1: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
2: %
3: % Corrected PLB
4: % LANL version 2 August 4, 2004
5: %
6: %%%%%%%%%% espcrc1.tex %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
7: %
8: % $Id: espcrc1.tex 1.2 2000/07/24 09:12:51 spepping Exp spepping $
9: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
10: \documentclass[fleqn,12pt,twoside]{article}
11: \usepackage{espcrc1}
12:
13: % change this to the following line for use with LaTeX2.09
14: % \documentstyle[12pt,twoside,fleqn,espcrc1]{article}
15:
16: % if you want to include PostScript figures
17: \usepackage{graphicx}
18: % if you have landscape tables
19: \usepackage[figuresright]{rotating}
20:
21: % put your own definitions here:
22: % \newcommand{\cZ}{\cal{Z}}
23: % \newtheorem{def}{Definition}[section]
24: % ...
25: \newcommand{\ttbs}{\char'134}
26: \newcommand{\AmS}{{\protect\the\textfont2
27: A\kern-.1667em\lower.5ex\hbox{M}\kern-.125emS}}
28:
29: % add words to TeX's hyphenation exception list
30: \hyphenation{author another created financial paper re-commend-ed Post-Script}
31:
32: % declarations for front matter
33:
34: \title{Dynamical study of the pentaquark antidecuplet}
35:
36:
37: \author{Fl. Stancu\address[MCSD]{Universit\'{e} de Li\`ege,
38: Institut de Physique B.5,\\
39: Sart Tilman, B-4000 Li\`ege 1, Belgium}
40: \thanks{e-mail : fstancu@ulg.ac.be}}
41:
42: \begin{document}
43:
44: % typeset front matter
45: \maketitle
46:
47:
48:
49: \begin{abstract}
50: Dynamical calculations are performed for all isomultiplets of
51: the flavour antidecuplet to which the newly discovered pentaquark
52: $\Theta^+$ belongs. The framework is a constituent quark model
53: where the short-range interaction has a
54: flavour-spin structure. In this model
55: the lowest pentaquarks have positive parity.
56: Each antidecuplet member is
57: described by a variational solution with
58: the Pauli principle properly taken into account.
59: By fitting the mass of $\Theta^+$ of minimal content
60: $uudd\overline{s}$,
61: the mass of $\Xi^{--}$, of minimal content $ddss \overline{u}$,
62: is predicted at approximately 1960 MeV. The influence of the octet-antidecuplet
63: mixing on the masses of the $Y = 1$ and 0 pentaquarks is considered
64: within the same model and the role of the kinetic energy plus the hyperfine
65: interaction in this
66: mixing is pointed out.
67: \end{abstract}
68:
69: \vspace{1cm}
70:
71: \section{Introduction}
72: The existence of exotic baryons containing four quarks and an antiquark in
73: their lowest Fock component has now a solid experimental support.
74: The observation of a narrow peak at 1.54 $\pm$ 0.01 GeV/$c^2$,
75: called $\Theta^+$, as an $S = 1$
76: baryon resonance in the photo-production from neutron
77: $\gamma n \rightarrow K^+ K^- n$ \cite{NAKANO}, has been confirmed
78: by several groups in various photo-nuclear reactions \cite{EXP}.
79: This has been followed by the observation in $pp$ collisions \cite{NA49}
80: of other narrow resonances $\Xi^{--}$ and $\Xi^{0}$ at about 1862 MeV,
81: from which $\Xi^{--}$ is interpreted as another pure exotic member
82: of an SU(3) flavour antidecuplet.
83: The work of Diakonov, Petrov and Polyakov \cite{DPP}
84: has played a particularly important role
85: in these discoveries. In the context of a chiral soliton model
86: they predicted a narrow pentaquark,
87: with a width of less than 15 MeV, located at the about experimentally
88: observed mass of $\Theta$.
89:
90: At the end of the '70's,
91: following the observation of several signals,
92: light pentaquarks were studied theoretically \cite{HOGAASEN,STROTTMAN}, but
93: these signals were not confirmed. Charmed pentaquarks with strangeness,
94: $uuds \bar c$ and $udds \bar c$
95: were also predicted \cite{GI87,LI87},
96: but experimental searches carried at Fermilab
97: have remained inconclusive \cite{Ashery}.
98: These pentaquarks were introduced in the context of the
99: one-gluon exchange model (colour-spin interaction) and the heavy ones
100: carried negative parity. On the other hand
101: positive parity pentaquarks containing heavy
102: flavours were proposed in the context of a pseudoscalar
103: exchange model (flavour-spin interaction) \cite{GR96} about ten years
104: later \cite{FS}. In this model, the lowest ones,
105: $uudd \bar c$ and $uudd \bar b$, do not carry strangeness.
106: Recently the H1 Collaboration at DESY \cite{H1} reported a narrow
107: resonance of mass 3099 MeV, interpreted as a $uudd \bar c$ pentaquark.
108:
109: The spins and parities of $\Theta^+$ and $\Xi^{--}$ are not yet known
110: experimentally. In this new wave of pentaquark research,
111: most theoretical papers take the spin equal to 1/2. The parity is
112: more controversial. In chiral soliton or Skyrme models the parity
113: is positive \cite{DPP}. In constituent quark models it is usually positive.
114: In the present approach, the parity of the
115: pentaquark is given by $P \ =\ {\left({-}\right)}^{\ell \ +\ 1}$,
116: where $\ell$ is the angular momentum associated with the relative
117: coordinates of the $q^4$ subsystem.
118: We analyze the case where the subsystem of four light quarks
119: is in a state of
120: orbital symmetry ${\left[{31}\right]}_{O}$
121: and carries an angular momentum $\ell$ = 1. Although the kinetic energy of such
122: a state is higher than that of the totally symmetric ${\left[{4}\right]}_{O}$
123: state, the ${\left[{31}\right]}_{O}$ symmetry is the most favourable
124: both for the flavour-spin interaction \cite{FS} and the colour-spin
125: interaction \cite{JM}. In the first case the statement is
126: confirmed by the comparison between the realistic calculations
127: for positive parity \cite{FS} and negative
128: parity \cite{GE98}, based on the same quark model \cite{GPP}.
129: In Ref. \cite{FS} the antiquark was heavy, $c$ or $b$, and accordingly the
130: interaction between light
131: quarks and the heavy antiquark was neglected, consistent with
132: the heavy quark limit. In Ref. \cite{SR} an attractive spin-spin
133: interaction between ${\overline s}$ and the light quarks was incorporated
134: and shown that a stable or narrow positive parity $uudd {\overline s}$
135: pentaquark can be accommodated within such a model.
136: This interaction has a form that corresponds to $\eta$
137: meson exchange \cite{LR} and its role is to lower the
138: energy of the whole system.
139:
140:
141: The purpose of this letter is to perform dynamical calculations of all
142: the members of the antidecuplet to which $\Theta^{+}$ and $\Xi^{- -}$ are
143: supposed to belong. To our knowledge this is the first attempt in this
144: direction.
145: The present study is a natural extension of Ref. \cite{FS} where the
146: heavy antiquark $c$ or $b$ is now replaced by a light quark $u$, $d$ or $s$.
147: To describe the short range interaction
148: we rely on the same model \cite{GPP} as that used in \cite{FS}. That
149: means that the quark-quark interaction has a flavour-spin structure
150: \cite{GR96} and that the parameters are fitted to the light non-strange and
151: strange baryon spectra. Moreover we assume that the quark-antiquark
152: interaction is proportional to a spin-dependent operator,
153: but it is flavour independent, as in Ref. \cite{SR}. Its role is to introduce
154: the same flavour independent shift for each member of the pentaquark
155: antidecuplet of equal spin.
156: We shall fix this shift by adjusting the
157: mass of $\Theta^+$ to the experimental value. There is no other
158: free parameter in the Hamiltonian model used in this study. For the pure
159: exotic $\Xi^{--}$, we predict a mass of
160: %$\Xi^{--}$ to be about
161: 1960 MeV.
162: For the antidecuplet members with $Y$ = 1 and 0 we investigate
163: the role of the octet-antidecuplet mixing. To some extent this study will be
164: a comparative one.
165:
166: We search for a variational solution
167: of a five-body
168: Hamiltonian, containing a kinetic energy term, a confinement term
169: and a short range (hyperfine) interaction having a flavour-spin structure.
170: The SU$_F$(3) breaking is taken into account by the strange quark mass
171: which appears in the mass term, in the kinetic part and in the hyperfine
172: part. The latter also breaks SU$_F$(3) through the masses of the
173: pseudoscalar mesons exchanged among quarks.
174: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
175:
176: \section{The Hamiltonian}
177:
178: The Hamiltonian has the form \cite{GPP}
179: \begin{equation}
180: H= \sum_i m_i
181: + \sum_i \frac{\vec{p}_{i}^{2}}{2m_i}
182: - \frac {(\sum_i \vec{p}_{i})^2}{2\sum_i m_i}
183: + \sum_{i<j} V_{c}(r_{ij})
184: + \sum_{i<j} V_\chi(r_{ij}) \, ,
185: \label{ham}
186: \end{equation}
187: with the linear confining interaction
188: \begin{equation}
189: V_{c}(r_{ij}) = -\frac{3}{8}~\lambda_{i}^{c}\cdot\lambda_{j}^{c} \,~ C
190: \, ~ r_{ij} \, ,
191: \label{conf}
192: \end{equation}
193: and the flavour--spin interaction
194: \begin{eqnarray}
195: V_\chi(r_{ij})
196: &=&
197: \left\{\sum_{F=1}^3 V_{\pi}(r_{ij})~ \lambda_i^F \lambda_j^F \right.
198: \nonumber \\
199: &+& \left. \sum_{F=4}^7 V_{K}(r_{ij})~ \lambda_i^F \lambda_j^F
200: +V_{\eta}(r_{ij})~ \lambda_i^8 \lambda_j^8
201: +V_{\eta^{\prime}}(r_{ij})~ \lambda_i^0 \lambda_j^0\right\}~
202: \vec\sigma_i\cdot\vec\sigma_j~.
203: \label{VCHI}
204: \end{eqnarray}
205: The analytic form of $V_\gamma (r)$
206: ($\gamma = \pi, K, \eta$ or $\eta'$) is
207:
208: \begin{equation}\label{RADIAL}
209: V_\gamma (r)=
210: \frac{g_\gamma^2}{4\pi}\frac{1}{12m_i m_j}
211: \{\theta(r-r_0)\mu_\gamma^2\frac{e^{-\mu_\gamma r}}{ r}- \frac {4}{\sqrt {\pi}}
212: \alpha^3 \exp(-\alpha^2(r-r_0)^2)\}~,
213: \end{equation}
214: with the parameters:
215: \begin{eqnarray}\label{PARAM}
216: &\frac{g_{\pi q}^2}{4\pi} = \frac{g_{\eta q}^2}{4\pi} =
217: \frac{g_{Kq}^2}{4\pi}= 0.67,\,\,
218: \frac{g_{\eta ' q}^2}{4\pi} = 1.206, &\nonumber\\
219: &r_0 = 0.43\,~ \mathrm{fm}, ~\alpha = 2.91 \,~ \mathrm{fm}^{-1},
220: C= 0.474 \, { fm}^{-2}, \,
221: m_{u,d} = 340 \,~ \mathrm{MeV}, \, m_s = 440 \,~ \mathrm{MeV}, \\
222: %%\nonumber\\
223: &\mu_{\pi} = 139 \,~ \mathrm{MeV},~ \mu_{\eta} = 547 \,~ \mathrm{MeV}.~
224: \mu_{\eta'} = 958 \, \mathrm{MeV},~ \mu_{K} = 495 \,~ \mathrm{MeV}.&
225: \nonumber
226: \end{eqnarray}
227: \noindent which lead to a good description of low-energy
228: non-strange and strange baryon spectra. Fixing the
229: nucleon mass at $m_N$ = 939 MeV, this parametrization gives
230: for example $m_{\Delta}$ = 1232 MeV and
231: $N(1440)$ = 1493 MeV. The lowest negative
232: parity states appear at $N(1535)-N(1520)$ = 1539 MeV, i. e.
233: above the Roper resonance, in agreement with the experiment.
234:
235:
236:
237: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
238:
239: \section{The wave function Ansatz}
240: We start
241: with the $q^4$ subsystem and treat the quarks as identical particles
242: in all cases. Then following Ref. \cite{FS} the orbital (O) part of
243: the lowest totally antisymmetric state must carry the symmetry
244: ${\left[{31}\right]}_{O}$.
245: In the flavour-spin (FS) coupling
246: scheme this state has the form
247: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
248: \begin{equation} \label{STATE1}
249: \left.{\left|{1}\right.}\right\rangle\ =\
250: \left|[{31}]_O
251: {\left[{211}\right]}_{C} \left[{1111}\right]_{OC}\ ;
252: [{22}]_{F} [22]_{S} [{4}]_{FS}
253: \right\rangle
254: \end{equation}
255: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
256: which means that the wave function is totally symmetric in the flavour-spin
257: space and totally antisymmetric in the orbital-colour (OC) space and that
258: the $q^4$ subsystem carries non-zero angular momentum and has zero spin.
259: Then the $q^4 {\overline q}$ state is obtained by
260: coupling the antiquark to the state $|1\rangle$ of Eq.(\ref{STATE1})
261: which leads to either
262: ${\overline {10}}_F$ or to 8$_F$
263: and to a total spin 1/2.
264: To derive the orbital part
265: we denote the quarks by 1, 2, 3 and 4 and the antiquark by 5 and
266: introduce the internal Jacobi coordinates
267:
268: \begin{eqnarray}\label{JACOBI}
269: \begin{array}{c}\vec{x}\ =\ {\vec{r}}_{1}\ -\ {\vec{r}}_{2}\ , \,
270: \hspace{5mm} \vec{y}\ =\
271: {\left({{\vec{r}}_{1}\ +\ {\vec{r}}_{2}\ -\ 2{\vec{r}}_{3}}\right)/\sqrt
272: {3}}\\
273: \vec{z}\ =\ {\left({{\vec{r}}_{1}\ +\ {\vec{r}}_{2}\ +\ {\vec{r}}_{3}\ -\
274: 3{\vec{r}}_{4}}\right)/\sqrt {6}}\ , \, \hspace{5mm} \vec{t}\ =\
275: {\left({{\vec{r}}_{1}\
276: +\ {\vec{r}}_{2}\ +\ {\vec{r}}_{3}+\ {\vec{r}}_{4}-\
277: 4{\vec{r}}_{5}}\right)/\sqrt {10}}~.
278: \end{array}
279: \end{eqnarray}
280: The key issue is to construct a wave function with correct permutation
281: symmetry in terms of the above Jacobi coordinates.
282: Assuming an $s^3p$ structure for ${\left[{31}\right]}_{O}$,
283: the three independent ${\left[{31}\right]}_O$ states denoted
284: by $\psi_i$ are \cite{FS}
285:
286: \begin{eqnarray}\label{psi1}
287: {\psi }_{1} = \renewcommand{\arraystretch}{0.5}
288: \begin{array}{c} $\fbox{1}\fbox{2}\fbox{3}$ \\
289: $\fbox{4}$\hspace{9mm}
290: \end{array}
291: =
292: \left\langle{\vec{x}\left|{000}\right.}\right
293: \rangle\left\langle{\vec{y}\left|{000}\right.}\right\rangle\left
294: \langle{\vec{z}\left|{010}\right.}\right\rangle ~,
295: \end{eqnarray}
296:
297: \begin{eqnarray}\label{psi2}
298: {\psi }_{2} = \renewcommand{\arraystretch}{0.5}
299: \begin{array}{c} $\fbox{1}\fbox{2}\fbox{4}$ \\
300: $\fbox{3}$\hspace{9mm} \end{array}
301: =
302: \left\langle{\vec{x}\left|{000}\right.}\right
303: \rangle\left\langle{\vec{y}\left|{010}\right.}\right\rangle\left
304: \langle{\vec{z}\left|{000}\right.}\right\rangle ~,
305: \end{eqnarray}
306:
307:
308: \begin{eqnarray}\label{psi3}
309: {\psi }_{3} = \renewcommand{\arraystretch}{0.5}
310: \begin{array}{c} $\fbox{1}\fbox{3}\fbox{4}$ \\
311: $\fbox{2}$\hspace{9mm} \end{array}
312: =
313: \left\langle{\vec{x}\left|{010}\right.}\right
314: \rangle\left\langle{\vec{y}\left|{000}\right.}\right\rangle\left
315: \langle{\vec{z}\left|{000}\right.}\right\rangle ~,
316: \end{eqnarray}
317: \noindent
318: where
319: $ \left.{\left|{n\ \ell \ m}\right.}\right \rangle $
320: %$ | n \ell m \rangle $
321: are shell model wave functions and we took the quantum number
322: $m$ = 0 everywhere, for convenience. Thus each function carries an
323: angular momentum $\ell $ = 1 in one of the relative coordinate,
324: which leads to a total parity $P$ = + 1 and a
325: total angular momentum $J$ = 1/2 or 3/2.
326: The degeneracy of these two states can be lifted by the introduction
327: of a spin-orbit coupling.
328:
329: The functions (\ref{psi1})-(\ref{psi3}) are used to construct a totally
330: antisymmetric orbital-colour state for the $q^4$ subsystem, in
331: agreement with (\ref{STATE1}).
332: The coefficients of the resulting linear combination are fixed by group theory,
333: namely by the
334: Clebsch-Gordan coefficients of the permutation group S$_4$. In this case,
335: the absolute value of all three coefficients is equal to $1/\sqrt{3}$,
336: which means that each of the states (\ref{psi1})-(\ref{psi3})
337: contribute with equal probability.
338:
339: The pentaquark orbital wave functions are obtained
340: by multiplying each $\psi_i$ by
341: $\left\langle{\vec{t}\left|{000}\right.}\right\rangle$ which describes the
342: motion of the $q^4$ subsystem relative to $\overline {q}$.
343: The wave function associated to each relative coordinate is chosen to
344: be a Gaussian.
345: This gives
346: \begin{equation}\label{PSI1}
347: {\psi }_{1}\ =
348: %\exp\ \left[{-\ {\frac{1}{4 \alpha^2}}\ \left({{x}^{2}\ +\
349: %{y}^{2}\ +\ {z}^{2}}\right)\ -\ {\frac{1}{4 \beta^2}}\ {t}^{2}}\right]\
350: \ \psi_0\ \ z\ {Y}_{10}\
351: \left({\hat{z}}\right)
352: \end{equation}
353: \begin{equation}\label{PSI2}
354: {\psi }_{2}\ =
355: %\exp\ \left[{-\ {\frac{1}{4 \alpha^2}}\ \left({{x}^{2}\ +\
356: %{y}^{2}\ +\ {z}^{2}}\right)\ -\ {\frac{b}{2}}\ {t}^{2}}\right]\
357: \ \psi_0\ \ y\ {Y}_{10}\
358: \left({\hat{y}}\right)
359: \end{equation}
360: \begin{equation}\label{PSI3}
361: {\psi }_{3}\ =
362: %\exp\ \left[{-\ {\frac{a}{2}}\ \left({{x}^{2}\ +\
363: %{y}^{2}\ +\ {z}^{2}}\right)\ -\ {\frac{b}{2}}\ {t}^{2}}\right]\
364: \ \psi_0\ \ x\ {Y}_{10}\
365: \left({\hat{x}}\right)
366: \end{equation}
367: where
368: \begin{equation}\label{PSI0}
369: \psi_0 = {[\frac{1}{48 \pi^5 \alpha \beta^3}]}^{1/2}
370: \exp\ \left[{-\ {\frac{1}{4 \alpha^2}}\ \left({{x}^{2}\ +\
371: {y}^{2}\ +\ {z}^{2}}\right)\ -\ {\frac{1}{4 \beta^2}}\ {t}^{2}}\right]~.
372: %N\ =\ {\frac{{2}^{3/2}{a}^{11/4}{b}^{3/4}}{{3}^{1/2}{\pi }^{5/2}}}
373: \end{equation}
374: The two variational parameters are $\alpha$, the same for all internal
375: coordinates of the $q^4$ subsystem, $\vec{x}$, $\vec{y}$ or $\vec{z}$,
376: and $\beta$, for $\vec{t}$, the relative coordinate
377: of $q^4$ to $\overline{q}$.
378: %\footnote{%
379: %Note that the factor 1/4 appearing in the exponential of (\ref{PSI0})
380: %is related to the normalization we have chosen for the Jacobi coordinates
381: %(\ref{JACOBI}).}.
382:
383: The algebraic structure of the state (\ref{STATE1}) is identical to that
384: of Ref. \cite{CARLSON1}. The small overlap of the resulting
385: $q^4 \bar q$ state with the kinematically
386: allowed final states could partly explain the narrowness of
387: $\Theta^+$.
388:
389: %The $q^4$ state (\ref{STATE1}) generates a $q^4 \overline q$ state which can
390: %naturally explain the observed narrowness of the pentaquark $\Theta$
391: %\cite{CARLSON1}.
392:
393: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
394:
395: \section{Matrix elements}
396:
397:
398: The expectation values of the hyperfine interaction $ V_{\chi}$, Eq. (\ref{VCHI}),
399: in the flavour-spin space,
400: are presented in Table \ref{FOURQ}
401: for the three $q^4$ subsystems necessary to construct the antidecuplet. They
402: are expressed in terms of the two-body radial form (\ref{RADIAL}) now denoted
403: as $V^{q_a q_b}_{\gamma}$ where $q_a q_b$ specifies the flavour content of
404: the interacting pair.
405: The SU(3)$_F$ is explicitly broken
406: by the quark masses and by the meson masses. By taking
407: $V_{\eta}^{uu}$ = $V_{\eta}^{us}$ = $V_{\eta}^{ss}$
408: and $V_{\eta'}^{uu}$ = $V_{\eta'}^{us}$ = 0,
409: one recovers the simpler model described in Ref. \cite{CARLSON}
410: where one does not distinguish between the $uu$, $us$ or $ss$
411: pairs in the $\eta$-meson exchange. Moreover, in Ref. \cite{CARLSON}
412: one takes as parameters the already integrated two-body matrix elements of
413: some radial part of the hyperfine interaction, as in Ref. \cite{GR96}.
414: Here we specify a radial form,
415: which allows the explicit introduction of radial
416: excitations at the quark level, whenever necessary.
417: Then, from Table \ref{FOURQ} one can easily reproduce
418: Table 3 of \cite{CARLSON} containing the coefficients $x_1, x_2$ and $x_3 $,
419: i. e. the multiplicities, or the fraction of the two body matrix elements
420: associated to
421: $\pi, K$ and $\eta$ exchange respectively, which appear in the expression for
422: the mass. The first and last row of $x_i$,
423: corresponding to $\Theta$ and $\Xi^{- -}$ are straightforward, inasmuch as
424: their contents are $uudd \overline s$ and $ddss \overline u$ respectively.
425: To get the $x_i$ associated with $N_5$
426: and $\Sigma_5$, which we call here $N_{\overline {10}}$ and
427: $\Sigma_{\overline {10}}$
428: respectively, one must construct the linear combinations
429: \begin{eqnarray}\label{COMB}
430: V_{\chi}(N_{\overline {10}}) =
431: \frac{1}{3} V_{\chi}(uudd) + \frac{2}{3} V_{\chi}(uuds), \nonumber \\
432: V_{\chi}(\Sigma_{\overline {10}}) =
433: \frac{1}{3} V_{\chi}(uuss) + \frac{2}{3} V_{\chi}(uuds),
434: \end{eqnarray}
435: in agreement with the flavour wave functions given in the Appendix
436: and the relation $V_{\chi}(uuss) = V_{\chi}(ddss)$.
437: Moreover, in Ref. \cite{CARLSON}, for each exchanged meson, one
438: assumed that the radial two-body matrix elements are equal irrespective of
439: the angular momentum of the state, $\ell$ = 0 or $\ell$ = 1, which we won't do.
440:
441:
442: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
443: \begin{table}
444: \parbox{18cm}{\caption[matrix]{\label{FOURQ}
445: The hyperfine interaction $ V_{\chi} $, Eq. (\ref{VCHI}),
446: integrated in the flavour-spin space, for four \\ quark subsystems.
447: The upper index indicates the flavour of every interacting $qq$ pair. \\ }}
448: \begin{tabular}{c|c|c}
449: $q^4$ & $I,~ I_3$ & $ V_{\chi} $ \\
450: \hline
451: $uudd$ & 0,~ 0 & 30 $V_{\pi} - 2~ V^{uu}_{\eta} - 4~ V^{uu}_{\eta'} $\\
452: $uuds$ & 1/2,~1/2 & 15 $V_{\pi} - V^{uu}_{\eta} - 2~ V^{uu}_{\eta'}
453: + 12~ V_K + 2~ V^{us}_{\eta} - 2~ V^{us}_{\eta'}$ \\
454: $ddss$ & 1, -1 & $V_{\pi} + \frac{1}{3} V^{uu}_{\eta} + \frac{2}{3}V^{uu}_{\eta'}
455: + \frac{4}{3} V^{ss}_{\eta} + \frac{2}{3} V^{ss}_{\eta'} + 20 V_K
456: + \frac{16}{3} V^{us}_{\eta} - \frac{16}{3} V^{us}_{\eta'}$
457: \end{tabular}
458: \end{table}
459: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
460:
461: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
462: \begin{table}
463: \parbox{18cm}{\caption[matrix]{\label{FIVEQ}
464: Expectation values (MeV) and total energy
465: $E = \sum_{n=1}^5 m_i + \langle T \rangle +
466: \langle V_{c} \rangle + \langle V_{\chi} \rangle$ obtained \\
467: from the Hamiltonian (\ref{ham}) for various $q^4 \overline q$
468: systems. The mass $M$ is obtained from $E$ by \\
469: subtraction of 510 MeV in order to fit the mass of $\Theta^+$.
470: The values of the variational \\
471: parameters $\alpha$ and $\beta$
472: are indicated in the last two columns.\\ }}
473: \begin{tabular}{c|c|c|c|c|c|c|c|c}
474: $q^4 {\overline q} $ & $\sum_{n=1}^5 m_i$ & $\langle T \rangle $
475: & $\langle V_{c} \rangle $ & $\langle V_{\chi} \rangle$ & $ E $ &
476: $ M $ & $\alpha(fm)$ & $\beta(fm)$ \\
477: \hline
478: $uudd \overline d$ & 1700 & 1864 & 442 & -2044 & 1962 & 1452 & 0.42 & 0.92\\
479: $uudd \overline s$ & 1800 & 1848 & 461 & -2059 & 2050 & 1540 & 0.42 & 1.01\\
480: $uuds \overline d$ & 1800 & 1535 & 461 & -1563 & 2233 & 1732 & 0.45 & 0.92\\
481: $uuds \overline s$ & 1900 & 1634 & 440 & -1663 & 2310 & 1800 & 0.44 & 0.87\\
482: $ddss \overline u$ & 1900 & 1418 & 464 & -1310 & 2472 & 1962 & 0.46 & 0.92\\
483: $uuss \overline s$ & 2000 & 1410 & 452 & -1310 & 2552 & 2042 & 0.46 & 0.87\\
484: \end{tabular}
485: \end{table}
486:
487: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
488:
489: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
490: \begin{table}
491: \parbox{18cm}{\caption[matrix]{\label{ANTIDEC}
492: The antidecuplet mass spectrum in MeV. \\}}
493: \begin{tabular}{c|c|c|c|c}
494: Pentaquark & $Y,~ I,~ I_3$ & Present result & Carlson et al.
495: \cite{CARLSON} & Exp + GMO formula \\
496: \hline
497: $\Theta^+$ & 2, 0, 0 & 1540 & 1540 & 1540 \\
498: $N_{\overline {10}} $ & 1, 1/2, 1/2 & 1684 & 1665 & 1647 \\
499: $\Sigma_{\overline {10}}$ & 0, 1, 1 & 1829 & 1786 & 1755 \\
500: $\Xi^{- -}$ & -1, 3/2, -3/2 & 1962 & 1906 & 1862
501: \end{tabular}
502: \end{table}
503: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
504:
505: \section{Results and discussion}
506: In Table \ref{FIVEQ} we present the variational energy $E$ of the
507: model Hamiltonian (\ref{ham})
508: resulting from the trial wave function described by Eqs. (\ref{PSI1})-(\ref{PSI0})
509: for various $q^4 {\overline q}$
510: systems related to the antidecuplet or the octet.
511: One can see that, except for the
512: confinement contribution $\langle V_{c} \rangle$, all the other
513: terms break SU(3)$_F$, as expected: the mass term $\sum_{n=1}^5 m_i$
514: increases, the kinetic energy $\langle T \rangle$ decreases and the short range
515: attraction $\langle V_{\chi} \rangle$ decreases with the quark masses.
516: For reasons explained in the introduction, we subtract 510 MeV from the
517: total energy E in order to reproduce the experimental $\Theta^+$ mass.
518:
519: For completeness, in the last two columns of Table \ref{FIVEQ}
520: we also indicate the values of the variational parameters
521: $\alpha$ and $\beta$ appearing in the radial wave function
522: (\ref{PSI0}) which minimize the energy of the
523: systems displayed in the first column. The parameter $\alpha$
524: takes values around $\alpha_0$ = 0.44 fm.
525: In the same quark model this is precisely the value
526: which minimizes the
527: ground state nucleon mass \cite{GE98} when the trial wave
528: function is $\phi \propto \exp[-(x^2 + y^2)/4 \alpha^2_0]$
529: where $\vec{x}$ and $\vec{y}$ are the first two of the
530: Jacobi coordinates (\ref{JACOBI}) defined above. The quantity $\alpha_0$
531: gives a measure of the
532: quark core size of the nucleon because it is its
533: root-mean-square radius. The parameter $\beta$ is related to the
534: relative coordinate $\vec{t}$ between the center of mass of the $q^4$
535: subsystem and the antiquark. It takes values about twice larger than $\alpha$,
536: which is an indication that the four quarks cluster together, whereas
537: $\bar q$ remains slightly separate in contrast to certain Ansaetze
538: recently promulgated in the literature.
539:
540:
541:
542: Table \ref{ANTIDEC} reproduces the calculated antidecuplet mass spectrum
543: obtained from the mass M of Table \ref{FIVEQ}.
544: The masses of $\Theta^+$ and $\Xi^{- -}$ can be read off Table \ref{FIVEQ}
545: directly. The other masses are obtained from the linear combinations
546: \begin{eqnarray}\label{PENTA}
547: M(N_{\overline {10}}) =
548: \frac{1}{3} M(uudd \bar d) + \frac{2}{3} M(uuds \bar s), \nonumber \\
549: %\end{equation}
550: %\begin{equation}
551: M(\Sigma_{\overline {10}}) =
552: \frac{2}{3} M(uuds \bar d) + \frac{1}{3} M(uuss \bar s)~.
553: \end{eqnarray}
554: In comparison with Carlson et al. \cite{CARLSON},
555: where the mass of $\Theta^+$ is also adjusted to the experimental value,
556: we obtain somewhat higher masses for $N_{\overline {10}}$,
557: $\Sigma_{\overline {10}}$ and $\Xi^{- -}$, the latter being about 100 MeV
558: above the experimentally found mass of 1862 MeV \cite{NA49}.
559: This is in contrast to the
560: strongly correlated diquark model of Jaffe and Wilczek \cite{JW},
561: where $\Xi^{- -}$ lies about 100 MeV below the experimental value.
562: Note that the mass of $\Theta^+$ is also fixed in that model.
563: In the lowest order of SU(3)$_F$ breaking, one can parametrize the result by
564: the Gell-Mann-Okubo (GMO) mass formula, $M = M_{\overline {10}} + cY$.
565: In the present case one obtains $M \simeq 1829 - 145~ Y$.
566: The fit to the measured masses of $\Theta^+$ and $\Xi^{- -}$ gives
567: $M \simeq 1755 - 107~ Y$. Accordingly, the masses assigned to
568: $N_{\overline {10}}$ and $\Sigma_{\overline {10}}$ are 1647 MeV and 1755 MeV.
569: They are indicated in the
570: last column of Table \ref{ANTIDEC}.
571: Starting from this fit, Diakonov and Petrov \cite{DP} analyzed
572: the masses of the non-exotic members of the antidecuplet as a consequence
573: of the octet-antidecuplet mixing due to SU(3)$_F$ breaking.
574: \footnote{%
575: A similar analysis, but restricted to the ideal mixing
576: postulated by Jaffe and Wilczek \cite{JW}, has been made in Ref. \cite{OKL}.}
577: A new nucleon state at 1650-1690 MeV and a new $\Sigma$ at 1760-1810 MeV
578: have been proposed as mainly antidecuplet baryons with $Y$ = 1 and
579: $Y$ = 0 respectively.
580: Shortly after, Pakvasa and Suzuki
581: \cite{PASU} also considered the octet-antidecuplet mixing in a
582: phenomenological way starting from the Gell-Mann-Okubo mass formulae.
583: There, the
584: resonance $N^*(1710)$ was taken as the $Y$ = 1 partner of
585: $\Theta^+$, as in the original work of Ref. \cite{DPP}. That analysis
586: showed that the
587: range of values for the mixing angle required by the mass spectrum of
588: the $Y$ = 1 baryons is not consistent with the range
589: needed to fit strong decays.
590: \footnote{%
591: A more extended representation mixing
592: including the 8, 10, $\overline {10}$,
593: 27, 35 and $\overline {35}$
594: were considered in Ref. \cite{EKP}
595: in the context of the chiral soliton model.
596: The masses of $N_{\overline {10}}$ and $\Sigma_{\overline {10}}$
597: were predicted to be the same as those in the last column of Table
598: \ref{ANTIDEC}.
599: The estimated range for the pure exotic pentaquarks turn out to be
600: 1430 MeV $< M(\Theta^+) <$ 1660 MeV and 1790 MeV $< M(\Sigma^{--}) <$ 1970 MeV.}
601: %Our prediction for $M(\Sigma^{--})$ is located within this range.}
602:
603:
604: However the recent modified PWA analysis \cite{ARNDT}
605: reconsiders the antidecuplet nature of $N^*(1710)$ used
606: to determine the mass of $\Theta^+$ in Ref. \cite{DPP}.
607: As a result, instead of $N^*(1710)$, it proposes two
608: narrow resonances 1680 MeV and/or 1730 MeV,
609: as appropriate $Y$ = 1 partners of $\Theta^+$. This interpretation
610: of the data clearly requires octet-antidecuplet mixing.
611:
612: In the present model, which contains SU(3)$_F$
613: breaking, the mixing appears naturally and it can be derived dynamically
614: starting from the Hamiltonian (\ref{ham}).
615: Recall that Table 3, column 3 gives the pure antidecuplet masses.
616: The pure octet masses are easily
617: calculable using Table \ref{FIVEQ} and the octet wave functions
618: (see Appendix). We obtain
619: \begin{eqnarray}\label{OCTET}
620: M(N_{8}) =
621: \frac{2}{3} M(uudd \bar d) + \frac{1}{3} M(uuds \bar s) =
622: 1568 ~\mathrm{MeV}, \nonumber \\
623: %\end{equation}
624: %\begin{equation}
625: M(\Sigma_8) =
626: \frac{1}{3} M(uuds \bar d) + \frac{2}{3} M(uuss \bar s) =
627: 1936 ~\mathrm{MeV}.
628: \end{eqnarray}
629:
630: The octet-antidecuplet off-diagonal matrix element, denoted by $V$,
631: has only two non-vanishing contributions, one
632: coming from the mass (first) term of (\ref{ham})
633: and associated with the overlap
634: of $\Phi(N_{\overline {10}})$ and $\Phi(N_8)$, or
635: of $\Phi(\Sigma_{\overline {10}})$ and $\Phi(\Sigma_8)$,
636: and the other coming from the hyperfine interaction. Using the Appendix
637: one can obtain the analytic form of $V$ as
638: \begin{equation}\label{COUPLING}
639: V = \left\{ \renewcommand{\arraystretch}{2}
640: \begin{array}{cl}
641: \frac{2 \sqrt{2}}{3} (m_s - m_u) +
642: \frac{\sqrt{2}}{3}~[S(uuds \bar s) - S(uudd \bar d)]
643: = 166 ~\mathrm{MeV}~
644: &\hspace{1.1cm} \mbox{for N} \\
645: \frac{2 \sqrt{2}}{3} (m_s - m_u) +
646: \frac{\sqrt{2}}{3}~[S(uuss \bar s) - S(uuds \bar d)]
647: = 155 ~\mathrm{MeV}~
648: &\hspace{1.1cm} \mbox{for $\Sigma$}
649: \end{array} \right.
650: \end{equation}
651: where $S = \langle T \rangle + \langle V_{\chi} \rangle $.
652: The numerical values on the right hand side of Eq. (\ref{COUPLING})
653: result from the quark masses given in
654: Eqs. (\ref{PARAM}) and from the
655: values of $\langle T \rangle $ and $\langle V_{\chi} \rangle $
656: exhibited in Table \ref{FIVEQ}.
657: One can see that the mass-induced breaking term is identical for
658: $N$ and $\Sigma$, as expected from simple
659: SU(3) considerations. Its numerical value, 94.28 MeV,
660: represents more than 1/2 of the total off-diagonal matrix element.
661:
662:
663: The masses of the physical states, the ``mainly octet'' $N^*$ and the
664: ``mainly antidecuplet'' $N_5$, result from the diagonalization of
665: a 2 $\times$ 2 matrix in each case. Accordingly the nucleon solutions are
666: \begin{eqnarray}\label{PHYSN}
667: N^* = N_{8} \cos \theta_N - N_{\overline {10}} \sin \theta_N,\nonumber \\
668: N_5 = N_{8} \sin \theta_N + N_{\overline {10}} \cos \theta_N,
669: \end{eqnarray}
670: with the mixing angle defined by
671: \begin{equation}\label{ANGLE}
672: \tan 2 \theta_N = \frac{2 V}{M(N_{\overline {10}}) - M(N_{8})}~.
673: \end{equation}
674: The masses obtained from this mixing are 1451 MeV and 1801 MeV respectively
675: and the mixing angle is $\theta_N = 35.34^0$, which means that the
676: ``mainly antidecuplet'' state $N_5$ is 67 \%
677: $N_{\overline {10}}$
678: and 33 \%
679: $N_{8}$, and the ``mainly octet'' $N^*$ the other way round.
680: The latter is located in the Roper resonance mass region
681: 1430 - 1470 MeV. However this is a
682: $q^4 \bar q$ state, i. e. it is
683: different from the $q^3$ radially excited state obtained in Ref. \cite{GPP}
684: at 1493 MeV with the parameters (\ref{PARAM}) and
685: assigned to the Roper resonance. A mixing of the $q^3$ and
686: the $q^4 \bar q$ states could possibly be a better description of reality.
687: There is some experimental evidence that two resonances, instead of one,
688: separated by about 100 MeV, and located around 1440 MeV, could consistently
689: describe the $\pi-N$ and $\alpha-p$ scattering in this region \cite{MORSCH},
690: however.
691: Thus the issue of the existence of
692: more than one resonance with $J^P = 1/2^+$ in the 1430- 1500 MeV
693: mass range remains unsettled.
694: The ``mainly antidecuplet'' solution at 1801 MeV is far from
695: the higher option of Ref. \cite{ARNDT}, at 1730 MeV,
696: interpreted as the $Y$ = 1 narrow resonance partner of $\Theta^+$.
697:
698: In a similar way we obtain two $\Sigma$ resonances, the ``mainly octet'' one
699: being at 1719 MeV
700: and the ``mainly antidecuplet'' one at 2046 MeV.
701: The octet-antidecuplet mixing angle is
702: $\theta_{\Sigma} = - 35.48^0$. The lower state is somewhat above
703: the experimental mass range 1630 - 1690 MeV of the
704: the $\Sigma(1660)$ resonance. As the higher mass region of $\Sigma$ is
705: less known experimentally, it would be difficult to make an assignement for
706: the higher state.
707:
708: The mixing angle $\theta_N$ and $\theta_{\Sigma}$ are nearly equal
709: in absolute value, but they have
710: opposite signs. The reason is that $M(N_{\overline {10}}) > M(N_8)$
711: while $M(\Sigma_{\overline {10}}) < M(\Sigma_8)$.
712: Interestingly, each is close to the value of the ideal mixing angle
713: $\theta_N$ = 35.26$ ^0$ and $\theta_{\Sigma} = - 35.26^0$.
714: Only the
715: relative strengths of decays and selection rules can
716: discriminate between mixing schemes as well as between models \cite{PASU,CD}.
717: This is a task for a future work.
718:
719: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
720: %\footnote{%
721: %The ideal mixing of \cite{JW} is the linear combination
722: %$N^* =\sqrt{\frac{2}{3}} N_8 + \sqrt{\frac{1}{3}} N_{\overline {10}}$
723: %which is equivalent to $\tan^2{ \phi_N}$ = 0.5 i. e. $35.26^0$.}.
724: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
725: \section{Conclusions}
726:
727: In conclusion we have used a variational method, which provides upper bounds
728: on the masses of all isomultiplets of the pentaquark antidecuplet.
729: We calculated dynamically the masses of the pure exotic pentaquarks
730: $\Theta^+$ and $\Xi^{--}$ and the masses of the other members of
731: the antidecuplet.
732: The model on which these calculations are based reproduces well the baryon
733: spectrum, when baryons are described as $q^3$ systems.
734: It assumes a flavour-spin structure for the hyperfine quark-quark
735: interaction and its radial shape contains parameters
736: which have been fitted not only to the ground state baryons, but also
737: to a large number of excited states \cite{GPP}.
738: In particular this interaction places the Roper resonance,
739: modeled as a $q^3$ system, below the lowest negative parity baryons,
740: in agreement with the experiment.
741: However the description of strong decays in this model is not satisfactory
742: (see e. g. Ref. \cite{MWP}).
743: Besides the $qq$ interaction a $q \bar q$ interaction
744: is necessary to describe pentaquarks.
745: Here we did not introduce it explicitly but relied on the
746: conclusion of Ref. \cite{SR} that
747: an attractive spin-spin interaction that operates only in
748: the $q \bar q$ channel can lower the $q^4 \bar q$ energy to
749: accommodate the $\Theta^+$. In this way we can explain the mass shift
750: of -510 MeV
751: necessary to reproduce the mass of $\Theta^+$.
752: It follows that this
753: flavour-independent interaction
754: equally lowers all the other members of the antidecuplet and of
755: the octet.
756:
757:
758: But in the new light shed by the pentaquark studies,
759: the usual practice of hadron spectroscopy is expected to change.
760: There are hints that the wave functions
761: of some excited states might contain $q^4 \overline{q}$ components.
762: These components, if obtained quantitatively, would perhaps better explain the
763: widths and mass shifts in the baryon resonances \cite{HR}. In particular
764: the mass of the Roper resonance may be further shifted up or down.
765: In that case the model parametrization should be revised
766: and more precise
767: four- and five-body
768: calculations should be performed.
769: On the other hand a full experimental confirmation of the $\Theta^+$ and
770: of the $\Xi^{--}$
771: resonances and more appropriate partial wave analysis
772: of existing data would be
773: of great help in understanding the structure of pentaquarks and of
774: ordinary baryons.
775: \\
776:
777: %{\it Note added in proof.} The controversial observation of $\Xi^{--}(1862)$,
778: %see the results of the
779: %WA89 Collboration, hep-ph/0405042, and other references included there,
780: %would make the last column of Table \ref{ANTIDEC}, headed EXP + GMO formula, {%
781: %obsolete.
782: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
783:
784: %\newpage
785:
786: \vspace{1cm}
787:
788: \centerline{\bf Appendix}
789:
790: \vspace{0.5cm}
791: Here we give the form of one of the two independent flavour wave
792: functions for each isomultiplet belonging to ${\overline {10}}_F$.
793: It is the function where both
794: pairs of quarks, 12 and 34, are in an antisymmetric state
795: $\phi_{[11]}(q_a q_b) = (q_a q_b - q_b q_a)/\sqrt{2} $.
796: By analogy with the $q^3$ system, we shall use the label $\rho$
797: for all states which are antisymmetric under the permutation (12).
798: For $\Theta$ this wave function is straightforward
799: \begin{equation}
800: \Phi^{\rho}(\Theta) = \phi_{[11]} (ud) \phi_{[11]} (ud) \overline s ~.
801: \end{equation}
802: The $N_{\overline {10}}$ flavour wave function is obtained from that
803: of $\Theta$ by applying the $U$-spin ladder operator $U_{-}$ of SU(3).
804: Its normalized form becomes
805: \begin{equation}
806: \Phi^{\rho}(N_{\overline {10}}) = \frac{1}{\sqrt{3}}
807: \{ [\phi_{[11]} (us) \phi_{[11]} (ud) + \phi_{[11]} (ud) \phi_{[11]} (us)]
808: \overline s
809: + \phi_{[11]} (ud) \phi_{[11]} (ud) \overline d \} ~.
810: \end{equation}
811: Applying $U_{-}$ again one obtains the wave function of $\Sigma_{\overline 10}$
812: which is
813: \begin{equation}
814: \Phi^{\rho}(\Sigma_{\overline {10}}) = \frac{1}{\sqrt{3}}
815: \{ \phi_{[11]} (us) \phi_{[11]} (us)
816: \overline s
817: + [ \phi_{[11]} (us) \phi_{[11]} (ud) + \phi_{[11]} (ud) \phi_{[11]} (us) ]
818: \overline d \} ~.
819: \end{equation}
820: The wave function of $\Xi^{--}$ is as simple as that of $\Theta$ but
821: with another quark content of course
822: \begin{equation}
823: \Phi^{\rho}(\Xi^{--}) = \phi_{[11]} (ds) \phi_{[11]} (ds) \overline u ~.
824: \end{equation}
825: In these functions the normal order of particles 1234 is understood.
826: In each case one can get the other
827: linear independent function in the flavour space, $\Phi^{\lambda}$,
828: with the quark pairs 12 and 34 in a symmetric state,
829: $\phi_{[2]}(q_a q_b)
830: = (q_a q_b + q_b q_a)/\sqrt{2} $ ( $q_a \neq q_b)$
831: or $\phi_{[2]}(q_a q_a) =q_a q_a$, by applying the permutation
832: (23) to the above corresponding function
833: (see e. g. \cite{book}).
834: For example we have
835: \begin{equation}
836: \Phi^{\lambda}({\Theta}) = \sqrt{\frac{1}{3}}
837: [ \phi_{[2]} (uu) \phi_{[2]} (dd)
838: + \phi_{[2]} (dd) \phi_{[2]} (uu)
839: - \phi_{[2]} (ud) \phi_{[2]} (ud) ] \overline s ~.
840: \end{equation}
841: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
842: %\begin{eqnarray}
843: %\Phi^{\lambda}(N_{\overline {10}}) =\frac{1}{3}
844: %\{
845: %[\sqrt{2} \phi_{[2]} (uu) \phi_{[2]} (ds)
846: %+ \sqrt{2} \phi_{[2]} (ds) \phi_{[2]} (uu)
847: %- \phi_{[2]} (ud) \phi_{[2]} (us)
848: %- \phi_{[2]} (us) \phi_{[2]} (ud)] \bar s \\ \nonumber
849: %+ [ \phi_{[2]} (uu) \phi_{[2]} (dd)
850: %+ \phi_{[2]} (dd) \phi_{[2]} (uu)
851: %- \phi_{[2]} (ud) \phi_{[2]} (ud) ] \bar d \} ~.
852: %\end{eqnarray}
853: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
854: Both the $\Phi^{\rho}$ and $\Phi^{\lambda}$ functions are necessary
855: in the calculation of the matrix elements of the hyperfine interaction.
856:
857: In the same notation, the $N_8$ and $\Sigma_8$
858: the flavour octet wave functions,
859: antisymmetric under the permutation (12) are
860: \begin{equation}
861: \Phi^{\rho}(N_{8}) =\frac{1}{\sqrt{6}}
862: [\phi_{[11]} (us) \phi_{[11]} (ud) + \phi_{[11]} (ud) \phi_{[11]} (us)]
863: \overline s
864: - \sqrt{\frac{2}{3}} \phi_{[11]} (ud) \phi_{[11]} (ud) \overline d ~.
865: \end{equation}
866: \begin{equation}
867: \Phi^{\rho}(\Sigma_8) = \sqrt{\frac{2}{3}}
868: \phi_{[11]} (us) \phi_{[11]} (us)
869: \overline s
870: - \frac{1}{\sqrt{6}}
871: [ \phi_{[11]} (us) \phi_{[11]} (ud) + \phi_{[11]} (ud) \phi_{[11]} (us) ]
872: \overline d ~.
873: \end{equation}
874: \vspace{1cm}
875:
876: \centerline{\bf Acknowledgment}
877: \vspace{0.5cm}
878: I am indebted to Dan Riska and
879: for useful comments on the manuscript and to Veljko Dmitra\v sinovi\' c
880: for fruitful discussions.
881:
882: \vspace{1cm}
883:
884: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
885:
886: \begin{thebibliography}{9}
887:
888: \bibitem{NAKANO} T. Nakano et al., LEPS Collaboration,
889: Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf 91}, 012002 (2003), hep-ex/0301020.
890:
891: \bibitem{EXP}
892: S. Stepanyan et al., CLAS Collaboration, Phys. Rev. Lett.
893: {\bf 91}, 252001 (2003), hep-ex/0307018;
894: V. V. Barmin et al.,
895: DIANA Collaboration, Phys. Atom. Nucl. {\bf 66}, 1715 (2003)
896: [Yad. Phys. {\bf 66}, 1763 (2003)], hep-ex/0304040;
897: J. Barth et al., SAPHIR Collaboration, Phys. Lett. {\bf B572}, 127 (2003),
898: hep-ex/0307083;
899: A. E. Asratyan et al., hep-ex/0309042, to be published in Phys. Atom. Nucl.;
900: V. Kubarovsky et al., CLAS Collaboration, Phys. Rev. Lett.
901: \textbf{92} (2004) 032001;
902: A. Airapetian et al., HERMES Collaboration, hep-ex/0312044;
903: A. Aleev et al., SDV Collaboration, hep-ex/0401024.
904: %S. Chekanov et al., ZEUS Collaboration,
905: %http://www.desy.de/f/seminar/sem-schedule.html.
906:
907: \bibitem{NA49} C. Alt et al., NA49 Collaboration, Phys. Rev. Lett.
908: \textbf{92} 042003 (2004), hep-ex/0310014.
909:
910: \bibitem{DPP} D. Diakonov, V. Petrov and M. Polyakov, Z. Phys. {\bf A359}, 305
911: (1997);
912:
913: \bibitem{HOGAASEN} H. Hogaasen and P. Sorba, Nucl. Phys. {\bf B145} (1978)
914: 119;\\
915: M. de Crombrugghe, H.Hogaasen and P. Sorba, Nucl. Phys. {\bf B156} (1978) 347.
916:
917: \bibitem{STROTTMAN} D. Strottman, Phys. Rev. {\bf D20}, 748 (1979).
918:
919: \bibitem{GI87} C. Gignoux, B. Silvestre-Brac and J.-M. Richard,
920: Phys.Lett. {\bf B193} (1987) 323.
921:
922: \bibitem{LI87} H.J. Lipkin, Phys.Lett. {\bf B195} (1987) 484.
923:
924: \bibitem{Ashery} E. M. Aitala et al., Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf 81 } (1998) 44; \\
925: E. M. Aitala et al., Phys. Lett. {\bf B448} (1999) 303.
926:
927: \bibitem{H1} A. Aktas, H1 Collaboration, hep-ex/0403017.
928:
929: \bibitem{GR96} L.Ya. Glozman and D.O. Riska, Phys. Rep. {\bf 268} (1996) 263.
930:
931: \bibitem{FS} Fl. Stancu, Phys. Rev. {\bf D58} (1998) 111501.
932:
933: \bibitem{JM} B. Jennings and K. Maltman, hep-ph/0308286.
934:
935: \bibitem{GE98} M. Genovese, J.-M. Richard, Fl. Stancu and S. Pepin,
936: Phys. Lett. {\bf B425} (1998) 171.
937:
938: \bibitem{GPP} L.Ya. Glozman, Z. Papp and W. Plessas, Phys. Lett. {\bf B381}
939: (1996) 311.
940:
941: \bibitem{SR} Fl. Stancu and D. O. Riska, Phys. Lett. {\bf B575} (2003) 242.
942:
943: \bibitem{LR} T. A. L \"ahde and D. O. Riska, Nucl. Phys {\bf 710} (2002) 99.
944:
945: \bibitem{CARLSON1}C. E. Carlson, C. D. Carone, H. J. Kwee and
946: V. Nazaryan, hep-ph/0312325.
947:
948: \bibitem{CARLSON} C. E. Carlson, C. D. Carone, H. J. Kwee and
949: V. Nazaryan, Phys. Lett. {\bf B579} (2004) 52.
950:
951: \bibitem{JW} R. Jaffe and F. Wilczek, Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf 91} (2003) 232003.
952:
953: \bibitem{DP} D. Diakonov and V. Petrov, hep-ph/0310212.
954:
955: \bibitem{OKL} Yongseok Oh, Hungchong Kim and Su Houng Lee, hep-ph/0310117.
956:
957: \bibitem{PASU} S. Pakvasa and M. Suzuki, hep-ph/0402079.
958:
959: \bibitem{ARNDT} R. A. Arndt, Ya. I. Azimov, M. V. Polyakov,
960: I. I. Strakovsky and R. L. Workman, nucl-th/0312126.
961:
962: \bibitem{EKP} J. Ellis, M. Karliner and M. Praszalowicz, hep-ph/0401127.
963:
964: \bibitem{MORSCH} H. P. Morsch and P. Zupranski, Phys. Rev. {\bf C61} (1999)
965: 024002.
966:
967: \bibitem{CD} F. Close and J. J. Dudek, hep-ph/0401192.
968:
969: \bibitem{MWP} T. Melde, R. F. Wagenbrunn and W. Plessas,
970: Few Body Syst. Suppl. {\bf 14} (2003) 37.
971:
972: \bibitem{HR} C. Helminen and D. O. Riska, Nucl. Phys. {\bf A699} (2002) 624.
973:
974: \bibitem{book} Fl. Stancu, Group Theory in Subnuclear Physics, Oxford
975: University Press, Oxford 1996, Chapter 4.
976:
977: \end{thebibliography}
978:
979: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
980:
981: \end{document}
982: