1: %\\
2: %Author: Vladimir Kopeliovich (Moscow, INR)
3: %Title: Exotic baryons and multibaryons in chiral soliton models.
4: %Comment: 14 pages, 3 Fig. Presented at the International Symposium on
5: %Electrophoto-production of Strangeness on Nucleons and Nuclei
6: %(Sendai, Japan, June 16-18, 2003).
7: %\\
8: %Recently observed exotic baryon resonance with positive strangeness is discussed.
9: %The chiral soliton model, which allowed to predict the mass and width of this
10: %state, predicts also a number of other exotic states, strange and non-strange,
11: %some of them are, probably, observed in experiments. The existence of exotic
12: %multibaryons is expected as well, with positive strangeness or beauty, and
13: %negative charm. The possibility of binding of anticharm and antibeauty is
14: %pointed out.
15: %\\
16: \documentstyle[epsfig]{article}
17: \font\tenbf=cmbx10
18: \font\tenrm=cmr10
19: \font\tenit=cmti10
20: \font\elevenbf=cmbx10 scaled\magstep 1
21: \font\elevenrm=cmr10 scaled\magstep 1
22: \font\ninebf=cmbx9
23: \font\nineit=cmti9
24:
\textwidth 6.in
25: \textheight 9.in
26: \pagestyle{empty}
27: \topmargin -0.15truein
28: \oddsidemargin 0.1truein
29: \evensidemargin 0.25truein
30: \raggedbottom
31:
32: \newcommand{\bibit}{\nineit}
33: \newcommand{\bibbf}{\ninebf}
34: \renewenvironment{thebibliography}[1]
35: { \tenrm
36: \baselineskip=10pt
37: \begin{list}{\arabic{enumi}.}
38: {\usecounter{enumi} \setlength{\parsep}{0pt}
39: \setlength{\itemsep}{3pt} \settowidth{\labelwidth}{#1.}
40: \sloppy
41: }}{\end{list}}
42:
43: \parindent=3pc
44: \baselineskip=10pt
45: \begin{document}
46: \begin{center}{\tenbf
47: EXOTIC BARYONS AND MULTIBARYONS IN CHIRAL SOLITON MODELS.
\\}
48: \vglue 0.5cm
49: {\tenrm V. KOPELIOVICH \\}
50: {\tenit Institute for Nuclear Research of RAS, Moscow 117312, Russia\\
51: }
52: \vglue 0.2cm
53: \end{center}
54: {\rightskip=3pc
55: \leftskip=3pc
56: \tenrm\baselineskip=10pt
57: \noindent
58: Recently observed baryonic resonance with positive strangeness is discussed.
59: Mass and width of this
60: resonance are in agreement with the chiral soliton model predictions. A number
61: of other exotic states are predicted within this approach, some of them are
62: probably observed in experiments. Existence of exotic multibaryons is expected
63: as well, with positive strangeness or beauty, and negative charm. The
64: possibility of binding of heavy anti-flavor is noted.
65: \vglue 0.2cm}
66: \baselineskip=13pt
67: \elevenrm
68: \section{Introduction}
69: In recent experiments \cite{1,2,3} the baryonic resonance has been discovered
70: with positive strangeness and rather small width, $\Gamma\, <\, 24\;Mev$,
71: and subsequent experiment \cite{4} has confirmed
72: this discovery \footnote{These data, as well as \cite{5} where resonance was
73: observed in analysis of neutrino/antineutrino interactions with nuclei,
74: became available after the symposium.}.
75: This resonance is observed independently in different reactions on different
76: experimental setups in Japan, Russia, USA and FRG, therefore only few doubts
77: remain now that it really exists.
78:
79: This baryon, predicted theoretically in \cite{6,7,8} originally called
80: $Z^+$\cite{8} and later $\Theta^+$, together with the well known
81: resonances $\Lambda(1520)$ and $\Xi (1530)$ has one of the smallest widths
82: among available baryon resonances. It has necessarily one quark-antiquark
83: pair in its wave function since baryons made of 3 valence quarks only can have
84: negative strangeness, $S\,<0$.
85:
86: Besides this, some hints have been obtained on detector CLAS in reaction of
87: $\pi^+\pi^-$ electroproduction on protons for existence of new resonance with
88: zero strangeness, positive parity, strong coupling to the $\Delta\pi$ channel
89: and weak to the $N\rho$ \cite{9}. This resonance could belong to one of the
90: multiplets of exotic baryons considered in \cite{10}. Review of experimental
91: situation, methods of detection of exotic and so called cryptoexotic states
92: (states with hidden exotics) before discovery of $\Theta^+$ can be found,
93: for example, in \cite{11}.
94: \section{Multiplets of exotic baryons}
95: Exotic, in specific meaning of this word, are baryonic states which cannot
96: be made of $3B$ valence quarks ($B$ is the baryon number) and should contain
97: one or more quark-antiquark pairs.
98: Obviously, any state with positive strangeness is exotic one, as well as states
99: with large enough negative strangeness, $S<\; -3B$. Besides, for any value of
100: hypercharge $Y$ or strangeness $S<0$ there are exotic states with large enough
101: isospin, $I>(3B+S)/2$. It is due to the fact that nonzero isospin have only
102: nonstrange quarks $u,d$, and the number of nonstrange valence quarks equals to
103: $3B+S$. The new-found hyperon with positive strangeness and at least one
104: quark-antiquark pair in the wave function is called also the pentaquark state.
105: It is well known that baryons (hadrons, more generally) contain the
106: so-called sea quarks and gluons which carry large fraction of their momenta.
107: But in the $\Theta$-pentaquark the $q\bar{q}$-pair has definite quantum number,
108: antistrangeness, therefore it is in fact valence quark-antiquark pair.
109:
110: From theoretical point of view the existence of such states was not unexpected.
111: Such possibility was pointed out by a number of people within the quark models
112: \cite{12}, as well as in the chiral soliton approach \cite{13,14}. Analysis of
113: peculiarities of exotic baryons spectra, for arbitrary $B$-numbers, and
114: estimates of energies for exotic $SU(3)$ multiplets was made in \cite{15}.
115: First numerical estimates of the masses of the antidecuplet components were
116: made in \cite{6,14,7}.
117: Relatively small mass of the components of antidecuplet, in particular
118: $\Theta^+$, was predicted in a number of papers \cite{6,14,7,8,16}, and strictly
119: speaking, it was not enough grounds for this in \cite{6}a,\cite{14},
120: because the mass
121: splitting in the octet and decuplet of baryons was not described in these
122: papers. In the paper \cite{8} an assumption was important to provide the
123: prediction $M_{\Theta^+} = 1530 \;Mev$, that the nucleon resonance $N^*(1.71)$
124: is the nonstrange component of the antidecuplet. The small width $\Gamma_\Theta
125: \simeq 15\;Mev$ was obtained in \cite{8} only.
126:
127: Topological soliton models are very economical and effective in predicting the
128: spectra of baryons and baryonic systems with various quantum numbers. The
129: relativistic many-body problem to find the bound states in a system of three,
130: five, etc. quarks and antiquarks is not solved in this way, of course.
131: However, many unresolved questions of principle are circumvented so
132: that calculations of spectra of baryonic states become possible without
133: detalization of their internal structure.
134: In such models baryons or baryonic systems (nuclei) appear as quantized
135: classical (chiral) fields configurations obtained in the procedure of classical
136: energy or mass minimization. Here important role plays the quantization
137: condition \cite{17}
138: $$ Y_R \;=\;N_CB/3 \eqno(1) $$
139: where $Y_R$ is the "right" hypercharge, or hypercharge of the state in the
140: body-fixed system, $N_C$ - the number of colors of underlying $QCD$, $B$ is
141: baryon number coinciding with topological number characterizing the classical
142: field configuration. For each $SU(3)$ multiplet $(p,q)$ the maximal hypercharge
143: or triality $Y_{max}=(p+2q)/3$, and relation should be fulfilled evidently
144: $Y_{max} \geq Y_R$, or
145: $${p+2q\over 3} \geq {N_CB\over 3}, \eqno(2) $$
146: which means that
147: $$p+2q = 3(B+m) \eqno (3) $$
148: at $N_C=3$, with $m$ being positive integer. This quantization condition has
149: simple physical interpretation: we start from originally nonstrange configuration
150: which remains nonstrange in the body fixed system. All other components of the
151: $(p,q) \; SU(3)$ multiplet in the laboratory frame appear as a result of
152: rotation of this configuration in $SU(3)$ configuration space, are described by
153: Wigner final $SU(3)$-rotations functions, and each multiplet should contain
154: original nonstrange state. It is natural to call the multiplets with $m=0$
155: the minimal multiplets \cite{15}, for $B=1$ the minimal multiplets are well
156: known octet and decuplet, multiplets with smaller dimension are forbidden due
157: to Guadagnini quantization condition \cite{17} (recall that the number of
158: components of the multiplet $N(p,q)=(p+1)(q+1)(p+q+2)/2$).
159:
160: The states with $m=1$ contain at least one additional quark-antiquark pair.
161: Indeed, the maximal hypercharge $Y_{max}=2$ in this case, or strangeness
162: $S=+1$ for the upper components of such multiplets, i.e. the pair $q\bar{s}$
163: should be present in the wave function, $q=u$ or $d$. Due to $SU(3)$ invariance
164: of strong interactions all other components of such multiplet should contain
165: additional quark-antiquark pair \cite{15}. One more restriction appears from
166: the consideration of the isospin, really the components with maximal isospin.
167: It is easily to check, that $\{\overline{10}\}$, $\{27\}$ and $\{35\}$-multiplets
168: are the pentaquark states, but the multiplet with maximal $p$, $\{28\}$-plet
169: with $(p,q)=(6,0)$ contains already 2 $q\bar{q}$ pairs, i.e. it is septuquark.
170: This follows from the fact that this multiplet contains the state with $S=-5$
171: and the state with $S=1$, isospin $I=3$.
172: All baryonic multiplets with $B=m=1$ are shown in {\bf Fig.1}.
173: \begin{figure}[h]
174: \label{multiplet}
175: \setlength{\unitlength}{1.0cm}
176: \begin{flushleft}
177: \begin{picture}(12,14)
178: \put(3,11){\vector(1,0){2.5}}
179: \put(3,11){\vector(0,1){3}}
180: \put(2.6,13.7){$Y$}
181: \put(5.2,10.6){$I_3$}
182: \put(2,8){$\{\overline {10}\}\, J=1/2$}
183: \put(3.1,13.1){$\Theta^+$}
184:
185: \put(3,13){\circle*{0.18}}
186: \put(2.5,12){\circle*{0.1}}
187: \put(3.5,12){\circle*{0.1}}
188: \put(2,11){\circle*{0.1}}
189: \put(3,11){\circle*{0.1}}
190: \put(4,11){\circle*{0.1}}
191: \put(1.5,10){\circle*{0.18}}
192: \put(2.5,10){\circle*{0.18}}
193: \put(3.5,10){\circle*{0.18}}
194: \put(4.5,10){\circle*{0.18}}
195:
196: \put(1.5,10){\line(1,0){3}}
197: \put(1.5,10){\line(1,2){1.5}}
198: \put(4.5,10){\line(-1,2){1.5}}
199:
200: %end of anti-10
201:
202: \put(10,11){\vector(1,0){3}}
203: \put(10,11){\vector(0,1){3}}
204: \put(9.6,13.7){$Y$}
205: \put(12.7,10.6){$I_3$}
206: \put(9,8){$\{27\}\, J=3/2;\,1/2$}
207: \put(8.7,13.1){$\Theta$*$^0$}
208: \put(10.1,13.1){$\Theta$*$^+$}
209: \put(11.1,13.1){$\Theta$*$^{++}$}
210:
211: \put(9,13){\circle*{0.18}}
212: \put(10,13){\circle*{0.18}}
213: \put(11,13){\circle*{0.18}}
214:
215: \put(8.5,12){\circle*{0.1}}
216: \put(9.5,12){\circle*{0.1}}
217: \put(9.5,12){\circle {0.2}}
218: \put(10.5,12){\circle*{0.1}}
219: \put(10.5,12){\circle {0.2}}
220: \put(11.5,12){\circle*{0.1}}
221:
222: \put(8,11){\circle*{0.18}}
223: \put(9,11){\circle*{0.1}}
224: \put(10,11){\circle*{0.1}}
225: \put(11,11){\circle*{0.1}}
226: \put(12,11){\circle*{0.18}}
227: \put(9,11){\circle {0.2}}
228: \put(10,11){\circle {0.2}}
229: \put(11,11){\circle {0.2}}
230: \put(10,11){\circle {0.3}}
231:
232: \put(8.5,10){\circle*{0.18}}
233: \put(9.5,10){\circle*{0.1}}
234: \put(9.5,10){\circle {0.2}}
235: \put(10.5,10){\circle*{0.1}}
236: \put(10.5,10){\circle {0.2}}
237: \put(11.5,10){\circle*{0.18}}
238:
239: \put(9,9){\circle*{0.18}}
240: \put(10,9){\circle*{0.18}}
241: \put(11,9){\circle*{0.18}}
242:
243: \put(8,11){\line(1,2){1}}
244: \put(8,11){\line(1,-2){1}}
245: \put(9,13){\line(1,0){2}}
246: \put(9,9){\line(1,0){2}}
247: \put(12,11){\line(-1,2){1}}
248: \put(12,11){\line(-1,-2){1}}
249:
250: %end of 27-plet
251:
252: \put(3,4){\vector(1,0){3}}
253: \put(3,4){\vector(0,1){3}}
254: \put(2.6,6.7){$Y$}
255: \put(5.7,3.6){$I_3$}
256: \put(2,-0.6){$\{35\}\, J=5/2;3/2$}
257: %\put(1.7,6.1){$\Theta '$*$^0$}
258:
259: \put(1,6){\circle*{0.18}}
260: \put(2,6){\circle*{0.18}}
261: \put(3,6){\circle*{0.18}}
262: \put(4,6){\circle*{0.18}}
263: \put(5,6){\circle*{0.18}}
264:
265: \put(0.5,5){\circle*{0.18}}
266: \put(1.5,5){\circle*{0.1}}
267: \put(1.5,5){\circle {0.2}}
268: \put(2.5,5){\circle*{0.1}}
269: \put(2.5,5){\circle {0.2}}
270: \put(3.5,5){\circle*{0.1}}
271: \put(3.5,5){\circle {0.2}}
272: \put(4.5,5){\circle*{0.1}}
273: \put(4.5,5){\circle {0.2}}
274: \put(5.5,5){\circle*{0.18}}
275:
276: \put(1,4){\circle*{0.18}}
277: \put(2,4){\circle*{0.1}}
278: \put(3,4){\circle*{0.1}}
279: \put(4,4){\circle*{0.1}}
280: \put(5,4){\circle*{0.18}}
281: \put(2,4){\circle {0.2}}
282: \put(3,4){\circle {0.2}}
283: \put(4,4){\circle {0.2}}
284:
285: \put(1.5,3){\circle*{0.18}}
286: \put(2.5,3){\circle*{0.1}}
287: \put(2.5,3){\circle {0.2}}
288: \put(3.5,3){\circle*{0.1}}
289: \put(3.5,3){\circle {0.2}}
290: \put(4.5,3){\circle*{0.18}}
291:
292: \put(2,2){\circle*{0.18}}
293: \put(3,2){\circle*{0.1}}
294: \put(3,2){\circle {0.2}}
295: \put(4,2){\circle*{0.18}}
296:
297: \put(2.5,1){\circle*{0.18}}
298: \put(3.5,1){\circle*{0.18}}
299:
300: \put(0.5,5){\line(1,2){0.5}}
301: \put(0.5,5){\line(1,-2){2}}
302: \put(1,6){\line(1,0){4}}
303: \put(2.5,1){\line(1,0){1}}
304: \put(5.5,5){\line(-1,2){0.5}}
305: \put(5.5,5){\line(-1,-2){2}}
306:
307: %end of 35
308:
309: \put(10,4){\vector(1,0){3}}
310: \put(10,4){\vector(0,1){3}}
311: \put(9.6,6.7){$Y$}
312: \put(12.7,3.6){$I_3$}
313: \put(9,-0.6){$\{28\}\, J=5/2 $}
314: %\put(8.7,6.1){$Z$*$^0$}
315: %\put(10.1,6.1){$Z$*$^+$}
316:
317: \put(7,6){\circle*{0.18}}
318: \put(8,6){\circle*{0.18}}
319: \put(9,6){\circle*{0.18}}
320: \put(10,6){\circle*{0.18}}
321: \put(11,6){\circle*{0.18}}
322: \put(12,6){\circle*{0.18}}
323: \put(13,6){\circle*{0.18}}
324:
325: \put(7.5,5){\circle*{0.18}}
326: \put(8.5,5){\circle*{0.18}}
327: \put(9.5,5){\circle*{0.18}}
328: \put(10.5,5){\circle*{0.18}}
329: \put(11.5,5){\circle*{0.18}}
330: \put(12.5,5){\circle*{0.18}}
331:
332: \put(8,4){\circle*{0.18}}
333: \put(9,4){\circle*{0.18}}
334: \put(10,4){\circle*{0.18}}
335: \put(11,4){\circle*{0.18}}
336: \put(12,4){\circle*{0.18}}
337:
338: \put(8.5,3){\circle*{0.18}}
339: \put(9.5,3){\circle*{0.18}}
340: \put(10.5,3){\circle*{0.18}}
341: \put(11.5,3){\circle*{0.18}}
342:
343: \put(9,2){\circle*{0.18}}
344: \put(10,2){\circle*{0.18}}
345: \put(11,2){\circle*{0.18}}
346:
347: \put(9.5,1){\circle*{0.18}}
348: \put(10.5,1){\circle*{0.18}}
349: \put(10,0){\circle*{0.18}}
350: %\put(8,4){\line(1,2){1}}
351: %\put(8,4){\line(1,-2){1}}
352: \put(7,6){\line(1,0){6}}
353: %\put(9,2){\line(1,0){2}}
354: \put(10,0){\line(-1,2){3}}
355: \put(13,6){\line(-1,-2){3}}
356:
357: \end{picture}
358: \vglue 0.7cm
359: \caption{The $I_3-Y$ diagrams for the baryon multiplets with $B=1,\;m=1$.
360: Large full circles show the exotic states, smaller - the cryptoexotic states
361: which can mix with nonexotic states from octet and decuplet.}
362:
363: \end{flushleft}
364: \end{figure}
365:
366: The minimal value of hypercharge is $Y_{min}=-(2p+q)/3$, the maximal isospin
367: $I_{max}=(p+q)/2$ at $Y=(p-q)/3$. Such multiplets as $\{27\}$, $\{35\}$
368: for $m=1$ and all multiplets for $m=2$, except the last one with $(p,q)=(9,0)$
369: in their internal points contain 2 or more states with different values of spin
370: $J$ (shown by double or triple circles in {\bf Fig.1}).
371: \section{The mass formula}
372: In the collective coordinates quantization procedure one introduces the angular
373: velocities of rotation of skyrmion in the $SU(3)$ configuration space,
374: $\omega_k$, $k=1,...8$: $A^\dagger(t)\dot{A}(t) = -i \omega_k\lambda_k/2,\;
375: \lambda_k$ being Gell-Mann matrices, the collective coordinates matrix $A(t)$
376: is written usually in the form $A=A_{SU2}\,exp(i\nu\lambda_4)A'_{SU2}\,
377: exp(i\rho \lambda_8/\sqrt{3})$.
378: The corresponding contribution to the lagrangian is quadratic form in these
379: angular velocities, with momenta of inertia, isotopical (pionic) $\Theta_\pi$
380: and flavor, or kaonic $\Theta_K$ as coefficients \cite{17}:
381: $$ L_{rot} = {1\over 2}\Theta_\pi (\omega_1^2+\omega_2^2+\omega_3^2) +
382: {1\over 2}\Theta_K (\omega_4^2+...+\omega_7^2) - {N_cB \over 2\sqrt{3}}
383: \omega_8. \eqno (4) $$
384: The expressions for these moments of inertia as functions of skyrmion profile
385: are presented below. The quantization condition $(1)$ discussed above follows
386: from the presence of linear in angular velocity $\omega_8$ term in $(4)$
387: originated from the Wess-Zumino-Witten term in the action of the model
388: \cite{18}.
389:
390: The hamiltonian of the model can be obtained from $(4)$ by means of canonical
391: quantization procedure \cite{17}:
392: $$ H = M_{cl} + {1\over 2\Theta_\pi} \vec{R}^2 + {1\over 2\Theta_K}
393: \biggl[C_2(SU_3) -\vec{R}^2 -{N_c^2B^2\over 12} \biggr], \eqno (5)$$
394: where the second order Casimir operator for the $SU(3)$ group,
395: $C_2(SU_3)=\sum_{a=1}^8 R_a^2$, with eigenvalues for the $(p,q)$ multiplets
396: $C_2(SU_3)_{p,q}=(p^2+pq+q^2)/3 +p+q, $
397: for the $SU(2)$ group,
398: $C_2(SU2)=\vec{R}^2 =R_1^2+R^2_2+R^2_3= J(J+1) = I_R(I_R+1)$.
399:
400: The operators $R_\alpha = \partial L/\partial\omega_\alpha$ satisfy definite
401: commutation relations which are generalization of the angular momentum
402: commutation relations to the $SU(3)$ case \cite{17}. Evidently, the linear in
403: $\omega$ terms in lagrangian $(4)$ are cancelled in hamiltonian $(5)$.
404: The equality of angular momentum (spin) $J$ and the so called right or body
405: fixed isospin $I_R$ used in $(5)$ takes place only for configurations of the
406: "hedgehog" type when usual space and isospace rotations are equivalent. This
407: equality is absent for configurations which provide the minimum of classical
408: energy for greater baryon numbers, $B\geq 2$.
409:
410: For minimal multiplets $(m=0)$ the right isospin $I_R=p/2$, and it is easy to
411: check that coefficient of $1/2\Theta_K$ in $(5)$ equals to
412: $$\,K=\,C_2(SU_3)-\vec{R}^2-N_C^2B^2/12 \,=\,N_CB/2, \eqno (6) $$
413: for arbitrary $N_C$ \footnote{It should be kept in mind that for $N_C$
414: different from 3 the minimal multiplets for baryons differ from octet
415: and decuplet. They have $(p,q)=(1,(N_C-1)/2),\; (3,(N_C-3)/2),...,\,(N_C,0)$. }.
416: So, $K$ is the same for all multiplets with $m=0$ \cite{15}, see {\bf Table 1}-
417: the property known long ago for the $B=1$ case \cite{17}.
418: For nonminimal multiplets there are additional contributions to the energy
419: proportional to $m/\Theta_K$ and $m^2/\Theta_K$, according to $(5)$\cite{15}.
420: It means
421: that in the framework of chiral soliton approach the "weight" of quark-
422: antiquark pair is defined by parameter $1/\Theta_K$, and this property of
423: such models deserves better understanding.
424: \begin{center}
425: \begin{tabular}{|l|l|l|l|l|l|l|}
426: \hline
427: $(p,q)$& $N(p,q)$ &m &$C_2(SU_3)$&$J=I_R$ &$K(J_{max})$&$K(J_{max}-1)$\\
428: \hline
429: $(1,1)$&$\{8\}$ &0 & 3 &1/2 &3/2 &\\
430: $(3,0)$&$\{10\}$ &0 & 6 &3/2 &3/2 &\\
431: \hline
432: $(0,3)$&$\{\overline{10}\}$ &1&6 &1/2 &3/2+3&\\
433: $(2,2)$&$\{27\}$ &1&8 &3/2; 1/2 &3/2+2& 3/2+5\\
434: $(4,1)$&$\{35\}$ &1&12 &5/2; 3/2 &3/2+1& 3/2+6\\
435: $(6,0)$&$\{28\}$ &1&18 &5/2 &3/2+7&\\
436: \hline
437: $(1,4)$&$\{\overline{35}\}$ &2&12 &3/2; 1/2 &3/2+6& 3/2+9\\
438: $(3,3)$&$\{64\}$ &2&15 &5/2; 3/2; 1/2 &3/2+4& 3/2+9\\
439: $(5,2)$&$\{81\}$ &2&20 &7/2; 5/2; 3/2 &3/2+2& 3/2+9 \\
440: $(7,1)$&$\{80\}$ &2&27 &7/2; 5/2 &3/2+9& 3/2+16\\
441: $(9,0)$&$\{55\}$ &2&36 &7/2 &3/2+18& \\
442: \hline
443: \end{tabular}
444: \end{center}
445:
446: {\bf Table 1.}{\tenrm The values of $N(p,q)$, Casimir operator $C_2(SU_3)$, spin
447: $J=I_R$, coefficient $K$ for first two values of $J$ for minimal $(m=0)$ and
448: nonminimal $(m=1,\;2)$ multiplets of baryons.}
449: \vglue 0.2cm
450: It follows from {\bf Table 1} that for each nonzero $m$ the coefficient
451: $K(J_{max})$ decreases with increasing $N(p,q)$, e.g. $K_{5/2}(35)\,<K_{3/2}(27)
452: \,<\,K_{1/2}(\overline{10})$. The following differences of the rotation energy
453: can be obtained easily:
454: $$ M_{10} - M_{8} = {3\over 2\Theta_\pi}. \eqno (7) $$
455: This relation is known since 1984 \cite{17}.
456: $$ M_{\bar{10}} - M_{8} = {3\over 2\Theta_K}, \eqno (8)$$
457: as it was stressed in \cite{8},
458: $$ M_{27,J=3/2}- M_{10} = {1\over \Theta_K}, \eqno(9) $$
459: $$ M_{27,J=3/2} - M_{\bar{10}} = {3\over 2\Theta_\pi} - {1\over 2\Theta_K},
460: \eqno(10) $$
461: $$ M_{35,J=5/2} - M_{27,J=3/2} = {5\over 2\Theta_\pi} - {1\over 2\Theta_K}.
462: \eqno(11) $$
463: If the relation took place $\Theta_K \ll \Theta_\pi$ then $\{27\}$-plet would
464: be lighter than antidecuplet, and $\{35\}$-plet would be lighter than $\{27\}$.
465: In realistic case $\Theta_K$ is approximately twice smaller than $\Theta_\pi$
466: (see {\bf Table 2}, next section), and therefore the components of antidecuplet are lighter
467: than components of $\{27\}$ with same values of strangeness.
468: Beginning with some values of $N(p,q)$ coefficient $K$ increases strongly, as can
469: be seen from {\bf Table 1}, and this corresponds to the increase of the number
470: of quark-antiquark pairs by another unity. The states with $J\,<\,J_{max}$ have
471: the energy considerably greater than that of $J_{max}$ states, by this reason
472: they could contain also greater amount of $q\bar{q}$-pairs.
473:
474: The formula $(5)$ is obtained in the rigid rotator approximation which is
475: valid if the profile function of the skyrmion and therefore its dimensions and
476: other properties are not changed when it is rotated in the configuration space.
477: It is necessary for this, that the rotation time in the configuration space,
478: $\tau_{rot}$ is smaller than the time of its deformation $\tau_{deform}$
479: under influence of the
480: forces due to presence of the terms in lagrangian violating the flavor symmetry,
481: i.e. $m_k/m_\pi >1,\; F_K/F_\pi >1$, see also next Section. Rotation time can be
482: estimated easily, $\tau_{rot} \sim \pi/\omega$ with $\omega \sim \sqrt{C_2(SU3)}
483: /\Theta_K$. It is more difficult to estimate $\tau_{deform}$, one can state only
484: that it is greater than the time needed for light to cross the skyrmion,
485: $\tau_{travel} \sim 2R_H$. So, the rigid rotator approximation is valid if
486: $\pi \Theta_K \ll 2R_H\sqrt{C_2(SU3)}$. Numerically $\pi\Theta_K \simeq
487: 8\,Gev^{-1}$ and $2R_H\sqrt{C_2(SU3)}\simeq 12\,Gev^{-1}$ for decuplet and
488: antidecuplet of baryons.
489:
490: The alternative is the "soft" or slow rotator approximation when it is assumed
491: that for each value of the angle of rotation in "strange" direction $\nu$ there
492: is enough time for the soliton to be deformed under influence of the flavor
493: symmetry breaking forces \cite{19}. The realistic case is intermediate one,
494: but for the baryons the rigid rotator approach is more justified, due to above
495: estimate. With increasing $B$-number the slow rotator approach becomes more
496: actual. The dependence of the moments of inertia on $\nu$ is given by following
497: expressions \cite{19,20}:
498: $$ \Theta_K(\nu) = {1 \over 8} \int (1-c_f)\Biggl\{ F_K^2\Biggl(1\,-\;
499: \frac{2-c_f}{2}s_\nu^2\Biggr)+\,F_\pi^2\frac{2-c_f}{2}s_\nu^2 + {1 \over e^2}
500: \Biggl[ f'^2 +{2s_f^2\over r^2} \Biggr] \Biggr\}
501: d^3\vec{r}, \eqno (12) $$
502: $$\Theta_\pi(\nu) ={1\over 6}\int s_f^2\Biggl[F_\pi^2+(F_K^2-F_\pi^2)
503: c_fs_\nu^2 +{4\over e^2}\Biggl(f'^2+{s_f^2\over r^2}\biggr)\Biggr]
504: d^3\vec{r} \eqno(13) $$
505: These formulas hold for configurations of hedgehog type described by one
506: profile function $f$, $c_f=cos\,f,\; s_f=sin\,f;\; s_\nu =sin\,\nu$.
507: $\Theta_K(\nu)$ decreases and $\Theta_\pi(\nu)$ increases with increasing $\nu$.
508: Rigid rotator approximation corresponds to $\nu=0$ since we start from
509: nonstrange $SU(2)$-skyrmion. The decay constants $F_\pi,\;F_K$ are taken from
510: experiment: $F_\pi\simeq 186\,Mev$; the model parameter (Skyrme constant) $e$
511: is close to $4$. The dependence on $F_K$ in $(12,13)$ appears due
512: to nonadiabatic (time dependent) terms in the lagrangian which can have also
513: other manifestations.
514: \section{Spectrum of baryonic states}
515: Expressions $(5),\;(6)$ and numbers given in {\bf Table 1} are sufficient
516: to calculate the spectrum of baryons without mass splitting inside of $SU(3)$-
517: multiplets, as it was made e.g. in \cite{14,15}.
518: The mass splitting due to the presence of flavor symmetry breaking terms plays a
519: very substantial role \cite{17,7,10}:
520: $$H_{SB}=\frac{1-D_{88}^{(8)}}{2}\Gamma_{SB} \eqno(14) $$
521: where the $SU(3)$ rotation function $D_{88}^8(\nu) =1-3s^2_\nu/2$,
522: $$\Gamma_{SB}={2\over 3}\Biggl[\Biggl({F_K^2\over F_\pi^2}m_K^2 -m_\pi^2\Biggr)
523: \Sigma +(F_K^2-F_\pi^2)\tilde{\Sigma}\Biggr] \eqno (15) $$
524: $$ \Sigma = \frac{F_{\pi}^2}{2} \int (1-c_f) d^3\vec{r}, $$
525: $$\tilde{\Sigma}= {1\over 4}\int c_f \Biggl(f'^2+{2s_f^2\over r^2}\biggr)d^3r,
526: \eqno(16) $$
527: kaon and pion masses $m_K,\;m\pi$ are taken from experiment.
528: The quantity $SC=<s_\nu^2>/2=<1-D_{88}^{(8)}>/3$ averaged over the baryon
529: $SU(3)$ wave function defines its strangeness content. Without configuration
530: mixing, i.e. when flavor symmetry breaking terms in the lagrangian are
531: considered as small perturbation, $<s_\nu^2>_0$ can be expressed simply in
532: terms of the $SU(3)$ Clebsh-Gordan coefficients. The values of $<s_\nu^2>_0$
533: for the octet, decuplet, antidecuplet and some components of higher multiplets
534: are presented in {\bf Table 2}. In this approximation the components of $\{10\}$
535: and $\{\overline{10}\}$ are placed equidistantly, and splittings of decuplet
536: and antidecuplet are equal.
537:
538: The spectrum of states with configuration mixing and diagonalization of the
539: hamiltonian in the next order of perturbation theory in $H_{SB}$ is given in
540: {\bf Table 2} (the code for calculation was presented by H.Walliser).
541: The calculation results in the Skyrme model with only one adjustable parameter -
542: Skyrme constant $e$ ($F_\pi=186\,Mev$ - experimentally measured value) are shown
543: as variants A and B. The values of $<s_\nu^2>$ become lower when configuration mixing
544: takes place, and equidistant spacing of components inside of decuplet and especially
545: antidecuplet is violated, see also {\bf Fig.2}.
546:
547: It should be stressed here that the chiral soliton approach in its present state
548: can describe the differences of baryon or multibaryon masses \cite{7,8,10,19}.
549: The absolute values of mass are controlled by loop corrections of the order of
550: $N_C^0\sim 1$ which are estimated now for the case of $B=1$ only \cite{21}.
551: Therefore, the value of nucleon mass in {\bf Table 2.} and {\bf Fig.2} is taken to be equal to
552: the observed value.
553:
554: \begin{center}
555: \begin{tabular}{|l|l|l|l|l|l|}
556: \hline
557: & & A & B& C & \\
558: \hline
559: $\Theta_\pi \,(Gev^{-1})$ & --- &$6.175 $& $5.556$ & $5.61$ & - \\
560: $\Theta_K \,(Gev^{-1})$ & --- &$2.924 $ & $2.641$ & $2.84$ & - \\
561: $\Gamma_{SB} \,\;(Gev) $ & --- & $1.369$ & $1.244 $ & $1.45$ & - \\
562: \hline
563: \hline
564: $Baryon|N,Y,I,J>$ &$<s_\nu^2>_0$& A & B & C & $Data$\\
565: \hline
566: $\Lambda\,|8,0,0,1/2>$ &$0.60$ & 155&139& 164 &176 \\
567: $\Sigma\,|8,0,1,1/2> $ &$0.73$ & 263&243& 277 &254 \\
568: $\Xi \,|8,-1,1/2,1/2>$ &$0.80$ & 371&335& 393 &379 \\
569: \hline
570: $\Delta \,|10,1,3/2,3/2>$ &$0.58$& 289&319& 314 &293 \\
571: $\Sigma^*|10,0,1,3/2>$ &$0.67$ & 418&433& 452 &446 \\
572: $\Xi^* |10,-1,1/2,3/2>$ &$0.75$ & 544&545& 586 &591 \\
573: $\Omega \,|10,-2,0,3/2> $ &$0.83$& 665&648& 715&733 \\
574: \hline
575: $\Theta^+\,|\overline{10},2,0,1/2>$&$0.50$&580&625 & 600&601 \\
576: $ N^*\,|\overline{10},1,1/2,1/2> $&$0.58$&694&725 &722&771? \\
577: $\Sigma^*\,|\overline{10},0,1,1/2>$&$0.67$&792&810 & 825 &830? \\
578: $\Xi^{**}|\overline{10},-1,3/2,1/2>$&$0.75$&814&842& 847 &? \\
579: \hline
580: $\Theta^*\,|27,2,1,3/2>$ &$0.57$& 707 &758 & 750 &- \\
581: $\Omega^*\,|27,-2,1,3/2>$ &$0.82$&989 & 1011 & 1048 &- \\
582: \hline
583: $ \;X\,|35,1,5/2,5/2>$ &$0.44$& 784 & 878 & 853 &- \\
584:
$ \;\;\;\,|35,-3,1/2,5/2>$ &$0.85$& 1269 & 1312 & 1367 &- \\
585: \hline
586: $ \;\,|28,2,3, 5/2>$ &$0.61$& 1938 & 2136 & 2043 &- \\
587: $ \;\;\,|28,-4,0 ,5/2>$ &$0.78$& 2221 & 2379 & 2345 &- \\
588: \hline
589: \end{tabular}
590: \end{center}
591:
592:
593: {\bf Table 2.} {\tenrm Values of masses of the octet, decuplet, antidecuplet and
594: some components of higher multiplets (with nucleon mass subtracted).
595: A: $e=3.96$; B: $e=4.12$; C: fit with parameters $\Theta_K,\;\Theta_\pi$ and
596: $\Gamma_{SB}$ \cite{10}, which are shown as well. }
597: \vglue 0.2cm
598: As it can be seen from {\bf Table 2}, the agreement with data for pure Skyrme model with
599: one parameter is not so good, but the observed mass of $\Theta^+$ is reproduced
600: with some reservation. To get more reliable predictions for masses of other
601: exotic states the more phenomenological approach was used in \cite{10} where
602: the observed value $M_\Theta =1.54\,Gev$ was included into the fit, and
603: $\Theta_K,\;\Gamma_{SB}$ were the variated parameters (variant C in {\bf Table 2}
604: and {\bf Fig.2}). The position of some components of $\{27\},\;\{35\}$ and $\{28\}$
605: plets is shown as well.
606:
607: \begin{figure}[h]
608: \label{spectrum}
609: \begin{center}
610: \epsfig{figure=bar2.ps,width=10cm,angle=270}
611: \protect\caption{Lowest rotational states in the $SU(3)$
612: soliton model for fits C and D. The experimental masses
613: of the $\{8\}$ and $\{10\}$ baryons are depicted for comparison.
614: Not all states of the $\{35\}$ are shown. This figure is taken from \cite{10}.}
615: \end{center}
616: \end{figure}
617: The variant D shown in {\bf Fig.2} takes into account the term in $H_{SB}$ which
618: appears from the $\rho-\omega$ mixing in effective lagrangian \cite{7,10}:
619: $$ H_{SB}^{(2)} =\,-{\Delta\over \Theta_\pi}\sum_{a=1}^3 D_{8a}R_a \eqno (17)$$
620: The best description of the octet and decuplet masses was obtained at
621: $\Delta=0.4$. Such contribution was included also in \cite{8} where the linear
622: in hypercharge term $H_{SB}^Y=\beta Y$ with $\beta\simeq -156\,Mev$ plays an
623: important role. Such term is absent in approach \cite{7,10}.
624:
625: It looks astonishing at first sight that the state $\Theta^+$ containing
626: strange
627: antiquark is lighter than nonstrange component of antidecuplet, $N^*(I=1/2)$.
628: But it is easy to understand if we recall that all antidecuplet components contain
629: $q\bar{q}$ pair: $\Theta^+$ contains 4 light quarks and $\bar{s}$, $N^*$
630: contains 3 light quarks and $s\bar{s}$ pair with some weight, $\Sigma^* \in
631: \{\bar{10}\}$ contains $u,d,s$ quarks and $s\bar{s}$, etc.
632:
633: The mass splitting inside of decuplet is influenced essentially by its mixing
634: with $\{27\}$-plet components \cite{10}, see Fig.1, which increases this
635: splitting considerably - the effect ignored in \cite{8}. The mixing of
636: antidecuplet with the octet of baryons has some effect on the position of
637: $N^*$ and $\Sigma^*$, the position of $\Theta^* $ and $\Xi^*_{3/2}$ is influenced
638: by mixing with higher multiplets \cite{10}.
639:
640: The component of $\{35\}$-plet with zero strangeness and $I=J=5/2$ is of special
641: interest because it has the smallest strangeness content (or $s_\nu^2$) -
642: smaller than nucleon and $\Delta$. As a consequence of isospin conservation by
643: strong interactions it can decay into $\Delta\pi$, but not to $N\pi$ or $N\rho$.
644: According to the results presented in {\bf Table 2}, the components of $\{28\}$
645: plet containing 2 $q\bar{q}$ pairs, have the mass considerably greater than
646: that of other multiplets on Fig.1.
647:
648: All baryonic states considered here are obtained by means of quantization of
649: soliton rotations in $SU(3)$ configuration space, and have therefore positive
650: parity. A qualitative discussion of the influence of other (nonzero) modes
651: - vibration, breathing - as well as references to corresponding papers can be
652: found in \cite{10,16}. The realistic situation can be more complicated than
653: somewhat simplified picture presented here, since each rotation state can have
654: vibrational excitations with characteristic energy of hundreds of $Mev$.
655:
656: If the matrix element of the decay $\Theta^+\to KN$ is written in a form
657: $$ M_{\Theta\to KN} = g_{\Theta KN}\bar{u}_N \gamma_5 u_\Theta \phi_K^\dagger
658: \eqno (18) $$
659: with $u_N$ and $u_\Theta$ - bispinors of final and initial baryons, then the
660: decay width equals to
661: $$\Gamma_{\Theta\to KN}=\frac{g^2_{\Theta KN}}{8\pi}
662: \frac{\Delta_M^2-m_K^2}{M^2} p_K^{cm} \eqno (19) $$
663: where $\Delta_M=M-m_N, \; M$ is the mass of decaying baryon, $p_K^{cm}$ - the
664: kaon momentum in the c.m. frame. For the decay constant we obtain then
665: $g_{\Theta KN} \simeq 4.4$ if we take the value $\Gamma_{\Theta\to KN}=10\,Mev$
666: as suggested by experimental data \cite{1}-\cite{5}. This should be compared
667: with $g_{\pi NN}\simeq 13.5$. So, some suppression of the decay
668: $\Theta\to KN$ takes place, but not
669: large and understandable, according to \cite{8,22}.
670: \section{Exotic multibaryons}
671: There is no difference of principle, within the chiral soliton approach,
672: between baryons and multibaryons, as it was demonstrated in previous sections.
673: The latter are quantized configurations of
674: chiral fields which correspond to the minima of classical energy for arbitrary
675: baryon number. The equality between body-fixed isospin and spin of the
676: quantized state, specific for hedgehog-type configuration, does not hold
677: anymore.
678:
679: It is easily to understand that minimal (nonexotic) multiplets for $B=2$ coincide
680: with $m=1$ multiplets for $B=1$, i.e. they are antidecuplet,
681: including the deuteron - isosinglet state, $\{27\}$-plet, including the
682: isotriplet $NN$-state (so called singlet deuteron), $\{35\}$ and $\{28\}$-
683: plets. Similarly, the minimal multiplets for $B=3$ are those for $B=1$ and
684: $m=2$, see {\bf Table 1}.
685:
686: Here we show several examples of lowest exotic multiplets with $m=1$: the
687: $\{\overline{35}\}$-plet
688: for $B=2$, the $\{\overline{28}\}$-plet for $B=3$ and $\{\overline{80}\}$-plet
689: for $B=4$, {\bf Fig.3}.
690: There is isodoublet of positive strangeness dibaryons, $^2D_S^+,\;^2He_S^{++}$
691: \footnote{The chemical symbol is ascribed according to the total charge of
692: the baryonic state.}
693: with minimal quark contents $(\bar{s}\,3u\,4d),\;(\bar{s}\,4u\,3d)$,
694: which have the energy about $600\,Mev$ above $2N$-threshold, according to
695: calculation performed in \cite{20} in the slow rotator approximation.
696: The spectrum of all minimal dibaryons was calculated in \cite{20} as well.
697:
698: \begin{figure}[h]
699: \label{multiplet}
700: \setlength{\unitlength}{1.0cm}
701: \begin{flushleft}
702: \begin{picture}(12,15)
703: \put(3,12){\vector(1,0){2.7}}
704: \put(3,12){\vector(0,1){4.5}}
705: \put(2.6,16.2){$Y$}
706: \put(5.4,11.6){$I_3$}
707: \put(2,9){$\{\overline {35}\}\, B=2$}
708: \put(1.9,15.1){$D_S^+ $}
709: \put(3.6,15.1){$He_S^{++}$}
710:
711:
712: \put(2.5,15){\circle*{0.2}}
713: \put(3.5,15){\circle*{0.2}}
714: \put(2,14){\circle*{0.12}}
715: \put(3,14){\circle*{0.1}}
716: \put(3,14){\circle {0.2}}
717: \put(4,14){\circle*{0.12}}
718:
719: \put(1.5,13){\circle*{0.12}}
720: \put(2.5,13){\circle*{0.1}}
721: \put(2.5,13){\circle {0.2}}
722: \put(3.5,13){\circle*{0.1}}
723: \put(3.5,13){\circle {0.2}}
724: \put(4.5,13){\circle*{0.12}}
725:
726: \put(1,12){\circle*{0.12}}
727: \put(2,12){\circle*{0.1}}
728: \put(2,12){\circle {0.2}}
729: \put(3,12){\circle*{0.1}}
730: \put(3,12){\circle {0.2}}
731: \put(4,12){\circle*{0.1}}
732: \put(4,12){\circle {0.2}}
733: \put(5,12){\circle*{0.12}}
734:
735: \put(0.5,11){\circle*{0.2}}
736: \put(1.5,11){\circle*{0.1}}
737: \put(1.5,11){\circle {0.2}}
738: \put(2.5,11){\circle*{0.1}}
739: \put(2.5,11){\circle {0.2}}
740: \put(3.5,11){\circle*{0.1}}
741: \put(3.5,11){\circle {0.2}}
742: \put(4.5,11){\circle*{0.1}}
743: \put(4.5,11){\circle {0.2}}
744: \put(5.5,11){\circle*{0.2}}
745: \put(1,10){\circle*{0.2}}
746: \put(2,10){\circle*{0.2}}
747: \put(3,10){\circle*{0.2}}
748: \put(4,10){\circle*{0.2}}
749: \put(5,10){\circle*{0.2}}
750:
751: \put(2.5,15){\line(1,0){1}}
752: \put(1,10){\line(1,0){4}}
753: \put(1,10){\line(-1,2){0.5}}
754: \put(0.5,11){\line(1,2){2}}
755: \put(5.5,11){\line(-1,2){2}}
756: \put(5.5,11){\line(-1,-2){0.5}}
757:
758: %end of anti-35
759:
760: \put(10,12){\vector(1,0){3}}
761: \put(10,12){\vector(0,1){4.5}}
762: \put(9.6,16.2){$Y$}
763: \put(12.7,11.6){$I_3$}
764: \put(9,9){$\{\overline{28}\}\,B=3 $}
765: \put(10.1,16.1){$He_S^{++}$}
766: %\put(9.1,15.1){$H^*$}
767: %\put(10.6,15.1){$He^*$}
768:
769: \put(10,16){\circle*{0.2}}
770: \put(9.5,15){\circle*{0.12}}
771: \put(10.5,15){\circle*{0.12}}
772: \put(9,14){\circle*{0.12}}
773: \put(10,14){\circle*{0.12}}
774: \put(11,14){\circle*{0.12}}
775:
776: \put(8.5,13){\circle*{0.12}}
777: \put(9.5,13){\circle*{0.12}}
778: \put(10.5,13){\circle*{0.12}}
779: \put(11.5,13){\circle*{0.12}}
780:
781: \put(8,12){\circle*{0.12}}
782: \put(9,12){\circle*{0.12}}
783: \put(10,12){\circle*{0.12}}
784: \put(11,12){\circle*{0.12}}
785: \put(12,12){\circle*{0.12}}
786:
787: \put(8.5,11){\circle*{0.12}}
788: \put(9.5,11){\circle*{0.12}}
789: \put(7.5,11){\circle* {0.12}}
790: \put(10.5,11){\circle*{0.12}}
791: \put(12.5,11){\circle*{0.12}}
792: \put(11.5,11){\circle*{0.12}}
793:
794: \put(7,10){\circle*{0.2}}
795: \put(8,10){\circle*{0.2}}
796: \put(9,10){\circle*{0.2}}
797: \put(10,10){\circle*{0.2}}
798: \put(11,10){\circle*{0.2}}
799: \put(12,10){\circle*{0.2}}
800: \put(13,10){\circle*{0.2}}
801: \put(7,10){\line(1,2){3}}
802: \put(7,10){\line(1,0){6}}
803: \put(13,10){\line(-1,2){3}}
804:
805: %end of anti-28-plet
806: %\end{picture}
807: %\vglue 1.0cm
808: %\caption{\tenrm The $I_3-Y$ diagrams for the lowest exotic multibaryons:
809: %$\{\overline{35}\}$-
810: %plet of dibaryons and $\{\overline{28}\}$-plet of tribaryons with $\;m=1$.
811: %Large full circles show the exotic states, smaller - the cryptoexotic states.}
812:
813: %\end{flushleft}
814: %\end{figure}
815:
816: \put(6,3){\vector(1,0){4}}
817: \put(6,3){\vector(0,1){6}}
818: \put(6.1,8.7){$Y$}
819: \put(9.7,2.6){$I_3$}
820: \put(5,-1){$\{\overline{80}\}\,B=4 $}
821: %\put(6.1,9.1){$He_S^{++}$}
822: \put(4.6,8.1){$He_S^{++}$}
823: \put(6.6,8.1){$Li_S^{+++}$}
824:
825: \put(5.5,8){\circle*{0.2}}
826: \put(6.5,8){\circle*{0.2}}
827: \put(5,7){\circle*{0.12}}
828: \put(6,7){\circle*{0.12}}
829: \put(6,7){\circle {0.22}}
830: \put(7,7){\circle*{0.12}}
831:
832: \put(4.5,6){\circle*{0.12}}
833: \put(5.5,6){\circle*{0.12}}
834: \put(5.5,6){\circle {0.22}}
835:
836: \put(6.5,6){\circle*{0.12}}
837: \put(6.5,6){\circle {0.22}}
838: \put(7.5,6){\circle*{0.12}}
839:
840: \put(4,5){\circle*{0.12}}
841: \put(5,5){\circle*{0.12}}
842: \put(5,5){\circle {0.22}}
843:
844: \put(6,5){\circle*{0.12}}
845: \put(6,5){\circle {0.22}}
846:
847: \put(7,5){\circle*{0.12}}
848: \put(7,5){\circle {0.22}}
849: \put(8,5){\circle*{0.12}}
850:
851: \put(3.5,4){\circle*{0.12}}
852: \put(4.5,4){\circle*{0.12}}
853: \put(4.5,4){\circle {0.22}}
854:
855: \put(5.5,4){\circle*{0.12}}
856: \put(5.5,4){\circle {0.22}}
857:
858: \put(6.5,4){\circle*{0.12}}
859: \put(6.5,4){\circle {0.22}}
860: \put(7.5,4){\circle*{0.12}}
861: \put(7.5,4){\circle {0.22}}
862: \put(8.5,4){\circle*{0.12}}
863:
864: \put(3,3){\circle*{0.12}}
865: \put(4,3){\circle*{0.12}}
866: \put(4,3){\circle {0.22}}
867: \put(5,3){\circle*{0.12}}
868: \put(5,3){\circle {0.22}}
869:
870: \put(6,3){\circle*{0.12}}
871: \put(6,3){\circle {0.22}}
872:
873: \put(7,3){\circle*{0.12}}
874: \put(7,3){\circle {0.22}}
875:
876: \put(8,3){\circle*{0.12}}
877: \put(8,3){\circle {0.22}}
878: \put(9,3){\circle*{0.12}}
879: %%%%%%%%%%%%%
880: \put(2.5,2){\circle*{0.12}}
881: \put(3.5,2){\circle*{0.12}}
882: \put(3.5,2){\circle {0.22}}
883:
884: \put(4.5,2){\circle*{0.12}}
885: \put(4.5,2){\circle {0.22}}
886:
887: \put(5.5,2){\circle*{0.12}}
888: \put(5.5,2){\circle {0.22}}
889:
890: \put(6.5,2){\circle*{0.12}}
891: \put(6.5,2){\circle {0.22}}
892:
893: \put(8.5,2){\circle*{0.12}}
894: \put(8.5,2){\circle {0.22}}
895:
896: \put(7.5,2){\circle*{0.12}}
897: \put(7.5,2){\circle {0.22}}
898:
899: \put(9.5,2){\circle*{0.12}}
900:
901: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
902: \put(2,1){\circle*{0.2}}
903: \put(3,1){\circle*{0.12}}
904: \put(3,1){\circle {0.22}}
905:
906: \put(4,1){\circle*{0.12}}
907: \put(4,1){\circle {0.22}}
908:
909: \put(5,1){\circle*{0.12}}
910: \put(5,1){\circle {0.22}}
911:
912: \put(6,1){\circle*{0.12}}
913: \put(6,1){\circle {0.22}}
914:
915: \put(7,1){\circle*{0.12}}
916: \put(7,1){\circle {0.22}}
917:
918: \put(8,1){\circle*{0.12}}
919: \put(8,1){\circle {0.22}}
920:
\put(9,1){\circle*{0.12}}
921:
\put(9,1){\circle {0.22}}
922: \put(10,1){\circle*{0.2}}
923:
924: \put(2.5,0){\circle*{0.2}}
925: \put(3.5,0){\circle*{0.2}}
926: \put(4.5,0){\circle*{0.2}}
927: \put(5.5,0){\circle*{0.2}}
928: \put(6.5,0){\circle*{0.2}}
929: \put(7.5,0){\circle*{0.2}}
930: \put(8.5,0){\circle*{0.2}}
931: \put(9.5,0){\circle*{0.2}}
932:
933: \put(2,1){\line(1,2){3.5}}
934: \put(2,1){\line(1,-2){0.5}}
935: \put(2.5,0){\line(1,0){7}}
936: \put(5.5,8){\line(1,0){1}}
937: \put(10,1){\line(-1,2){3.5}}
938: \put(10,1){\line(-1,-2){0.5}}
939:
940: %end of anti-80
941: \end{picture}
942: \vglue 1.0cm
943: \caption{\tenrm The $I_3-Y$ diagrams for the lowest exotic multibaryons:
944: $\{\overline{35}\}$-plet of dibaryons, $\{\overline{28}\}$-plet of tribaryons
945: and $\{\overline{80}\}$-plet of tetrabaryons, with $\;m=1$.
946: Large full circles show the exotic states, smaller - the cryptoexotic states.}
947:
948: \end{flushleft}
949: \end{figure}
950:
951: For $B=3$ there is positive strangeness tribaryon (isosinglet) $^3He_S^{++}$,
952: its quark content is $(\bar{s}\,5u\,5d)$. The position of the components of
953: this multiplet is not calculated yet. One can state, however, in the spirit of
954: the version of the bound state model developed in \cite{23,24}, that the
955: difference
956: of the masses of positive strangeness isosinglet and ground state of $^3He$
957: $$ M_{^3He_S}\, -\, M_{^3He} = \bar{\omega}_{S,B=3} + O(1/N_c) \eqno (20) $$
958: with $\bar{\omega_S}$ - the energy of antistrangeness excitation.
959: For $B=4$ there is positive strangeness isodublet $^4He_S^{++}$ -
960: $^4Li_S^{+++}$ with minimal content $(\bar{s}\,6u\,7d)$ and $(\bar{s}\,7u\,6d)$.
961: Similarly, we have
962: $$ M_{^4He_S}\, -\, M_{^4He} = \bar{\omega}_{S,B=4} + O(1/N_c) \eqno (21) $$
963: The nonstrange components of such exotic multiplets (i.e. those with $Y=B$)
964: have the difference of masses
965: $$ M_{Y=B}\, -\, M_{B,ground\, st.} =\bar{\omega}_{S,B} + \omega_{S,B} +O(1/N_c),
966: \eqno (22) $$
967: and further $\omega_{S,B}$ should be added for each unit of strangeness, but the
968: whole method \cite{23} works when strangeness is not large ($1-2$ units, not
969: more).
970: The energies of flavor and antiflavor excitation for multiskyrmion were
971: calculated in \cite{24} for baryon numbers up to $22$, for $B\,>8$
972: within rational map approximation \cite{25}, using the results obtained in
973: comprehensive paper \cite{26}.
974:
975: Their characteristic feature is that they depend slightly on $B$-number.
976: It is known that the difference between antiflavor and flavor excitation
977: energies \cite{23}
978: $$ \bar{\omega}_{F,B} - \omega_{F,B} = N_CB/(4\Theta_{F,B}), \eqno(23)$$
979: for any flavor (strangeness, charm or beauty) and baryon number.
980: Since $\Theta_{F,B} \sim B$ roughly \cite{24}, this difference depends weakly
981: on B-number and scales like $N_C^0\sim 1$ \cite{23}.
982: Numerically $\bar{\omega}_S$ is close to $600\,Mev$ with small variations
983: \cite{24}. However, the $1/N_C$ corrections are not negligible, and this
984: question deserves further study.
985:
986: The qualitative treatment becomes very easy when the kaon mass is large enough.
987: In this case one obtains \cite{24}
988: $$\omega_{S,B} \simeq {\tilde{m}_K\over 2} \sqrt{\frac{\Sigma_B}{\Theta_{K,B}}}
989: - {3B\over 8\Theta_{K,B}} \eqno (24) $$
990:
991: $$ \tilde{\omega}_{S,B} \simeq {\tilde{m}_K\over 2}
992: \sqrt{\frac{\Sigma_B}{\Theta_{K,B}}} +
993: {3B\over 8\Theta_{K,B}} \eqno (25) $$
994: with $\tilde{m}_K^2 = F_K^2 m_K^2/F_\pi^2 - m_\pi^2 $, $\Sigma_B$ and
995: $\Theta_{K,B}$ are given by expressions similar to $(16)$ and $(12)$.
996: The ratio $r_{K,B}=\Sigma_B /\Theta_{K,B}$ decreases slightly with
997: increasing $B$, it can be proved rigorously that $r_{K,B} < 4F_\pi^2/F_K^2$
998: \cite{24}, therefore we have always $\omega_K <\, m_K$, and strangeness is
999: bound for any $B$-number, with slightly increasing binding.
1000:
1001: For antistrangeness the treatment simplifies if $F_K=F_\pi$, and we take this
1002: equality for the moment. Then
1003: $$ \tilde{\omega}_{K,B} \simeq {m_K\over 2} r_{K,B}^{1/2} + \frac{3B}
1004: {8\Theta_{K,B}}. \eqno (26) $$
1005: Numerically $r_{K,B}^{1/2}$ decreases from $1.53$ for $B=1$ to $1.48$ for $B=4$
1006: and $3B/(8\Theta_{K,B})$ is about $180\,Mev$ \cite{24} for $e=4.12$, but really
1007: the first ratio depends on $e$ very weakly. So, we have
1008: $$ \tilde{\omega}_K \simeq 0.76 m_K + 180 \,Mev$$
1009: for $B=1$ and very close relations for other $B \leq 4$.
1010: Evidently, with increasing $m_K$ antistrangeness also becomes bound, similar
1011: to strangeness (more precise, for $m_K > \sim 750\,Mev$).
1012: Corrections $\sim 1/N_c$ and $F_K/F_\pi =1.22 $ increase the critical value
1013: of $m_K$. These conclusions agree with those made recently in \cite{27}.
1014:
1015: Anticharm and antibeauty have chances to be bound: we obtain the corresponding
1016: excitation energies $\bar{\omega}_c \sim (1.75 -1.8)Gev$ for $B$ between $4$
1017: and $1$, $F_D/F_\pi \simeq 1.5$, and for antibeauty $\bar{\omega}_b
1018: \sim (4.9 - 5.0)Gev $ for the ratio $F_b/F_\pi \sim 2$ \cite{24}. So, these
1019: energies are smaller than corresponding meson masses, but to make more
1020: definite conclusions the $\sim 1/N_c$ corrections should be treated carefully.
1021:
1022: The positive strangeness dibaryons should decay into $KNN$, tribaryons - into
1023: $K3N$ final states, etc. with a width of same order of magnitude as
1024: $\Gamma_\Theta$.
1025: There are also exotic states with negative strangeness: dibaryons with $S=-4$,
1026: isospin $I=2$, with electric charge in the interval from $Q=-3$ to $Q=+1$,
1027: and tribaryons with $S=-5$, $I=3$ and charge from $-4$ up to $+2$, see {\bf
1028: Fig.3}.
1029: Tetrabaryons with $S=-7$ can have charge in the interval $-5$ to $+2$.
1030: As usually, it would be difficult to produce such states (one of possibilities
1031: are heavy ion collisions), but their detection
1032: could be easier: they decay mainly into $\Xi$-hyperons and pions.
1033: The large amount of exotic multibaryons looks embarrassing at first sight. One
1034: should keep in mind, however, that many of them are too broad (those which have
1035: energy by some hundreds of $Mev$ above threshold) and can be hardly
1036: distinguishable from continuum.
1037:
1038: To conclude this section, note that there are other predictions of states in
1039: chiral soliton models which are exotic in the common meaning of this word:
1040: for example, charmed or beautiful hypernuclei bound stronger than strange
1041: hypernuclei \cite{28}. The supernarrow electromagnetically decaying dibaryon
1042: with width about $\sim 1 Kev$ below the $NN\pi$ threshold \cite{29} was
1043: observed in two experiments \cite{30,31}, but not confirmed in \cite{32} in
1044: the mass interval below $1914\,Mev$. Its searches certainly deserve further
1045: efforts.
1046: \section{Conclusions and prospects}
1047: The mass and width of recently detected baryon with positive strangeness,
1048: $\Theta^+$ are in agreement with predictions of the topological (chiral)
1049: soliton model \cite{6,7,8} \footnote{As it was noted, from rigoristic point
1050: of view one could doubt in each of these predictions, therefore experimental
1051: confirmation was necessary.}. Possibly, another exotic baryon with zero
1052: strangeness has been observed \cite{9}. To be sure that the observed
1053: $\Theta^+$ belongs to antidecuplet, the measurement of its spin and parity
1054: is necessary first of all, as well as establishing its partners in $SU(3)$
1055: multiplet (antidecuplet).
1056:
1057: The searches for the state $\Theta^* \in \{27\}$ with isospin $I=1$ are of
1058: interest. The double charged state $\Theta^{*++}$ could appear as a resonance
1059: in $K^+p$ system. Since this state is by $\sim (120-160)\,Mev$ heavier than
1060: $\Theta^+$ \cite{10}, its width should be at least $3-4$ times greater than
1061: that of $\Theta^+$. The absence of such resonance could be a serious problem
1062: for the whole chiral soliton approach.
1063:
1064: Let us note also that the mass splitting inside of antidecuplet obtained in
1065: \cite{7,10} is considerably smaller than in \cite{8} where it is about
1066: $540\,Mev$. In addition, the deviation from equidistant law is large in
1067: \cite{7,10,6} as a consequence of configuration mixing being taken into account.
1068: As a result, the value of mass of the hyperon with isospin $I=3/2$, $\Xi^*_{3/2}$
1069: obtained in \cite{10} is considerably smaller than in \cite{8}. It is worth
1070: noting that its mass estimate made in \cite{22} within antiquark-diquark-diquark
1071: model is close to our result \cite{10}. The value of the mass of $\Sigma^*\in
1072: \{\overline{10}\}$ also is lower in \cite{10} and is more close to $\Sigma^*
1073: (1770)$ than to $\Sigma^*(1880)$.
1074:
1075: Many exotic resonances of interest have large values of isospin, therefore they
1076: cannot be observed in reactions of pion or kaon scattering on nucleons, but
1077: could be seen in reactions of two and more pions (kaons) production, similar to
1078: reaction studied in \cite{9}. It could be attractive a possibility to identify
1079: the state of mass $1.72\,Gev$ observed in \cite{9} with a component of
1080: $\{35\}$-plet with $S=0,\;I=5/2$. But the isospin selection rule for reaction of
1081: electroproduction \cite{9} with one-photon exchange makes such identification
1082: difficult. Another possibility noted already in \cite{9}, is that it is
1083: cryptoexotic component of $\{27\}$-plet with isospin $3/2$ and mass about
1084: $1.76\,Gev$, according to \cite{10}.
1085:
1086: Of course, there is no contradiction between chiral soliton approach and the
1087: quark (or quark-diquark, etc.) picture of baryons and baryon resonances, as
1088: it is stated in some papers. Both approaches are dual, the first one
1089: describes baryons or baryonic systems from large enough distances and allows to
1090: calculate such characteristics where the details of internal structure of
1091: baryons are not essential, one of such characteristics is just the mass of
1092: baryons.
1093:
1094: The consequences of discovery of new baryon resonance are considered in several
1095: recent papers \cite{22},\cite{23},\cite{33}-\cite{35} and others, many of them have been reviewed and analysed in \cite{35}.
1096: Hopefully, the results obtained in \cite{1}-\cite{5} and \cite{9} open new
1097: interesting chapter in physics of baryon resonances, and its new pages can
1098: be devoted also to studies of baryonic systems with exotic properties,
1099: including (anti)charm and beauty quantum numbers.
1100:
1101: I am thankful to H.Walliser for numerous conversations, the
1102: present talk is based to large extent on the paper \cite{10}. I'm
1103: indebted also to B.O.Kerbikov, A.E.Kudryavtsev, L.B.Okun' for useful questions
1104: and discussions, and to K.-H.Glander, O.Hashimoto, T.Nakano, R.Schumacher for
1105: discussions during the Symposium.
1106:
1107: The work has been supported by the Russian Foundation for Basic Research,
1108: grant 01-02-16615.\\
1109: \vglue 0.2cm
1110: {\elevenbf References}
1111: \vspace{2mm}
1112: \begin{thebibliography}{35}
1113: \bibitem{1} T. Nakano et al (LEPS collaboration), Phys. Rev. Lett. 91, 012002
1114: (2003); hep-ex/0301020
1115: \bibitem{2} V.V. Barmin et al (DIANA collaboration), hep-ex/0304040
1116: \bibitem{3} R. Schumacher (CLAS collaboration), Talk at this Symposium;
1117: S. Stepanyan et al, hep-ex/0307018
1118: \bibitem{4} J. Barth et al (SAPHIR collaboration), hep-ex/0307083
1119: \bibitem{5} A.E. Asratyan, A.G. Dolgolenko and M.A. Kubantsev, hep-ex/0309042
1120: \bibitem{6} M. Praszalowicz, Proc. of the Workshop {\it Skyrmions and Anomalies}
1121: Krakow, Poland, 20-24 Febr. 1987, World Scientific, Ed. M.Jezabek,
1122: M.Praszalowicz, p.112. The update version is hep-ph/0308114
1123: \bibitem{7} H. Walliser, Proc. of the Workshop {\it Baryon as Skyrme Soliton},
1124: Siegen, Germany, 28-30 Sept. 1992, World Scientific, Ed. G.Holzwarth, p.247;
1125: Nucl. Phys. A548, 649 (1992)
1126: \bibitem{8} D. Diakonov, V. Petrov, M. Polyakov, Z. Phys. A359, 305 (1997)
1127: \bibitem{9} M. Ripani et al (CLAS collaboration), hep-ex/0210054;
1128: hep-ex/0304034
1129: \bibitem{10} H. Walliser, V.B. Kopeliovich, hep-ph/0304058; JETP 124, 433 (2003)
1130: \bibitem{11} L.G. Landsberg, Phys. Usp. 42, 871 (1999)
1131: \bibitem{12} R.L. Jaffe, SLAC-PUB-1774; D. Strottman, Phys.Rev. D20, 748 (1979)
1132: \bibitem{13} M. Chemtob, Nucl.Phys. B256, 600 (1985)
1133: \bibitem{14} L.S. Biedenharn and Y. Dothan, {\it From SU(3) to Gravity}
1134: (Ne'eman Festschrift), Cambridge University Press, Cambridge (1986)
1135: \bibitem{15} V. Kopeliovich, Phys. Lett. B259, 234 (1991)
1136: \bibitem{16} H. Weigel, Eur. Phys. J. A2, 391 (1998)
1137: \bibitem{17} E. Guadagnini, Nucl.Phys. B236, 35 (1984)
1138: \bibitem{18} E. Witten, Nucl. Phys. B223, 433 (1983)
1139: \bibitem{19} B. Schwesinger, H. Weigel, Phys. Lett. B267, 438 (1991)
1140: \bibitem{20} V. Kopeliovich, B. Schwesinger, B. Stern, Nucl. Phys. A549, 485
1141: (1992)
1142: \bibitem{21} B. Moussalam, Ann. of Phys. (N.Y.) 225, 264 (1993);
1143: F. Meier, H. Walliser, Phys. Rept. 289, 383 (1997)
1144: \bibitem{22} R. Jaffe, F. Wilczek, hep-ph/0307341
1145: \bibitem{23} D. Kaplan, I.R. Klebanov, Nucl. Phys. B335, 45 (1990);
1146: I.R. Klebanov, K.M. Westerberg, Phys. Rev. D53, 2804 (1996)
1147: \bibitem{24} V.B. Kopeliovich, W.J. Zakrzewski, JETP Lett, 69, 721 (1999);
1148: Eur. Phys. J C18, 389 (2000); V.B. Kopeliovich, JETP, 93, 435 (2001)
1149: \bibitem{25} C. Houghton, N. Manton, P. Suttcliffe, Nucl. Phys. B510, 507 (1998)
1150: \bibitem{26} R.A. Battye, P.M. Sutcliffe, Rev. Math. Phys. 14, 29 (2002)
1151: \bibitem{27} N. Itzhaki, I.R. Klebanov, P. Ouyang and L. Rastelli, hep-ph/0309305
1152: \bibitem{28} V. Kopeliovich, JETP 96, 782 (2003); Nucl. Phys. A721, 1007 (2003);
1153: nucl-th/0209040
1154: \bibitem{29} V. Kopeliovich, Phys. Atom. Nucl. 58, 1237 (1995)
1155: \bibitem{30} A. Khrykin et al, Phys. Rev. C64, 034002 (2001)
1156: \bibitem{31} L.V. Filkov et al, Eur. Phys. J. A12, 369 (2001)
1157: \bibitem{32} A. Tamii et al, Phys. Rev. C65, 047001 (2002)
1158: \bibitem{33} A. Hosaka, hep-ph/0307232
1159: \bibitem{34} M. Karliner, H.J. Lipkin, hep-ph/0307243
1160: \bibitem{35} B.K. Jennings, K. Maltman, hep-ph/0308286
1161:
1162: \end{thebibliography}
1163:
1164: \end{document}
1165: