-0.8$ & $-53.3$ & $6.4 $ \\
439: \hline
440: \end{tabular}
441: %\end{center}
442: \caption{$|D \ \D \r$: the binding energies and the size of the
443: ground sate wave function for the potential in Eq.~(\ref{V}) for
444: $r>R$ and $V(r)=V(R)$ for $r<R$; $\kappa = 200 \ MeV,\ R=0.5 \
445: {\rm fm}$.} \label{tabl5}
446: \end{minipage}
447: \hfill
448: \begin{minipage}[t]{0.48\columnwidth}
449: %\begin{center}
450: \begin{tabular}{|c|c|c|c|}
451: \hline
452: $\alpha$ & ${\rm E_B},\,\, MeV$ & $\sqrt{<r^2>},\,\, fm$ \\
453: \hline $-0.4$ & $-6.5 $ & $17.6$ \\
454: \hline $-0.6$ & $-23.3$ & $8.9 $ \\
455: \hline $-0.8$ & $-46.3$ & $7.0 $ \\
456: \hline
457: \end{tabular}
458: %\end{center}
459: \caption{$|D \ \D \r$: the binding energies and the size of the
460: ground sate wave function for the potential in Eq.~(\ref{V}) for
461: $r>R$ and $V(r)=V(R)$ for $r<R$; $\kappa = 220 \ MeV,\ R=0.5 \
462: {\rm fm}$.} \label{tabl6}
463: \end{minipage}
464: \end{table}
465:
466: \begin{table}[ht]
467: \begin{minipage}[t]{0.48\columnwidth}
468: %\begin{center}
469: \begin{tabular}{|c|c|c|}
470: \hline
471: $\alpha$ & ${\rm E_B},\,\,MeV$ & $\sqrt{<r^2>},\,\, fm$ \\
472: \hline $-0.4$ & $-14.8$ & $10.5$ \\
473: \hline $-0.6$ & $-46.9$ & $6.5 $ \\
474: \hline $-0.8$ & $-91.0$ & $5.4 $ \\
475: \hline
476: \end{tabular}
477: %\end{center}
478: \caption{$|D \ \D \r$: the binding energies and the size of the
479: ground sate wave function for the potential in Eq.~(\ref{V}) for
480: $r>R$ and $V(r)=V(R)$ for $r<R$; $\kappa = 200 \ MeV,\ R=0.3 \
481: {\rm fm}$.} \label{tabl7}
482: \end{minipage}
483: \hfill
484: \begin{minipage}[t]{0.48\columnwidth}
485: %\begin{center}
486: \begin{tabular}{|c|c|c|}
487: \hline
488: $\alpha$ & ${\rm E_B},\,\, MeV$ & $\sqrt{<r^2>},\,\, fm$ \\
489: \hline $-0.4$ & $-4.9 $ & $17.5$ \\
490: \hline $-0.6$ & $-16.7$ & $10.2$ \\
491: \hline $-0.8$ & $-32.3$ & $7.9 $ \\
492: \hline
493: \end{tabular}
494: %\end{center}
495: \caption{$|D \ \D \r$: the binding energies and the size of the
496: ground sate wave function for the potential in Eq.~(\ref{V}) for
497: $r>R$ and $V(r)=V(R)$ for $r<R$; $\kappa = 200 \ MeV,\ R=0.7 \
498: {\rm fm}$.} \label{tabl8}
499: \end{minipage}
500: \end{table}
501:
502: In the case of the $|D\D \r$ ``molecule'' the spatial extent of
503: the stable $D$ and a very long lived $\D$ \cite{FN} can be
504: expected to reduce the binding energies. In this case the range
505: of the Yukawa potential, Eq.~(\ref{V}), is approximately $1 \ fm$.
506: The most conservative approach to the
507: unknown short range physics is to cut off the Yukawa potential at
508: distances shorter than, say, $R=0.5 \, fm$ and assume that
509: $V(r)=V(R)$ (the value of the potential in Eq.~(\ref{V}) at
510: $r=R$) for $r < R$. The binding energies and the
511: corresponding sizes of the wave functions are shown in
512: Tables~\ref{tabl5}, \ref{tabl6}, \ref{tabl7}, \ref{tabl8}, \ref{tabl9},
513: \ref{tabl10}.
514: As can be expected, there is a reduction in the
515: binding energies. The $|D \D \r$ system is still bound
516: by about $20 - 30 \ MeV$. The size of the bound state---of order of $8 \ fm$
517: is dominated by the tail of the $K$-exchange potential, Eq.~(\ref{V}).
518: We note in passing that in both cases the systems become unbound if
519: the potential is taken to be zero at $r < R$ (a radical
520: assumption).
521:
522: \begin{table}[ht]
523: \begin{minipage}[t]{0.48\columnwidth}
524: %\begin{center}
525: \begin{tabular}{|c|c|c|}
526: \hline
527: $\alpha$ & ${\rm E_B},\,\, MeV$ & $\sqrt{<r^2>},\,\, fm$ \\
528: \hline $-0.4$ & $-2.4 $ & $40.7$ \\
529: \hline $-0.6$ & $-14.3$ & $20.4$ \\
530: \hline $-0.8$ & $-35.2$ & $13.8$ \\
531: \hline
532: \end{tabular}
533: %\end{center}
534: \caption{$|K \ \f \r$ ($|K \ \a \r$): the binding energies and
535: the size of the ground sate wave function for the potential in
536: Eq.~(\ref{V}) for $r>R$ and $V(r)=V(R)$ for $r<R$; $\kappa = 100 \
537: MeV,\ R=0.3 \ {\rm fm}$.} \label{tabl9}
538: \end{minipage}
539: \hfill
540: \begin{minipage}[t]{0.48\columnwidth}
541: %\begin{center}
542: \begin{tabular}{|c|c|c|}
543: \hline
544: $\alpha$ & ${\rm E_B},\,\, MeV$ & $\sqrt{<r^2>},\, \, fm$ \\
545: \hline $-0.4$ & $-1.9 $ & $48.3$ \\
546: \hline $-0.6$ & $-11.4$ & $20.6$ \\
547: \hline $-0.8$ & $-27.6$ & $14.2$ \\
548: \hline
549: \end{tabular}
550: %\end{center}
551: \caption{$|K \ \f \r$ ($|K \ \a \r$): the binding energies and
552: the size of the ground sate wave function for the potential in
553: Eq.~(\ref{V}) for $r>R$ and $V(r)=V(R)$ for $r<R$; $\kappa = 100 \
554: MeV\,\ R=0.5 \ {\rm fm}$.} \label{tabl10}
555: \end{minipage}
556: \bigskip
557: \end{table}
558:
559: Note that as the composite states overlap the strong short range
560: hyperfine interactions come into play since we have largely
561: different quarks in $\D$ and $D$ even for the case (b) above
562: with $\D$ viewed as a four-quark construct. The tendency to form
563: these new loosely bound states would imply that at shorter
564: distances we have even stronger attraction that the extrapolation
565: of the relatively smooth Yukawa potential to short distances and
566: the results without any cutoff and a fortiori those in the case
567: (2) may be relevant!
568:
569: It is interesting to note the drastic consequence of an even small attractive
570: scattering length---with no bound state in $K K$ (rather than $K \bar{K}$
571: channel). Arbitrary (sufficiently large) number of $K^0$ in a common
572: $S$-wave sate would then attract forming a condensate carrying macroscopic
573: strangeness {\it ala} Lee and Yang or Coleman's $Q$-balls \cite{SC}.
574: The longest range interaction between two kaons (and in fact any two mesons!)
575: due to the two pion exchange---specifically the $S$-wave projection thereof
576: in the $t$-channel is like a $\sigma$ ($J^{PC}=0^{++}$) or a scalar graviton
577: exchange
578: which is always attractive. The same also holds for $KN$ interactions.
579: However, the scattering
580: length in the Born approximation appropriate here is given by
581: $\int dr \ r^2 \ V(r)$ and the long range attraction is overcome (surely
582: for $K \ N$ from scattering data analysis and most likely for $KK$)
583: by the strong short range repulsion so that the condensates may not exist.
584:
585: It is amusing to note in passing the (admittedly weak) connection
586: between the $|D \ \D \r$ bound state and the ``Efimov effect''
587: \cite{EF}. The latter (which inspired us to look at the present
588: problem) would arise for a zero energy $|KD \r$ $S$-wave bound
589: state and infinite scattering length. This in turn leads to an
590: infinite series of three body $|KDD \r$ bound states. The
591: ratios the binding energies and the sizes of the Efimov states
592: scale as $E_B(n+1)/ E_B(n) = e^{-2\pi} \sim 0.0016 \, , \,
593: <r>(n+1)/ <r>(n) = e^{\pi} \sim 25$ (see also \cite{RD,VK,BV}) .Clearly
594: in the present case where the range of the actual potential is
595: only about $1 \, fm$ this idealized case and the very extended---
596: $<r>(n) \sim 25^n$ (or contracted)---states in the above series
597: are irrelevant. Note, the the Yukawa potential, Eq.~(\ref{V})
598: goes to $1/r$ in the limit as $\e$ goes to infinity and $\kappa$
599: goes to zero rather rather then $1/r^2$ as in the Efimov effect.
600: The reason is that the Efimov effect requires exact
601: diagonalization of the degenerate perturbation transcending the
602: perturbative one-meson exchange \cite{VK,BV}.
603:
604:
605: \section{Experimental signatures}
606:
607: Assuming that the $|D\D \r$ ``molecular'' state exists how can it be
608: produced and detected? Since the production requires two pairs of
609: $c\bar{c}$ quarks the
610: discussion in \cite{GN} is relevant, providing an upper bound on the
611: expected rate of the new loosely bound extended $|D\D \r$ state
612: which we term ${\cal M}$ for {\it molecular}.
613:
614: The bound state should manifest as a narrow peak in the mass distribution of
615: associate $D$ and $\D$ decays. However, the limited experimental resolution
616: at BABAR and Fermi Lab experiments limits the extent that we can utilize
617: this. The different binding of $D^+$ and $D^0$ and different life-time
618: $\tau_{D^0} \sim \ 0.5 \ \tau_{D^{+}}$ may lead to some extra signatures in
619: specific charge dependence of the width and even in the binding energies.
620:
621:
622: \section{Acknowledgments}
623:
624: T.C. was supported in part by the U.S. Department of Energy under
625: Grant No. DE-FG02-93ER-40762.
626: B.G. was supported by the U.S. Department of Energy under
627: Grant No. DE-FG03-01ER-41196.
628: S.N. acknowledges a grant of the Israeli Academy of Science.
629: B.G. and S.N. greatly acknowledge the hospitality of the Theory Group
630: for Quarks, Hadrons and Nuclei at the University of Maryland, College Park.
631:
632:
633: \bigskip
634:
635:
636: \begin{thebibliography}{99}
637: \bibitem{PDG}
638: Particle Data Group (K.~Hagiwara {\it et al.}), Phys.\ Rev.\ D
639: {\bf 66}, 010001 (2002).
640:
641:
642:
643: \bibitem{BB}
644: B.~Aubert {\it et al.} [BABAR Collaboration], Phys.\ Rev. \ Lett.\ {\bf 90},
645: 242001 (2003).
646:
647: \bibitem{CL}
648: D.~Besson {\it et al.} [CLEO Collaboration], arXiv: hep-ex/0305100.
649:
650: \bibitem{BL}
651: P.~Krokovny {\it et al.} [Belle Collaboration], arXiv: hep-ex/0308019.
652:
653: \bibitem{RJ}
654: R.L.~Jaffe, Phys. \ Rev.\ {\bf D15}, 267 (1977); Phys. \ Rev.\ {\bf D15},281
655: (1977).
656:
657: \bibitem{SN}
658: S.~Nussinov, arXiv: hep-ph/0306187.
659:
660: \bibitem{Dq}
661: K.~Abe {\it et al.} [Belle Collaboration], arXiv: hep-ex/0307021.
662:
663: \bibitem{NS}
664: S.~Nussinov and R.~Shrock, unpublished.
665:
666: \bibitem{NL}
667: S.~Nussinov and M.A.~Lampert, Phys.\ Rept.\ {\bf 362}, 193 (2002).
668:
669: \bibitem{TO}
670: N.A.~T$\ddot{\rm{o}}$rnqvist, Phys.\ Rev.\ Lett. \ {\bf 67}, 556 (1991).
671:
672: \bibitem{LS}
673: The numerical solutions were obtained using a Mathematica code in \\
674: W.~Lucha and F.F.~Schoberl, Int.\ J. \ Mod. \ Phys.\ {\bf C10}, 607 (1999).
675:
676: \bibitem{CI}
677: F.E.~Close, N.~Isgur and S.~Kumano, Nucl. \ Phys. \ {\bf B389}, 513 (1993).
678:
679: \bibitem{FN} The $\D \to D_s \pi$ decay mode is suppressed due to the isospin
680: non-conservation.
681:
682: \bibitem{SC}
683: S.R.~Coleman, Nucl. \ Phys. \ {\bf B262}, 263 (1985), Erratum-ibid.
684: {\bf B269}, 744 (1986).
685:
686: \bibitem{EF}
687: V.~Efimov, Sov. \ J. \ Nucl. \ Phys. \ {\bf 12}, 589 (1970);
688: Phys. \ Lett.\ {\bf B33}, 563 (1970).
689:
690: \bibitem{RD}
691: A.C.~Fonseca, E.F.~Redish and P.E.~Shanley, Nucl. \ Phys. \ {\bf A320}, 273
692: (1979).
693:
694: \bibitem{VK}
695: P.F.~Bedaque, H.W.~Hammer and U.~van Kolck,
696: Phys. \ Rev. \ Lett. \ {\bf 82}, 463 (1999).
697:
698: \bibitem{BV}
699: P.F.~Bedaque, H.W.~Hammer and U.~van Kolck,
700: Nucl. \ Phys.\ {\bf A646}, 444 (1999).
701:
702:
703: \bibitem{GN}
704: B.A.~Gelman and S.~Nussinov, Phys. \ Lett.\ {\bf B551}, 296 (2003).
705:
706:
707: \end{thebibliography}
708:
709: \end{document}
710: