1: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
2: %\documentclass[showpacs]{revtex4}
3: \documentclass[twocolumn,prl,aps,epsfig]{revtex4}
4: %\documentclass[preprint,prc,aps,epsfig]{revtex4}
5: \usepackage{epsfig}
6: \def\beq{\begin{equation}}
7: \def\enq{\end{equation}}
8: \def\beqa{\begin{eqnarray}}
9: \def\enqa{\end{eqnarray}}
10: \def\MeV{\nobreak\,\mbox{MeV}}
11: \def\GeV{\nobreak\,\mbox{GeV}}
12: \def\keV{\nobreak\,\mbox{keV}}
13: \def\fm{\nobreak\,\mbox{fm}}
14: \def\Tr{\mbox{ Tr }}
15: \def\qq{\lag\bar{q}q\rag}
16: \def\ss{\lag\bar{s}s\rag}
17: \def\mix{\lag\bar{q}g\si.Gq\rag}
18: \def\mixs{\lag\bar{s}g\si.Gs\rag}
19: \def\Gd{\lag g^2G^2\rag}
20: \def\G3{\lag g^3G^3\rag}
21: \def\ka{\kappa}
22: \def\la{\lambda}
23: \def\La{\Lambda}
24: \def\ga{\gamma}
25: \def\Ga{\Gamma}
26: \def\om{\omega}
27: \def\rh{\rho}
28: \def\si{\sigma}
29: \def\ps{\psi}
30: \def\ph{\phi}
31: \def\de{\delta}
32: \def\al{\alpha}
33: \def\be{\beta}
34: \def\lb{\label}
35: \def\nn{\nonumber}
36: \newcommand{\rag}{\rangle}
37: \newcommand{\lag}{\langle}
38: \newcommand{\bph}{\mbox{\bf $\phi$}}
39: \newcommand{\rf}{\ref}
40: \newcommand{\ct}{\cite}
41:
42: \begin{document}
43:
44: \title{\sc Disentangling two- and four-quark state pictures of the charmed
45: scalar mesons}
46: \author{M.E. Bracco$^1$, A. Lozea$^1$, R.D. Matheus$^2$, F. S. Navarra$^2$
47: and M. Nielsen$^2$}
48: \affiliation{$^1$Instituto de F\'{\i}sica, Universidade do Estado do Rio de
49: Janeiro,
50: Rua S\~ao Francisco Xavier 524, 20550-900 Rio de Janeiro, RJ, Brazil//
51: $^2$Instituto de F\'{\i}sica, Universidade de S\~{a}o Paulo,
52: C.P. 66318, 05389-970 S\~{a}o Paulo, SP, Brazil}
53:
54: \begin{abstract}
55: We suggest that the recently observed charmed scalar mesons
56: $D_0^{0}(2308)$ (BELLE) and $D_0^{0,+}(2405)$ (FOCUS) are considered as
57: different resonances. Using the QCD sum rule approach we investigate the
58: possible four-quark structure of these mesons and also of the very narrow
59: $D_{sJ}^{+}(2317)$, firstly observed by BABAR. We use diquak-antidiquark
60: currents and work to the order of $m_s$ in full QCD, without relying on
61: $1/m_c$ expansion. Our results indicate that a four-quark structure is
62: acceptable for the resonances observed by BELLE and BABAR: $D_0^{0}(2308)$
63: and $D_{sJ}^{+}(2317)$ respectively, but not for the resonances observed
64: by FOCUS: $D_0^{0,+}(2405)$.
65: \end{abstract}
66:
67:
68: \pacs{ 11.55.Hx, 12.38.Lg , 13.25.-k}
69: \maketitle
70:
71: %\section{Introduction}
72: Recently the first observations of the scalar charmed mesons have been
73: reported. The very narrow $D_{sJ}^+(2317)$ was first discovered in the
74: $D_s^+\pi^0$ channel by the BABAR Collaboration \cite{babar} and its
75: existence was confirmed by CLEO \cite{cleo}, BELLE \cite{belle1} and
76: FOCUS \cite{focus} Collaborations. Its mass was commonly measured as
77: $2317 \MeV$, which is approximately $160 \MeV$ below the prediction of
78: the very successful quark model for the charmed mesons \cite{god}.
79: The BELLE Collaboration \cite{belle2} has also reported the observation of
80: a rather broad scalar meson $D_0^{0}(2308)$, and the FOCUS Collaboration
81: \cite{focus2} reported evidence for broad structures in both neutral and
82: charged final states that, if interpreted as resonances in the $J^P=0^+$
83: channel, would be the $D_0^{0}(2407)$ and the $D_0^{+}(2403)$ mesons.
84: While the
85: mass of the scalar meson, $D_0^{0}(2308)$, observed by BELLE Collaboration
86: is also bellow the prediction of ref.~\cite{god} (approximately $100 \MeV$),
87: the masses of the states observed by FOCUS Collaboration are in complete
88: agreement with ref.~\cite{god}.
89:
90: Due to its low mass, the structure of the meson $D_{sJ}^+(2317)$ has been
91: extensively debated. It has been interpreted as
92: a $c\bar{s}$ state \cite{dhlz,bali,ukqcd,ht,nari}, two-meson molecular
93: state \cite{bcl,szc}, $D-K$- mixing \cite{br},
94: four-quark states \cite{ch,tera,mppr} or a mixture between two-meson
95: and four-quark states \cite{bpp}. The same analyses would also apply
96: to the meson $D_0^{0}(2308)$.
97:
98: In the light sector the idea that the
99: scalar mesons could be four-quark bound states is not new \cite{jaffe} and,
100: therefore, it is natural to consider analogous states in the charm sector.
101:
102: We propose that the resonances observed by BELLE \cite{belle2} and FOCUS
103: \cite{focus2} Collaborations be considered as two different resonances.
104: In this work we use the method of QCD sum rules (QCDSR) \cite{svz}
105: to study the two-point functions of the scalar mesons, $D_{sJ}(2317)$,
106: $D_0(2308)$ and $D_0(2405)$ considered as four-quark states.
107: The use of the QCD sum rules to study the charmed scalar mesons
108: was already done in refs.~\cite{dhlz,ht,nari}, but
109: in these calculations they were interpreted as two-quark states.
110:
111: In a recent calculation \cite{sca} some of us have considered that the
112: lowest lying scalar
113: mesons are $S$-wave bound states of a diquark-antidiquark pair. As
114: suggested in ref.~\cite{jawil} the diquark was taken to be a spin zero
115: colour anti-triplet. We extend this prescription
116: to the charm sector and, therefore, the corresponding interpolating fields
117: containing zero, one and two strange quarks are:
118: \beqa
119: j_0&=&\epsilon_{abc}\epsilon_{dec}(q_a^TC\gamma_5c_b)
120: (\bar{u}_d\gamma_5C\bar{d}_e^T),
121: \nn\\
122: j_s&=&{\epsilon_{abc}\epsilon_{dec}\over\sqrt{2}}\left[(u_a^TC
123: \gamma_5c_b)(\bar{u}_d\gamma_5C\bar{s}_e^T)+u\leftrightarrow d\right],
124: \nn\\
125: j_{ss}&=&\epsilon_{abc}\epsilon_{dec}(s_a^TC
126: \gamma_5c_b)(\bar{q}_d\gamma_5C\bar{s}_e^T),
127: \label{int}
128: \enqa
129: where $a,~b,~c,~...$ are colour indices, $C$ is the charge conjugation
130: matrix and
131: $q$ represents the quark $u$ or $d$ according to the charge of the meson.
132: Since $D_{sJ}$ has one $\bar{s}$ quark, we choose the $j_s$ current to
133: have the same quantum numbers of $D_{sJ}$, which is supposed to be
134: an isoscalar. However, since we are working in the SU(2) limit, the
135: isoscalar and isovector states are mass degenerate and, therefore, this
136: particular choice has no relevance here.
137:
138:
139: The QCDSR for the charmed scalar mesons are constructed from the two-point
140: correlation function
141: \beq
142: \Pi(q)=i\int d^4x ~e^{iq.x}\lag 0 |T[j_S(x)j^\dagger_S(0)]|0\rag.
143: \lb{2po}
144: \enq
145:
146: The coupling of the scalar meson, $S$, to the scalar current, $j_S$, can be
147: parametrized in terms of the meson decay constant $f_S$ as \cite{sca}:
148: $\lag 0 | j_S|S\rag =\sqrt{2}f_Sm_S^4$,
149: therefore, the phenomenological side of Eq.~(\ref{2po}) can be written as
150: \beq
151: \Pi^{phen}(q^2)={2f_S^2m_S^8\over m_S^2-q^2}+\cdots\;,
152: \lb{phe}
153: \enq
154: where the dots denote higher resonance contributions that will be
155: parametrized, as usual, through the introduction of the continuum threshold
156: parameter $s_0$ \cite{io1}.
157:
158:
159: In the OPE side we work at leading order and consider condensates up to
160: dimension six. We deal with the strange quark as a light one and consider
161: the diagrams up to order $m_s$. To keep the charm quark mass finite, we
162: use the momentum-space expression for the charm quark propagator. We follow
163: ref.~\cite{su} and calculate the light quark part of the correlation
164: function in the coordinate-space, which is then Fourier transformed to the
165: momentum space in $D$ dimensions. The resulting light-quark part is combined
166: with the charm-quark part before it is dimensionally regularized at $D=4$.
167:
168: We can write the correlation function in the OPE side in terms of a
169: dispersion relation:
170: \beq
171: \Pi^{OPE}(q^2)=\int_{m_c^2}^\infty ds {\rho(s)\over s-q^2}\;,
172: \lb{ope}
173: \enq
174: where the spectral density is given by the imaginary part of the correlation
175: function: $\rho(s)={1\over\pi}\mbox{Im}[\Pi^{OPE}(s)]$. After making a Borel
176: transform on both sides, and transferring the continuum contribution to
177: the OPE side, the sum rule for the scalar meson $S$ can be written as
178: \beq
179: 2f_S^2m_S^8e^{-m_S^2/M^2}=\int_{m_c^2}^{s_0}ds~ e^{-s/M^2}~\rho_S(s)\;,
180: \lb{sr}
181: \enq
182: where $\rho_S(s)=\rho^{pert}(s)+\rh^{m_s}(s)+\rh^{\qq}(s)+\rh^{\lag G^2\rag}
183: (s)+\rh^{mix}(s)+\rh^{\qq^2}(s)+\rh^{\lag G^3\rag}(s)$, with
184: \beq
185: \rho^{pert}(s)={1\over 2^{10} 3\pi^6}\int_\La^1 d\al\left({1-\al\over\al}
186: \right)^3(m_c^2-s\al)^4,
187: \enq
188: \beqa
189: \rho^{\lag G^2\rag}(s)&=&{\Gd\over 2^{10}\pi^6}\int_\La^1 d\al~(m_c^2-s\al)
190: \left[{m_c^2\over9}\left({1-\al\over\al}\right)^3+\right.
191: \nn\\&+&
192: \left.(m_c^2-s\al)\left({1-\al\over2\al}+{(1-\al)^2\over4\al^2}\right)
193: \right],
194: \enqa
195: \beq
196: \rho^{\lag G^3\rag}(s)={\G3\over 2^{12} 9\pi^6}\int_\La^1 d\al\left({1-\al
197: \over\al}\right)^3(3m_c^2-s\al),
198: \enq
199: which are common to all three resonances and where the lower limit of the
200: integrations is given by $\La=m_c^2/s$. From $j_0$ we get: $\rh^{m_s}(s)=0$,
201: \beq
202: \rho^{\qq}(s)=-{m_c\qq\over 2^{6}\pi^4}\int_\La^1 d\al\left({1-\al\over\al}
203: \right)^2(m_c^2-s\al)^2,
204: \enq
205: \beqa
206: \rho^{mix}(s)&=&{m_c\mix\over 2^{6}\pi^4}\bigg[{1\over2}\int_\La^1 d\al
207: \left({1-\al\over\al}\right)^2(m_c^2-s\al)+
208: \nn\\
209: &-&\int_\La^1 d\al{1-\al\over\al}(m_c^2-s\al)\bigg],
210: \enqa
211: \beq
212: \rho^{\qq^2}(s)=-{\qq^2\over 12\pi^2}\int_\La^1 d\al~(m_c^2-s\al).
213: \enq
214: From $j_{s}$ we get: $\rh^{m_s}(s)=0$,
215: \beqa
216: \rho^{\qq}(s)={1\over 2^{6}\pi^4}\int_\La^1 d\al~{1-\al\over\al}
217: (m_c^2-s\al)^2
218: \bigg[
219: \nn\\
220: -\qq\left(2m_s+m_c{1-\al\over\al}\right)+m_s\ss\bigg],
221: \enqa
222: \beqa
223: \rho^{mix}(s)&=&{1\over 2^{6}\pi^4}\int_\La^1 d\al~(m_c^2-s\al)\bigg[-{m_s\mixs
224: \over6}
225: \nn\\
226: &+&\mix\bigg(-m_s(1-\ln(1-\al))
227: \nn\\
228: &-&m_c{1-\al\over\al}\left(1-{1-\al\over2\al}\right)\bigg)
229: \bigg]
230: \enqa
231: \beq
232: \rho^{\qq^2}(s)=-{\qq\ss\over 12\pi^2}\int_\La^1 d\al~(m_c^2-s\al).
233: \enq
234: Finally from $j_{ss}$ we get
235: \beq
236: \rh^{m_s}(s)=-{m_sm_c\over 2^{8} 3\pi^6}\int_\La^1 d\al\left({1-\al\over\al}
237: \right)^3(m_c^2-s\al)^3,
238: \enq
239: \beqa
240: \rho^{\qq}(s)={1\over 2^{6}\pi^4}\int_\La^1 d\al{1-\al\over\al}(m_c^2-s\al)^2
241: \bigg[
242: \nn\\
243: \ss\left(2m_s-m_c{1-\al\over\al}\right)-2m_s\qq\bigg],
244: \enqa
245: \beqa
246: \rho^{mix}(s)&=&{1\over 2^{6}\pi^4}\int_\La^1 d\al~(m_c^2-s\al)\bigg[{\mixs
247: \over2}\bigg({m_s\over3}
248: \nn\\
249: &-&m_s{1-\al\over\al}
250: -m_c{1-\al\over\al}\left(1-{1-\al\over2\al}\right)\bigg)
251: \nn\\
252: &-&m_s\mix(1-\ln(1-\al))\bigg],
253: \enqa
254: \beq
255: \rho^{\qq^2}(s)=-{\qq\ss\over 12\pi^2}\int_\La^1 d\al~(m_c^2-s\al).
256: \enq
257: For the charm quark propagator with two and three gluons attached we use
258: the momentum-space expressions given in ref.~\cite{rry}.
259:
260: In order to get rid of the meson decay constant and
261: extract the resonance mass, $m_S$, we first take the derivative
262: of Eq.~(\ref{sr}) with respect to $1/M^2$ and then we divide it by
263: Eq.~(\ref{sr}) to get
264: \beq
265: m_S^2={\int_{m_c^2}^{s_0}ds ~e^{-s/M^2}~s~\rh_S(s)\over\int_{m_c^2}^{s_0}ds
266: ~e^{-s/M^2}~\rh_S(s)}\;.
267: \lb{m2}
268: \enq
269:
270:
271: In the numerical analysis of the sum rules, the values used for the quark
272: masses and condensates are: $m_s=0.13\,\GeV$, $m_c=1.2\,\GeV$,
273: $\lag\bar{q}q\rag=\,-(0.23)^3\,\GeV^3$,
274: $\langle\overline{s}s\rangle\,=0.8\lag\bar{q}q\rag$,
275: $\lag\bar{q}g\si.Gq\rag=m_0^2
276: \lag\bar{q}q\rag$ with $m_0^2=0.8\,\GeV^2$, $\lag g^2G^2\rag=0.5~\GeV^4$
277: and $\lag g^3G^3\rag=0.045~\GeV^6$. The value for the quark condensate was
278: obtained using the Gell-Mann - Oakes - Renner relation, and the mass of the
279: light quarks, $m_u+m_d=14\MeV$, at the renormalization scale of $1\GeV$
280: \cite{gale}. Since the charm quark mass introduces a natural scale in the
281: problem, we chose to work at the renormalization scale of $m_c\sim1\GeV$.
282:
283:
284:
285:
286: \begin{figure}[h] \label{fig1}
287: %\leavevmode
288: \centerline{\epsfig{figure=md0s.eps,height=70mm}}
289: %,width=70mm,angle=0}}
290: \caption{The $D_0^{(0s)}$ mass (the lower dashed, solid and dotted lines)
291: and the $D_0^{(1s)}$ mass (the upper dashed, solid and dotted lines),
292: as a function of the Borel mass for different
293: values of the continuum threshold. Dashed lines: $\sqrt{s_0}=2.6\GeV$; solid
294: lines: $\sqrt{s_0}=2.7\GeV$; dotted lines: $\sqrt{s_0}=2.8\GeV$.}
295: \end{figure}
296:
297: We call $D_0^{(0s)}$, $D_{0}^{(1s)}$ and $D_{0}^{(2s)}$ the scalar charmed
298: mesons represented by $j_0$,
299: $j_s$ and $j_{ss}$ (in Eq.~(\ref{int})) respectively.
300: In Figs. 1 and 2 we show the masses of these three resonances
301: as a function of the Borel mass for different values of the continuum
302: threshold.
303:
304:
305: The Borel window was fixed in such way that the pole contribution is always
306: between 80\% and 20\% of the total contribution.
307:
308: \begin{figure}[h] \label{fig2}
309: %\leavevmode
310: \centerline{\epsfig{figure=mdss.eps,height=70mm}}
311: %,width=70mm,angle=0}}
312: \caption{The $D_{0}^{(2s)}$ mass as a function of the Borel mass
313: for different
314: values of the continuum threshold. Dashed line: $\sqrt{s_0}=2.6\GeV$; solid
315: line: $\sqrt{s_0}=2.7\GeV$; dotted line: $\sqrt{s_0}=2.8\GeV$.}
316: \end{figure}
317:
318: Fixing $\sqrt{s_0}=2.7\GeV$ and varying the charm quark and the strange
319: quark masses in the intervals: $1.1\leq m_c\leq 1.3\GeV$ and
320: $0.11\leq m_s\leq 0.15\GeV$, we get results for the resonance masses still
321: between the lower and upper lines in figures 1 and 2. A bigger value
322: for the charm quark mass makes the results more stable as a function of
323: the Borel mass. One can also vary the value of the quark condensate. Keeping
324: the continuum threshold and the quark masses fixed at $\sqrt{s_0}=2.7\GeV$,
325: $m_c= 1.2\GeV$ and $m_s=0.13\GeV$ and varying the quark condensate
326: in the interval: $\lag\bar{q}q\rag=\,(-0.23\pm0.01\GeV)^3$, we get a bigger
327: (smaller) result for the resonance masses using a smaller (bigger) value of
328: the condensate.
329: In Fig.~3 we show the
330: the mass of the $D_{0}^{(1s)}$ state, as a function of the Borel mass, for
331: the combination of the values of the continuum threshold and quark
332: condensate that gives the lower and upper limits for the $D_{0}^{(1s)}$ mass.
333:
334: \begin{figure}[h] \label{fig3}
335: %\leavevmode
336: \centerline{\epsfig{figure=mdscon.eps,height=70mm}}
337: %,width=70mm,angle=0}}
338: \caption{The $D_{0}^{(1s)}$ mass as a function of the Borel mass
339: for different values of the continuum threshold and quark condensate. Solid
340: line: $\sqrt{s_0}=2.6\GeV$ and $\lag\bar{q}q\rag(1\GeV)=\,(-0.24\GeV)^3$;
341: dotted line: $\sqrt{s_0}=2.8\GeV$ and $\lag\bar{q}q\rag(1\GeV)=\,(-0.22\GeV)
342: ^3$; dashed line: $\sqrt{s_0}=2.6\GeV$, $\lag\bar{q}q\rag(2\GeV)=\,
343: (-0.267\GeV)^3$
344: and $m_s(2\GeV)=0.10\GeV$.}
345: \end{figure}
346:
347: In ref.\cite{jala} it was shown that the renormalization scale was an important
348: source of uncertainty, in the analysis of the $B$ meson decay constant. To
349: check how the change of the scale would change our results we also show,
350: through the dashed line in Fig.~3 , the result for the $D_{0}^{(1s)}$
351: resonance
352: mass using the values of the strange quark mass and quark condensate at the
353: scale $2\GeV$: $\lag\bar{q}q\rag(2\GeV)=\,(-0.267\GeV)^3$ and
354: $m_s(2\GeV)=0.10\GeV$ \cite{jala}. We see that we get a less stable result for
355: the ressonance mass, but it is still compatible with the results at the
356: scale $1\GeV$, considering the variation in the continuum threshold. Therefore,
357: we conclude that it is the variation of the continuum threshold that causes
358: the most significant variations in the resonance masses, and it is our most
359: important source of uncertaintiy.
360:
361:
362: Comparing figures 1 and 2 we see that
363: the $D_{0}^{(1s)}$ and $D_{0}^{(2s)}$
364: resonance masses are basicaly degenerated, while the
365: mass of $D_{0}^{(0s)}$ is around $100\MeV$ smaller than the others. While
366: it is natural to expect that the inclusion of a strange quark would increase
367: the resonance mass by around the strange quark mass (as was the case when
368: one goes from $D_{0}^{(0s)}$ to $D_{0}^{(1s)}$), it is really interesting
369: to observe that this does not happen when one goes from $D_{0}^{(1s)}$
370: to $D_{0}^{(2s)}$. In terms of the OPE contributions, we can trace this
371: behavior to the fact that the quark condensate term is smaller in
372: $D_{0}^{(2s)}$ than in $D_{0}^{(1s)}$ (due to the change from $m_c\qq$ to
373: $m_c\ss$), however the inclusion of the term
374: proportional to $m_sm_c$ (which is not present in $D_{0}^{(1s)}$),
375: compensates this decrease.
376:
377: Considering the variations on the quark masses, the quark condensate and on
378: the continuum
379: threshold discussed above, in the Borel window considered here our results
380: for the ressonance masses are given in Table I.
381: \begin{center}
382: \small{{\bf Table I:} Numerical results for the resonance masses}
383: \\
384: \vskip0.3cm
385: \begin{tabular}{|c|c|c|c|} \hline
386: resonance & $D_{0}^{(0s)}$ & $D_{0}^{(1s)}$ & $D_{0}^{(2s)}$ \\
387: \hline
388: mass (GeV) & $~2.22\pm0.21~$ &$~2.32\pm0.18~$ & $~2.30\pm0.20~$\\
389: \hline
390: \end{tabular}\end{center}
391:
392: Comparing the results in Table I with the resonance masses given by
393: BABAR, BELLE and FOCUS: $D_{sJ}^+(2317)$,
394: $D_{0}^0(2308)$ and $D_{0}^{0,+}(2405)$, we see that we can
395: identify the four-quark states represented by $D_{0}^{(1s)}$ and
396: $D_{0}^{(2s)}$ with the BABAR and BELLE resonances respectively. However,
397: we do not find a four-quark state whose mass is compatible with the
398: FOCUS resonances, $D_{0}^{0,+}(2405)$. Therefore, we associate the
399: FOCUS resonances, $D_{0}^{0,+}(2405)$,
400: with a scalar $c\bar{q}$ state, since its mass is completly in agreement
401: with the predictions of the quark model in ref.~\cite{god}. It is also
402: interesting to point out that a mass of about $2.4~\GeV$ is also compatible
403: with the the QCD sum rule calculation for a $c\bar{q}$ scalar meson
404: \cite{ht}.
405:
406: One can still argue that while a pole approximation is justified for
407: the very narrow BABAR resonance, this may not be the case for the
408: rather broad BELLE and FOCUS resonances. To check if the width of the
409: resonances could modify the pattern observed in the masses of the
410: four-quark states, we have modified the phenomenological side of the
411: sum rule, in Eq.~(\ref{sr}), through the introduction of a
412: Breit-Wigner-type resonance form:
413: \beq
414: \Pi^{phen}(M^2)=2f_S^2m_S^8\int_{(m_\pi+m_D)^2}^{s_0} ds~e^{-s/M^2}\rho_{BW}
415: (s)\;,
416: \lb{phenbw}
417: \enq
418: where
419: \beq
420: \rho_{BW}(s)={1\over\pi}{\Gamma(s)m_S\over(s-m_S^2)^2+m_S^2\Gamma(s)^2},
421: \lb{bw}
422: \enq
423: with $\Gamma(s)=\Gamma_0{\sqrt{\lambda(s,m_D^2,m_\pi^2)\over\lambda(m_S,
424: m_D^2,m_\pi^2)}}{m_S^2\over s}$,
425: and $\lambda(x,y,z)=x^2+y^2+z^2-2xy-2xz-2yz$.
426:
427:
428: \begin{figure}[h] \label{fig4}
429: %\leavevmode
430: \centerline{\epsfig{figure=larg.eps,height=70mm}}
431: %,width=70mm,angle=0}}
432: \caption{The RHS (solid line) and the LHS of the sum rule in Eq.~(\ref{m2bw})
433: for $D_{0}^{(0s)}$, for different values of the resonance mass.
434: Dashed line: $m_S=2.1\GeV$;
435: dotted line: $m_S=2.2\GeV$; dot-dashed line: $m_S=2.3\GeV$.}
436: \end{figure}
437: Of course now we can not
438: obtain an expression for the resonance mass as Eq.~(\ref{m2}). However,
439: we can still use the resonance mass as a parameter to compare the
440: compatibility between the right-hand side (RHS) and the left-hand side
441: (LHS) of the sum rule in Eq.~(\ref{m2bw}):
442: \beq
443: {\int_{(m_\pi+m_D)^2}^{s_0}ds e^{-s/M^2}s\rh_{BW}(s)\over\int_{(m_\pi+m_D
444: )^2}^{s_0}ds e^{-s/M^2}\rh_{BW}(s)}={\int_{m_c^2}^{s_0}ds e^{-s/M^2}s
445: \rh_S(s)\over\int_{m_c^2}^{s_0}ds e^{-s/M^2}\rh_S(s)}\;.
446: \lb{m2bw}
447: \enq
448:
449: In Fig.4 we show the RHS (solid line) and the LHS of Eq.~(\ref{m2bw})
450: for $D_{0}^{(0s)}$,
451: for three different values of the resonance mass, with $\Gamma_0=280~\MeV$
452: and $\sqrt{s_0}=
453: 2.7~\GeV$. We see that the best agreement is obtained for $m_S\sim2.2~\GeV$,
454: which shows that the inclusion of the width does not change the value
455: of the mass obtained for the resonance.
456:
457:
458: We have presented a QCD sum rule study of the charmed scalar mesons
459: considered as diquark-antidiquark states. We found that the masses
460: of the BABAR, $D_{sJ}^+(2317)$, and BELLE, $D_{0}^0(2308)$, resonances
461: can be reproduced by the four-quark states $(cq)(\bar{q}\bar{s})$
462: and $(cs)(\bar{u}\bar{s})$ respectively. However, the mass of the FOCUS
463: resonance, $D_{0}^{0,+}(2405)$, which we believe is not the same measured by
464: BELLE, can not be reproduced in the four-quark state
465: picture considered here. Therefore, we interpret it as a normal
466: $c\bar{q}$ state, since its mass is in complete agreement
467: with the predictions of the quark model in ref.~\cite{god}. We also obtain
468: a mass of $\sim 2.2~\GeV$ for
469: a four-quark scalar state $(cq)(\bar{u}\bar{d})$ which was not yet
470: observed, and that should be also rather broad.
471:
472:
473:
474: \vspace{1cm}
475:
476: \underline{Acknowledgements}:
477: We would like to thank I. Bediaga for fruitful discussions.
478: This work has been supported by CNPq and FAPESP.
479: \vspace{0.5cm}
480:
481:
482: \begin{references}
483:
484: \bibitem{babar} BABAR Coll., B. Auber {\it et al.}, Phys. Rev. Lett.
485: {\bf 90}, 242001 (2003); Phys. Rev. {\bf D69}, 031101 (2004).
486: \bibitem{cleo} CLEO Coll., D. Besson {\it et al.}, Phys. Rev. {\bf D68},
487: 032002 (2003).
488: \bibitem{belle1} BELLE Coll., P. Krokovny {\it et al.}, Phys. Rev. Lett.
489: {\bf 91}, 262002 (2003).
490: \bibitem{focus} FOCUS Coll., E.W. Vaandering, hep-ex/0406044.
491: \bibitem{god} S. Godfrey and N. Isgur, Phys. Rev. {\bf D32}, 189 (1985);
492: S. Godfrey and R. Kokoshi, Phys. Rev. {\bf D43}, 1679 (1991).
493: \bibitem{belle2} BELLE Coll., K. Abe {\it et al.}, Phys. Rev. {\bf D69},
494: 112002 (2004).
495: \bibitem{focus2} FOCUS Coll., J.M. Link {\it et al.}, Phys. Lett.
496: {\bf B586}, 11 (2004).
497: \bibitem{dhlz} Y.-B. Dai, C.-S. Huang, C. Liu and S.-L. Zhu,
498: Phys. Rev. {\bf D68}, 114011 (2003).
499: \bibitem{bali} G.S. Bali, Phys. Rev. {\bf D68}, 071501(R) (2003).
500: \bibitem{ukqcd} A. Dougall, R.D. Kenway, C.M. Maynard and C. Mc-Neile,
501: Phys. Lett. {\bf B569}, 41 (2003).
502: \bibitem{ht} A. Hayashigaki and K. Terasaki, hep-ph/0411285.
503: \bibitem{nari} S. Narison, Phys. Lett. {\bf B605}, 319 (2005).
504: \bibitem{bcl} T. Barnes, F.E. Close and H.J. Lipkin, Phys. Rev. {\bf D68},
505: 054006 (2003).
506: \bibitem{szc} A.P. Szczepaniak, Phys. Lett. {\bf B567}, 23 (2003).
507: \bibitem{br} E. van Beveren and G. Rupp, Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf 91},
508: 012003 (2003).
509: \bibitem{ch} H.-Y. Cheng and W.-S. Hou, Phys. Lett. {\bf B566}, 193 (2003).
510: \bibitem{tera} K. Terasaki, Phys. Rev. {\bf D68}, 011501(R) (2003).
511: \bibitem{mppr} L. Maiani, F. Piccinini, A.D. Polosa, V. Riquer,
512: Phys. Rev. {\bf D71}, 014028 (2005).
513: \bibitem{bpp} T. Browder, S. Pakvasa and A.A. Petrov, Phys. Lett.
514: {\bf B578}, 365 (2004).
515: \bibitem{jaffe} R.L. Jaffe, {\em Phys. Rev.} {\bf D15}, 267, 281 (1977);
516: {\bf D17}, 1444 (1978).
517: \bibitem{svz} M.A. Shifman, A.I. and Vainshtein and V.I. Zakharov,
518: {\em Nucl. Phys.}, {\bf B147}, 385 (1979).
519: \bibitem{sca} T.V. Brito, F.S. Navarra, M. Nielsen, M.E. Bracco, Phys. Lett.
520: {\bf B608}, 69 (2005).
521: \bibitem{jawil} R.L. Jaffe and F. Wilczek, {\em Phys. Rev. Lett.} {\bf 91},
522: 232003 (2003).
523: \bibitem{io1} B.~L. Ioffe, Nucl.\ Phys.\ {\bf B188}, 317 (1981);
524: {\bf B191}, 591(E) (1981).
525: \bibitem{su} H. Kim, S.H. Lee and Y. Oh, Phys. Lett. {\bf B595}, 293 (2004).
526: \bibitem{rry} L.J. Reinders, H. Rubinstein and S. Yazaky, {\em Phys. Rep.}
527: {\bf 127}, 1 (1985).
528: \bibitem{gale} J. Gasser, H. Leutwyler, {\em Phys. Rep.}
529: {\bf 87}, 77 (1982).
530: \bibitem{jala} M. Jamin, B. Lange, {\em Phys. Rev.}
531: {\bf D65}, 056003 (2002).
532: \end{references}
533:
534:
535:
536:
537: \end{document}
538: