1: \documentclass[12pt,showkeys,showpacs,indentfirst,bm]{revtex4}
2: \usepackage{epsfig}
3: \usepackage{epsf}
4: \usepackage{multirow}
5:
6: \begin{document}
7:
8: \title{Dynamically generated $0^+$ heavy mesons in a heavy chiral unitary approach}
9:
10: \author{Feng-Kun Guo$^{1,2,6}$}
11: \email{guofk@mail.ihep.ac.cn}
12: \author{Peng-Nian Shen$^{2,1,4,5}$}
13: \author{Huan-Ching Chiang$^{3,1}$}
14: \author{Rong-Gang Ping$^{1,2}$}
15: \author{Bing-Song Zou$^{2,1,4,5}$}
16: \affiliation{\small $^1$Institute of High Energy Physics, Chinese
17: Academy of Sciences,
18: P.O.Box 918(4), Beijing 100049, China\footnote{Corresponding address.}\\
19: $^2$CCAST(World Lab.), P.O.Box 8730, Beijing 100080, China\\
20: $^3$South-west University, Chongqing 400715, China\\
21: $^4$Institute of Theoretical Physics, Chinese Academy of Sciences, P.O.Box 2735, China\\
22: $^5$Center of Theoretical Nuclear Physics, National Laboratory of
23: Heavy Ion Accelerator, Lanzhou 730000, China\\
24: $^6$Graduate University of Chinese Academy of Sciences, Beijing
25: 100049, China}
26: \date{\today}
27:
28:
29: \begin{abstract}
30: In terms of the heavy chiral Lagrangian and the unitarized
31: coupled-channel scattering amplitude, interaction between the heavy
32: meson and the light pseudoscalar meson is studied. By looking for
33: the pole of scattering matrix on an appropriate Riemann sheet, a
34: $DK$ bound state $D_{s0}^*$ with the mass of $2.312\pm0.041$ GeV is
35: found. This state can be associated as the narrow $D_{sJ}^*(2317)$
36: state found recently. In the same way, a $B{\bar K}$ bound state
37: $B_{s0}^*$ is found, and its mass of $5.725\pm0.039$ GeV is
38: predicted. The spectra of $D_0^*$ and $B_0^*$ with $I=1/2$ are
39: further investigated. One broad and one narrow states are predicted
40: in both charm and bottom sectors. The coupling constants and decay
41: widths of the predicted states are also calculated.
42: \end{abstract}
43:
44: \pacs{14.40.Lb, 12.39.Fe, 13.75.Lb, 13.25.Ft}%
45: \keywords{$D_{sJ}^*(2317)$, heavy chiral unitary approach,
46: dynamically generated states}
47:
48: \maketitle
49:
50: \section{Introduction}
51:
52: The recently discovered narrow-width state $D_{sJ}^*(2317)$
53: \cite{prl90} stimulates both experimental
54: \cite{prd68,prl91,prl92,ev04,ba04} and theoretical
55: \cite{go03,be03,cf03,dh03,fr04,nr04,ll04,cf05,gk05,mm05,ld06,%
56: ch03,cl04,ko05,nm05,te05,ww62,sz03,bc03,kl04,hl04,zc06,%
57: br03,ww63,bp04,vf06,bi05, wz05,ni05,ly06} interest. Many physicists
58: surmised that this new state is a conventional $c{\bar s}$ state
59: \cite{go03,be03,cf03,dh03,fr04,nr04,ll04,cf05,gk05,mm05,ld06}, and
60: the others believed that it can be an exotic meson state, such as a
61: four-quark state \cite{ch03,cl04,ko05,nm05,te05,ww62}, a $D_s\pi$
62: quasi-bound state \cite{sz03}, a $DK$ bound state
63: \cite{bc03,kl04,hl04,zc06}, a mixed state of $c{\bar s}$ with $DK$
64: \cite{br03,ww63} or with four-quark state \cite{bp04,vf06}, and etc.
65: On the other hand, one proposed that $D_{sJ}^*(2317)$ with $J^P=0^+$
66: could be the chiral partner of the ground state of $D_s$
67: \cite{be03,nr04}. However, the author in Ref. \cite{bi05} mentioned
68: that the chiral doubler produced by using Random Phase Approximation
69: equations should be ($D_s(1968)$,$D_s(2392)$) rather than
70: ($D_s(1968)$,$D_s(2317)$), although the scalar state $D_s^*(2392)$,
71: as the scalar chiral partner of $D_s(1968)$ state, has not been
72: found yet \cite{bi05}. Up to now, the structure of $D_{sJ}^*(2317)$
73: is still indistinct and should carefully be studied. Moreover, the
74: Belle collaboration recently reported a broad $0^+$ charmed meson
75: with mass and width being $m_{D_0^{*0}}=2308\pm60$ MeV and
76: $\Gamma_{D_0^{*0}}=276\pm99$ MeV, respectively \cite{be04}, and the
77: FOCUS collaboration reported a broad $0^+$ charmed meson with mass
78: and width being $m_{D_0^{*0}}=2407\pm56$ MeV and
79: $\Gamma_{D_0^{*0}}=240\pm114$ MeV, respectively \cite{fo04}. Though
80: they are consistent with each other within experimental errors,
81: whether they are the same particle is still in dispute
82: \cite{te05,bl05}.
83:
84: On the other hand, it has been shown that the light scalar mesons
85: $\sigma,~f_0(980),~a_0(980)$ and $\kappa$ can dynamically be
86: generated through the $S$ wave interaction between Goldstone bosons
87: in the chiral unitary approach (ChUA)
88: \cite{oo97,oo99,oond,ka98,na99,ma00,gp05}. In such an approach, the
89: amplitudes from the chiral perturbation theory (ChPT) are usually
90: adopted as the kernels of the factorized coupled-channel
91: Bethe-Salpeter (BS) equations. In this procedure, a Lagrangian in a
92: specific expanded order, where the symmetries of ChPT should be
93: preserved, is chosen at the beginning, and then the higher order
94: corrections to the amplitudes are re-summed with the symmetries kept
95: up to the order of the expansion considered. Namely, what the
96: unitary CHPT does in the successive step is re-summing a string of
97: infinite loop diagrams while the the symmetries of ChPT are held
98: \cite{ol00,ol01,ol03}. Moreover, ChUA has been applied to study the
99: $S$ wave interaction between the lower lying vector meson and the
100: Goldstone boson, and most of the known axial-vector mesons can also
101: be generated dynamically \cite{ro05}. Based on the valuable
102: achievements mentioned above, extending ChUA to the heavy-light
103: meson sector to study the $S$ wave interaction between the heavy
104: pseudoscalar meson and the Goldstone boson, and consequently the
105: structures of possible heavy scalar mesons, would be extremely
106: meaningful. In fact, similar work, called $\chi$-BS(3) approach, has
107: been done \cite{kl04,hl04}. In such an approach, heavy-light meson
108: resonances and open-charm meson resonances were predicted through
109: checking speed plots together with the real and imaginary parts of
110: the reduced scattering amplitudes. In our opinion, studying the
111: poles on the appropriate Riemann sheet of the scattering amplitude
112: would be a powerful procedure to reveal the properties of the
113: generated states in a more accurate way. In this paper, the $S$ wave
114: interaction between the heavy meson and the light pseudoscalar meson
115: is studied by using the extended chiral unitary approach, called
116: heavy chiral unitary approach. The poles that associate with the
117: experimentally observed narrow $D_{sJ}^*(2317)$ and broad $D_0^*$ in
118: the $I=0,~S=1$ and $I=\frac{1}{2},~S=0$ channels, where $I$ and $S$
119: denote the isospin and the strangeness, respectively, are searched.
120: The corresponding coupling constants and decay widths are also
121: discussed.
122:
123:
124: %It is found that our results, such as the mass of the predicted
125: %$B_{s0}^*$ state and the width of the higher $D_0^*$ state are
126: %different from the corresponding ones in \cite{kl04,hl04}.
127:
128: \section{Coupled-channel heavy chiral unitary approach}
129: \label{hcua}
130:
131: In order to describe the interaction between the Goldstone boson and
132: the heavy pseudoscalar boson, we employ a leading order heavy chiral
133: Lagrangian \cite{bd92,wise,yc92}
134: \begin{equation}
135: \label{eq:L} {\cal L} =
136: \frac{1}{4f_{\pi}^2}(\partial^{\mu}P[\Phi,\partial_{\mu}\Phi]P^{\dag}
137: - P[\Phi,\partial_{\mu}\Phi]\partial^{\mu}P^{\dag}),
138: \end{equation}
139: where $f_{\pi}=92.4$ MeV is the pion decay constant, $P$
140: represents the charmed mesons $(c{\bar u},~c{\bar d},~c{\bar s})$,
141: namely $(D^0,~D^+,~D_s^+)$, and $\Phi$ denotes the octet Goldstone
142: bosons and can be written in the form of $3\times3$ matrix
143: \begin{equation}
144: \label{eq:ps} \Phi = \left(
145: \begin{array}{ccc}
146: \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}\pi^0 + \frac{1}{\sqrt{6}}\eta & \pi^+ & K^+\\
147: \pi^- & -\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}\pi^0 + \frac{1}{\sqrt{6}}\eta & K^0\\
148: K^- & \bar{K}^0 & - \frac{2}{\sqrt{6}}\eta
149: \end{array}
150: \right).
151: \end{equation}
152: This Lagrangian is equivalent to the $SU(4)$ extrapolation of the
153: ordinary meson meson chiral Lagrangian, eliminating the exchanges of
154: heavy vector mesons in the equivalent picture of vector meson
155: exchange \cite{hl05}. Obviously, the similar investigation in the
156: bottom sector can be carried out by replacing $P$ in Eq.
157: (\ref{eq:L}) with the anti-bottom mesons $(b{\bar u},~b{\bar
158: d},~b{\bar s})$, namely $(B^-,~{\bar B}^0,~{\bar B}_s)$.
159:
160:
161: We are interested in the heavy mesons in the $I=0,~S=1$ and
162: $I=\frac{1}{2},~S=0$ channels that can be specified by their own
163: isospins, respectively. In terms of Eq. (\ref{eq:L}), the amplitudes
164: can easily be obtained by
165: \begin{equation}
166: \label{eq:amp} V^{I}_{ij}(s,t,u) =
167: \frac{C^{I}_{ij}}{4f_{\pi}^2}(s-u),
168: \end{equation}
169: where $i$ and $j$ represent the initial state and the final state,
170: respectively. In the $I=0$ case, $i$ ($j$) can be 1 and 2 which
171: represent the coupled $DK$ and $D_s\eta$ channels in the charmed
172: sector, respectively, and $B{\bar K}$ and $B_s\eta$ channels in the
173: bottom sector, respectively. In the $I=\frac{1}{2}$ case, $i$ ($j$)
174: can take 1, 2 and 3 which denote the coupled $D\pi$, $D\eta$ and
175: $D_s{\bar K}$ channels in the charmed sector, respectively, and
176: $B\pi$, $B\eta$ and $B_sK$ channels in the bottom sector,
177: respectively. The coefficients $C^{I}_{ij}$ are listed in Table
178: \ref{tab:cij}.
179: %----------------------------------------------------------------
180: \begin{table}[hbt]
181: \caption{\label{tab:cij} Coefficients $C^{I}_{ij}$ in
182: Eq.~(\ref{eq:amp}).}
183: \begin{center}
184: \begin{tabular}{ccc|cccccc}
185: \hline\hline $C^{0}_{11}$ & $C^{0}_{12}$ & $C^{0}_{22}$ &
186: $C^{1/2}_{11}$ & $C^{1/2}_{12}$
187: & $C^{1/2}_{22}$ & $C^{1/2}_{13}$
188: & $C^{1/2}_{23}$ & $C^{1/2}_{33}$\\
189: \hline $-2$ & $\sqrt{3}$ & 0 & $-2$ & 0 & 0 & $-\frac{\sqrt{6}}{2}$
190: & $-\frac{\sqrt{6}}{2}$ & $-1$\\
191: \hline\hline
192: \end{tabular}
193: \end{center}
194: \end{table}
195: %-----------------------------------------------------------------
196:
197: The tree level amplitudes can be projected to the $S$ wave by using
198: \begin{equation}%
199: V^{I,~{\it {l}}=0}_{ij}(s)=\frac{1}{2}\int^{1}_{-1}d\cos{\theta}
200: V^I_{ij}(s,t(s,\cos{\theta}),u(s,\cos{\theta})),%
201: \end{equation}%
202: and
203: \begin{eqnarray}%
204: -u(s,\cos{\theta})&=& s-m_2^2-m_4^2 -
205: 2\sqrt{[m_1^2+\frac{\lambda(s,m_1^2,m_2^2)}{4s}]
206: [m_3^2+\frac{\lambda(s,m_3^2,m_4^2)}{4s}]} \nonumber\\
207: &&
208: +\frac{1}{2s}\sqrt{\lambda(s,m_1^2,m_2^2)\lambda(s,m_3^2,m_4^2)}\cos{\theta},
209: \end{eqnarray}%
210: where $\lambda(s,m_i^2,m_j^2)=[s-(m_i+m_j)^2][s-(m_i-m_j)^2]$ and
211: the on-shell condition for the Mandelstam variables,
212: $s+t+u=\sum_{i=1}^{4}m_i^2$, is applied.
213:
214:
215: In ChUA, under the on-shell approximation, the full scattering
216: amplitude can be converted into an algebraic BS equation
217: \cite{oo97}
218: \begin{equation}
219: T=(1-VG)^{-1}V,
220: \end{equation}
221: where $V$ is a matrix whose elements are the $S$ wave projections of
222: the tree diagram amplitudes and $G$ is a diagonal matrix with the
223: element being a two-meson loop integral
224: %-------------------------------------------------------
225: \begin{equation}
226: G_{ii}(s)=i\int\frac{d^4q}{(2\pi)^4}\frac{1}{q^2-m_1^2+i
227: \varepsilon} \frac{1}{(p_1+p_2-q)^2-m_2^2+i\varepsilon},
228: \label{eq:2loop}
229: \end{equation}
230: %-------------------------------------------------------
231: where $p_1$ and $p_2$ are the four-momenta of the two initial
232: particles, respectively, and $m_1$ and $m_2$ are the masses of the
233: particles appearing in the loop. It was shown that the scattering
234: matrix derived in such a way satisfies the unitary relation
235: \cite{oo99,oond,gp05}.
236:
237: The loop integral can usually be calculated in the center-of-mass
238: frame by using a three-momentum cut-off parameter $q_{max}$
239: \cite{oo97}. However, in this method, an artificial singularity of
240: the loop function might be produced \cite{gp05}, and the
241: applicability of the method is limited. The better way to remove the
242: singularity of the loop integral is using the dispersion relation
243: where a subtraction constant is employed. Then, the analytic
244: expression of $G_{ii}(s)$ can be expressed by \cite{oond}
245: \begin{eqnarray}%
246: G_{ii}(s)&=&\frac{1}{16\pi^2}\{a(\mu)+\log{\frac{m_1^2}{\mu^2}} +
247: \frac{\Delta-s}{2s}\log{\frac{m_1^2}{m_2^2}} \nonumber\\
248: && +\frac{\sigma}{2s}[\log{(s-\Delta+\sigma)}
249: + \log{(s+\Delta+\sigma)} \nonumber\\
250: &&- \log{(-s+\Delta+\sigma)} - \log{(-s-\Delta+\sigma)}] \},
251: \end{eqnarray}%
252: where $a(\mu)$ is the subtraction constant, $\mu$ denotes the
253: regularization scale,
254: $\sigma=[-(s-(m_1+m_2)^2)(s-(m_1-m_2)^2)]^{1/2}$ and
255: $\Delta=m_1^2-m_2^2$. This result is independent of $\mu$, because
256: the change in $G_{ii}$, caused by a variation of $\mu$, is cancelled
257: by the corresponding change of the subtraction constant $a(\mu)$.
258:
259:
260:
261: \section{Poles on appropriate Riemann sheets} \label{pole}
262:
263: The physical states are closely associated with the poles of the
264: scattering amplitude on the appropriate Riemann sheet of the energy
265: plane. For instance, considering only one channel, a bound state is
266: associated with a pole below the threshold value in the real axis of
267: the energy plane, and the three-momentum of the scattered meson in
268: the center of mass frame of the two mesons system can be written as
269: $p_{cm}=i|p_{cm}|$. A resonance should be related with a pole on the
270: second Riemann sheet, namely, Im$p_{cm}<0$. In the coupled channel
271: case, the situation is somewhat complicated. Detailed relation can
272: be found in Ref. \cite{bk82}.
273:
274: Before searching for poles of the scattering amplitude, the range of
275: subtraction constant values in the dispersion relation method should
276: firstly be estimated. It can be done by comparing the calculated
277: value of loop integration in the dispersion relation method with the
278: one obtained in the cut-off method, although there might be an
279: artificial singularity problem in the cut-off method \cite{gp05}.
280: The cut-off momentum can approximately be chosen as
281: \begin{equation}
282: \label{eq:co} q_{max}\sim\sqrt{\Lambda_{\chi}^2-m_{\phi}^2},
283: \end{equation}
284: where $m_{\phi}$ is the mass of the Goldstone boson and
285: $\Lambda_{\chi}$ denotes the chiral symmetry breaking scale which is
286: about 1 GeV. The resultant $q_{max}$ for $\phi=\pi,~K$ and $\eta$
287: are all in the region of 0.8-0.9 GeV. Thus, it is reasonable to pick
288: up a value of $q_{max}$ in the region of $0.8\pm0.2$ GeV. Then, we
289: adjust the renormalization scale $\mu$ or the subtraction constant
290: $a(\mu)$ to match the calculated value of the loop integral in the
291: dispersion relation method with the one obtained in the cut-off
292: method at $\sqrt{s}=m_D(m_B)+m_K$ in a specific $q_{max}$ value
293: case, say $q_{max}=0.6$, 0.8 and 1.0 GeV, respectively. The
294: resultant loop integration curves versus $s$ in two different
295: methods are very close in the region around and below the matching
296: point $\sqrt{s}$. The corresponding values of $a(\mu)$ and $q_{max}$
297: are tabulated in Table \ref{tab:a}. With the estimated $a(\mu)$
298: value, the full scattering amplitude can be calculated.
299:
300: %----------------------------------------------------------------
301: \begin{table}[hbt]
302: \caption{\label{tab:a} The values of $a(\mu)$ from matching. We use
303: $\mu=m_{D}$ for the charm sector, and $\mu=m_{B}$ for the bottom
304: sector, respectively.}
305: \begin{center}
306: \begin{tabular}{cccc}
307: \hline\hline
308: $q_{max}$ (GeV) &~~ 0.6 &~~ 0.8 &~~ 1.0 \\
309: \hline
310: $a(m_D)$~~ &~~ -0.373~~ &~~ -0.630~~ &~~ -0.864 \\
311: $a(m_B)$~~ &~~~ 0.0232~ &~~ -0.0856~ &~~ -0.187 \\
312: \hline\hline
313: \end{tabular}
314: \end{center}
315: \end{table}
316: %-----------------------------------------------------------------
317:
318:
319: The poles of the scattering matrix in the $I=0,~S=1$ channel in both
320: the charmed sector and bottom sector are searched for first. It is
321: shown that on the first Riemann sheet of the energy plane, there is
322: only one pole located on the real axis below the lowest strong decay
323: threshold, $m_D+m_K=2.367$ GeV, in the charmed sector and only one
324: pole on the real axis below the lowest strong decay threshold,
325: $m_B+m_K=5.773$ GeV, in the bottom sector as well. The resultant
326: pole positions with different $a(\mu)$, which correspond to the
327: $q_{max}=0.6$, 0.8 and 1.0 GeV cases, are tabulated in Table
328: \ref{tab:i0}, respectively.
329: %----------------------------------------------------------------
330: \begin{table}[hbt]
331: \caption{\label{tab:i0} Poles in the $(I,~S)=(0,~1)$ channel.}
332: \begin{center}
333: \begin{tabular}{cccc}
334: \hline\hline
335: $q_{max}$ (GeV)~~~~ &~~ 0.6 &~~ 0.8 &~~ 1.0 \\
336: \hline
337: $D_{s0}^*$ (GeV)~~~~ &~~ 2.353 ~~&~~ 2.317 ~~&~~ 2.270 \\
338: $B_{s0}^*$ (GeV)~~~~ &~~ 5.764 ~~&~~ 5.729 ~~&~~ 5.661 \\
339: \hline\hline
340: \end{tabular}
341: \end{center}
342: \end{table}
343: %-----------------------------------------------------------------
344: These poles are apparently associated with the $DK$ bound state and
345: the $B{\bar K}$ bound state, respectively. Due to the existence of
346: the ${\bar s}$ quark, these bound states should be scalar heavy
347: mesons, namely $D_{s0}^*$ and ${\bar B}_{s0}^*$, respectively. More
348: specifically, when $a(m_D)=-0.630$, corresponding to $q_{max}=0.8$
349: GeV, the mass of the $DK$ state, namely $D_{s0}^*$ , is about 2317
350: MeV, which is almost the same as the measured value of
351: $D_{sJ}^*(2317)$. Taking into account the uncertainty of subtraction
352: constant, the mass of the $D_{s0}^*$ (0, 1) state in our model is
353: $2.312\pm0.041$ GeV. Also due to the uncertainty of $a(m_B)$, the
354: predicted mass of the $B{\bar K}$ bound state, namely $B_{s0}^*$ (0,
355: 1) state, is $5.725\pm0.039$ GeV. This mass is consistent with the
356: mass predicted in Refs. \cite{be03,bi05}, but larger than that in
357: Refs. \cite{mm05,kl04}. For comparison, we list the mass of
358: $B_{s0}^*$ predicted in different models in Table \ref{tab:bs0}.
359: %----------------------------------------------------------------
360: \begin{table}[hbt]
361: \caption{\label{tab:bs0} Mass of $B_{s0}^*$ predicted in different
362: models.}
363: \begin{center}
364: \begin{tabular}{cccccc}
365: \hline\hline
366: & Our result & \cite{be03} & \cite{bi05} & \cite{mm05} & \cite{kl04}\\
367: \hline ~~$m_{B_{s0}^*}$ (GeV)~~ &~~ $5.725\pm0.039$~~ &~~
368: $5.728\pm0.035$~~ &~~ $5.71\pm0.03$~~ & 5.627~~ &~~ 5.643\\
369: \hline\hline
370: \end{tabular}
371: \end{center}
372: \end{table}
373: %-----------------------------------------------------------------
374:
375: In the $I=\frac{1}{2},~S=0$ case, the poles are located on
376: nonphysical Riemann sheets. Usually, if Im$p_{cm}$ is negative for
377: all the channels open for a certain energy, the width obtained would
378: correspond more closely with the physical one. We search for poles
379: in this particular sheet.
380:
381: There are two poles in either charmed sector or bottom sector. The
382: width of the lower pole is broad and the width of the higher one is
383: narrow. The obtained poles are listed in Table \ref{tab:i1/2}.
384: %----------------------------------------------------------------
385: \begin{table}[hbt]
386: \caption{\label{tab:i1/2} Poles in $(I,~S)=(\frac{1}{2},~0)$
387: channel.}
388: \begin{center}
389: \begin{tabular}{cccc}
390: \hline\hline
391: $q_{max}$ (GeV) & 0.6 & 0.8 & 1.0 \\
392: \hline
393: \multirow{2}{*}{$D_{0}^*$ (GeV)} &~~ $2.115-i0.147$ ~~&~~ $2.099-i0.100$ ~~&~~ $2.079-i0.067$ \\
394: &~~ $2.488-i0.039$ ~~&~~ $2.445-i0.049$ ~~&~~ $2.429-i0.002$ \\
395: \hline
396: \multirow{2}{*}{$B_{0}^*$ (GeV)} &~~ $5.564-i0.160$ ~~&~~ $5.534-i0.110$ ~~&~~ $5.507-i0.074$ \\
397: &~~ $5.864-i0.027$ ~~&~~ $5.827-i0.026$ ~~&~~ $5.821-i0.019$ \\
398: \hline\hline
399: \end{tabular}
400: \end{center}
401: \end{table}
402: %-----------------------------------------------------------------
403: In either the charmed or bottom sector, the lower pole is located on
404: the second Riemann sheet (Im$p_{cm1}<0$, Im$p_{cm2}>0$,
405: Im$p_{cm3}>0$, where $p_{cmi}$ denotes the momentum of one of the
406: interacting mesons in the $i$-th channel in the center of mass
407: system). This pole should be associated with a $D\pi$ ($B\pi$)
408: resonance in the charmed (bottom) sector. Consequently, this state
409: should easily decay into $D\pi$ ($B\pi$) in the charmed (bottom)
410: sector.
411:
412: The higher pole in either charmed or bottom sector is found on the
413: third Riemann sheet (Im$p_{cm1}<0$, Im$p_{cm2}<0$, Im$p_{cm3}>0$)
414: when $a(\mu)$ corresponds to $q_{max}=0.6$ GeV or 0.8 GeV, or on the
415: second Riemann sheet when $a(\mu)$ corresponds to $q_{max}=1.0$ GeV.
416: The pole should be associated with an unstable $D_s{\bar K}$
417: ($B_sK$) bound state in the charmed (bottom) sector due to its
418: narrow width. It should be mentioned that the situation for the
419: higher pole in the later case, namely $a(\mu)$ corresponding to
420: $q_{max}=1.0$ GeV, is somewhat complicated. Besides a pole on the
421: second Riemann sheet, $pole_{II}=2.429-i0.002$ GeV shown in Table
422: \ref{tab:i1/2}, there is a shadow pole, $pole_{III}=2.397-i0.043$
423: GeV, on the third Riemann sheet. Note that
424: Re($pole_{II})>m_D+m_{\eta}$ and Re($pole_{III})<m_D+m_{\eta}$. A
425: sketch plot for the paths of these two poles to the physical region
426: in the energy plane is shown in Fig. \ref{fig1}. From this cartoon,
427: one sees that $pole_{II}$ corresponds more closely with the physical
428: one. Therefore, we choose $pole_{II}=2.429-i0.002$ GeV as the
429: result. Similar complexity appears at $pole_{III}=2.488-i0.039$ GeV
430: in Table \ref{tab:i1/2}, due to the existence of
431: $pole_{V}=2.048-i0.020$ GeV. With the same reason, we disregard
432: $pole_{V}$.
433:
434: %-------------------------------------------------------------------------
435: \begin{figure}[htb]
436: \begin{center}%\vspace*{2.cm}
437: {\epsfysize=3cm \epsffile{poles.eps}}%
438: \vglue -0.5cm\caption{\label{fig1}Paths from $pole_{II}$ on Riemann
439: sheet II and $pole_{III}$ on Riemann sheet III to the physical
440: region in the energy plane, where $E_1=m_{D}+m_{\pi}$ and
441: $E_2=m_{D}+m_{\eta}$.}
442: \end{center}
443: \end{figure}
444: %-------------------------------------------------------------------------
445: Considering the deviations of the data caused by the uncertainty of
446: $a(\mu)$ Table \ref{tab:i1/2}, we predict the mass and the width of
447: the broad $D_{0}^*$ ($\frac{1}{2}$, 0) state as $2.097\pm0.018$ GeV
448: and $0.213\pm0.080$ GeV, respectively, and the mass and the width of
449: the narrow $D_{0}^*$ ($\frac{1}{2}$, 0) state as $2.448\pm0.030$ GeV
450: and $0.051\pm0.047$ GeV, respectively. In the same way, we forecast
451: the mass and the width of the broad $B_{0}^*$ ($\frac{1}{2}$, 0)
452: state as $5.536\pm0.029$ GeV and $0.234\pm0.086$ GeV, respectively,
453: and the mass and the width of the narrow $B_{0}^*$ ($\frac{1}{2}$,
454: 0) state as $5.842\pm0.022$ GeV and $0.035\pm0.019$ GeV,
455: respectively.
456:
457: Recalling the predictions in Refs. \cite{kl04,hl04}, we noticed that
458: by checking the reduced scattering amplitude curves in the speed
459: plot, the authors in Ref. \cite{kl04} found a broad state with mass
460: of $2138$ MeV and a narrow states with mass of $2413$ MeV in the
461: charmed sector, and by further adjusting free parameters in the
462: next-to-leading order to reproduce the $D_{s0}^*(2317)$ state with
463: mass of $2317\pm3$ MeV and the $D_0^*$ state with mass of
464: $2308\pm60$ MeV and width of $276\pm99$ MeV given in Ref.
465: \cite{be04}, the authors in Ref. \cite{hl04} obtained a broad state
466: with mass of $2255$ MeV and width of about $360$ MeV and predicted a
467: very narrow state with mass of $2389$ MeV. In the same way, the
468: authors in Ref. \cite{kl04} further predicted a broad state with
469: mass of $5526$ MeV and a narrow states with mass of $5760$ MeV and
470: width of about $30$ MeV in the bottom sector. It seems that our
471: predicted $D_0^*$ ($\frac{1}{2}$,~0) states are consistent with
472: those in Ref. \cite{hl04}, although they still deviate from the
473: experimental data \cite{be04,fo04}. It should be mentioned that
474: because of the large uncertainty in the data analysis and existence
475: of the predicted higher narrow state just around the $D_2^*(2460)$
476: region, the present model could not be disregarded rudely.
477:
478:
479: \section{Coupling constants and decay widths}
480: \label{decay}
481:
482: The decay properties of predicted states are studied by making the
483: Laurent expansion of the amplitude around the pole \cite{ol05}
484: \begin{equation}
485: T_{ij}=\frac{g_ig_j}{s-s_{pole}}+\gamma_0+\gamma_1(s-s_{pole})+\cdots,
486: \end{equation}
487: where $g_i$ and $g_j$ are coupling constants of the generated
488: state to the $i$-th and $j$-th channels. $g_ig_j$ can be obtained
489: by calculating the residue of the pole \cite{oond}
490: \begin{equation}
491: g_ig_j=\lim_{s\to s_{pole}}(s-s_{pole})T_{ij}.
492: \end{equation}
493:
494: In the case where $a(\mu)$ corresponds to $q_{max}=0.8$ GeV, we
495: calculate the residues of the poles, and consequently the coupling
496: constants. The resultant coupling constants for the $D_{s0}^*$ and
497: $B_{s0}^*$ ($D_{0}^*$ and $B_{0}^*$) states are tabulated in Table
498: \ref{tab:ccs1} (\ref{tab:ccs0}). From these tables, one sees that
499: the coupling constants again are consistent with the results in the
500: pole analysis. In the $(0,~1)$ channel, the coupling of $D_{s0}^*$
501: ($B_{s0}^*$) to the $D_s \eta$ ($B_s \eta$) channel is weaker than
502: that to the $DK$ ($BK$) channel. This is because the $D_{s0}^*$
503: ($B_{s0}^*$) state is the $DK$ ($B{\bar K}$) bound state. In the
504: $(\frac{1}{2},~0)$ channel, the coupling of the lower broad $D_0^*$
505: ($B_0^*$) state to the $D\pi$ ($B\pi$) channel is stronger than the
506: coupling of the higher narrow one to the $D\pi$ ($B\pi$) channel;
507: the coupling of the lower state to the $D\pi$ ($B\pi$) channel is
508: stronger than that to the $D_s\bar{K}$ ($B_sK$) channel and the
509: $D\eta$ ($B\eta$) channel, and the coupling of the higher state to
510: the $D_s\bar{K}$ ($B_sK$) channel is stronger than that to the
511: $D\eta$ ($B\eta$) channel and the $D\pi$ ($B\pi$) channel. These are
512: consistent with the pole analysis for the lower pole being a $D\pi$
513: ($B\pi$) resonance and the higher pole being the unstable bound
514: state of $D_s{\bar K}$ ($B_sK$).
515:
516: %----------------------------------------------------------------
517: \begin{table}[hbt]
518: \caption{\label{tab:ccs1} Coupling constants of the generated
519: $D_{s0}^*$ and $B_{s0}^*$ states to relevant coupled channels. In
520: this case, $g_1$ and $g_2$ are real. All units are in GeV.}
521: \begin{center}
522: \begin{tabular}{cccc}
523: \hline\hline $~$ & Masses &~~~$|g_1|$~~~&~~~$|g_2|$\\
524: \hline $D_{s0}^*$ ~~~~&~~2.317~~&~~10.203~~&~~5.876 \\ \hline
525: $B_{s0}^*$ ~~~~&~~5.729~~&~~23.442~~&~~13.308 \\
526: \hline\hline
527: \end{tabular}
528: \end{center}
529: \end{table}
530: %-----------------------------------------------------------------
531: %----------------------------------------------------------------
532: \begin{table}[hbt]
533: \caption{\label{tab:ccs0} Coupling constants of the generated
534: $D_{0}^*$ and $B_{0}^*$ states to relevant coupled channels. All
535: units are in GeV.}
536: \begin{center}
537: \begin{tabular}{cccccccc}
538: \hline\hline
539: $~$ & Poles & $g_1$ & $|g_1|$ & $g_2$ & $|g_2|$ & $g_3$ & $|g_3|$\\
540: \hline $D_{0}^*$ & $2.099-i0.100$ & $7.750+i5.191$ & 9.328 & $-0.184+i0.096$%
541: & 0.208 & $4.648+i3.083$ & 5.578 \\
542: $D_{0}^*$ & $2.445-i0.049$ & $0.030+i3.636$ & 3.636 & $-6.845-i2.248$%
543: & 7.205 & $-10.815+i1.543$ & 10.924 \\
544: \hline $B_{0}^*$ & $5.534-i0.110$ & $21.443+i12.060$ & 24.602 & $-2.239-i0.730$%
545: & 2.355 & $13.503+i7.016$ & 15.217 \\
546: $B_{0}^*$ & $5.827-i0.026$ & $0.256+i6.958$ & 6.963 & $-14.697-i4.880$%
547: & 15.486 & $-25.000-i0.602$ & 25.003 \\
548: \hline\hline
549: \end{tabular}
550: \end{center}
551: \end{table}
552: %-----------------------------------------------------------------
553:
554: The decay widths of generated states are further evaluated. We
555: first study the states in the $(0,~1)$ channel. The $D_{s0}^*$
556: state cannot decay into either $DK$ or $D_s\eta$, because the mass
557: of the state is lower than the threshold of the $DK$ channel.
558: Moreover, the $D_{s0}^{*+}(2317)\to D_s^+\pi^0$ decay violates the
559: isospin symmetry. Thus, the decay width of $D_{s0}^{*+}(2317)$
560: should be very small. This decay can only occur through
561: $\pi^0$-$\eta$ mixing. According to Dashen's theorem \cite{dash},
562: the $\pi^0$-$\eta$ transition matrix should be
563: \begin{equation}
564: t_{\pi\eta}=\langle\pi^0|{\cal H}|\eta\rangle=-0.003 ~\text{ GeV},
565: \end{equation}
566: and the decay width reads
567: \begin{equation}
568: \Gamma=\frac{p_{cm}}{8\pi
569: M^2}|\frac{g_2t_{\pi\eta}}{m_{\pi^0}^2-m_{\eta}^2}|^2,
570: \end{equation}
571: where $M$ is the mass of the initial state, $g_2$ represents the
572: coupling of $D_{s0}^*(2317)$ to $D\eta$, and $p_{cm}$ denotes the
573: three-momentum in the center of mass frame and can be written as
574: \begin{equation}
575: p_{cm} =
576: \frac{1}{2M}\sqrt{(M^2-(m_{D^+}+m_{\pi^0})^2)(M^2-(m_{D^+}-m_{\pi^0})^2)}.
577: \end{equation}
578: Then, the partial decay width of the $D_{s0}^{*+}(2317)\to
579: D_s^+\pi^0$ process can be obtained as
580: \begin{eqnarray}
581: \Gamma(D_{s0}^{*+}(2317)\to D_s^+\pi^0)&=& 8.69~\text{ keV}.
582: \end{eqnarray}
583: This value is compatible with that in Ref. \cite{ni05,ly06}.
584: Similarly, the partial decay width of the isospin violated decay
585: $B_{s0}^{*0}(5729)\to B_s^0\pi^0$ can be evaluated as
586: \begin{eqnarray}
587: \Gamma(B_{s0}^{*0}(5729)\to B_s^0\pi^0)&=& 7.92~\text{ keV}.
588: \end{eqnarray}
589:
590: We then study the states in the $(\frac{1}{2},~0)$ channel. For
591: the higher state, two strong decay channels are opened. The
592: fraction ratio of the decay widths for these two decay channels
593: can be calculated by utilizing the coupling constants given in
594: Table \ref{tab:ccs0}. Let $\Gamma_1$ and $\Gamma_2$ denote the
595: partial decay widths with the final states being $D(B)\pi$ and
596: $D(B)\eta$, respectively. The ratio $\Gamma_1/(\Gamma_1+\Gamma_2)$
597: can be written by
598: \begin{equation}
599: R\equiv\frac{\Gamma_1}{\Gamma_1+\Gamma_2} =
600: \frac{|g_1|^2p_{cm1}}{|g_1|^2p_{cm1}+|g_2|^2p_{cm2}}.
601: \end{equation}
602: For higher $D_0^*$ and $B_0^*$ states, we have
603: \begin{equation}
604: R(D_0^*)=0.446,\qquad R(B_0^*)=0.829.
605: \end{equation}
606: It is shown that in the bottom sector, the higher narrow state is
607: easier to decay into $B\pi$ than into $B\eta$, but in the charmed
608: sector, the higher narrow state can decay into $D\pi$ and $D\eta$ in
609: almost the same weight.
610:
611: \section{Conclusion}
612:
613: Based on the heavy chiral unitary approach, the $S$ wave interaction
614: between the pseudoscalar heavy meson and the Goldstone boson is
615: studied. By calculating full scattering amplitudes via an algebraic
616: BS equation, the poles on some appropriate Riemann sheets are found.
617: These poles can be associated with bound states or resonances. With
618: a reasonably estimated single parameter $a(\mu)$ in the loop
619: integration, a pole on the real axis on the first Riemann sheet,
620: which is associated with the bound state, in the two-coupled-channel
621: calculation in the $(0,~1)$ channel is found. Because the mass of
622: the pole in the charmed sector is about $2.312\pm0.041$ GeV, this
623: state should be a $0^+$ $DK$ bound state and can be regarded as the
624: recently observed $D_{sJ}^*(2317)$. Meanwhile, a $0^+$ state
625: $B_{s0}^*$, which should be a $B{\bar K}$ bound state, is predicted.
626: Its mass is about $5.725\pm0.039$ GeV. In the $I=\frac{1}{2},~S=0$
627: case, three-coupled-channel calculations are performed in both
628: charmed and bottom sectors. In the charm sector, a broad pole
629: structure, which is associated with a resonance, is found at about
630: ($2.097\pm0.018-i0.107\pm0.040$) GeV. Besides, a narrow pole
631: structure, which can be interpreted as a quasi-bound state of
632: $D_s{\bar K}$, at about ($2.448\pm0.030-i0.026\pm0.024$) GeV is also
633: found. In the bottom sector, one broad and one narrow poles are
634: found at about ($5.536\pm0.029-i0.117\pm0.043$) GeV and
635: ($5.842\pm0.022-i0.018\pm0.010$) GeV, respectively. The coupling
636: constants of the generated states to the relevant coupled channels
637: are calculated. They are consistent with the results in the pole
638: structure analysis. In the $(0,~1)$ channel, the width of the
639: isospin violated decays $D_{s0}^{*+}(2317)\to D_s^+\pi^0$ and
640: $B_{s0}^{*0}(5729)\to B_s^0\pi^0$ are calculated. They are about
641: 8.69 and 1.54 keV, respectively. Finally in the $(\frac{1}{2},~0)$
642: channel, the decay ratio $\Gamma_1/(\Gamma_1+\Gamma_2)$ for the
643: higher narrow state is also estimated.
644:
645:
646:
647: \begin{acknowledgments}
648: We are very grateful to M.F.M. Lutz, H.-Y. Cheng, J.A. Oller and
649: Y.-L. Shen for valuable discussions. This work is partially
650: supported by the NSFC grant Nos. 90103020, 10475089, 10435080,
651: 10447130, CAS Knowledge Innovation Key-Project grant No. KJCX2SWN02
652: and Key Knowledge Innovation Project of IHEP, CAS (U529).
653: \end{acknowledgments}
654:
655: % Create the reference section using BibTeX:
656: \begin{thebibliography}{99}
657: %Experiments
658: \bibitem{prl90} BABAR Collaboration, B. Aubert et al.,
659: Phys. Rev. Lett. 90 (2003) 242001.
660: \bibitem{prd68} CLEO collaboration, D. Besson et al.,
661: Phys. Rev. D 68 (2003) 032002.
662: \bibitem{prl91} Belle Collaboration, P. Krokovny et al.,
663: Phys. Rev. Lett. 91 (2003) 262002.
664: \bibitem{prl92} Belle Collaboration, Y. Mikami et al.,
665: Phys. Rev. Lett. 92 (2004) 012002.
666: \bibitem{ev04} E. Vaandering, hep-ex/0406044,
667: in Proceedings for the XXXIXth Rencontres de Moriond
668: (QCD and High Energy Hadronic Interactions), March 28th to April 4th, 2004, La Thuile, Italy
669:
670: \bibitem{ba04} BABAR Collaboration, B. Aubert, et al.,
671: hep-ex/0408067, at the 32nd International Conference on High-Energy Physics (ICHEP 04),
672: Aug. 2004, Beijing, China.
673:
674: %c{\bar s}
675: \bibitem{go03} S. Godfrey,
676: Phys. Lett. B 568 (2003) 254.
677: \bibitem{be03} W.A. Bardeen, E.J. Eichten, C.T. Hill,
678: Phys. Rev. D 68 (2003) 054024.
679: \bibitem{cf03} P.Colangelo,F. De Fazio,
680: Phys. Lett. B 570 (2003) 180.
681: \bibitem{dh03} Y.-B. Dai, C.-S. Huang, C. Liu, S.-L. Zhu,
682: Phys. Rev. D 68 (2003) 114011.
683: \bibitem{fr04} Fayyazuddin, Riazuddin.
684: Phys. Rev. D 69 (2004) 114008.
685: \bibitem{nr04} M.A. Nowak, M. Rho, I. Zahed,
686: Acta Phys. Polon. B 35 (2004) 2377.
687: \bibitem{ll04} T. Lee, I.W. Lee, D.P. Min, B.-Y. Park,
688: hep-ph/0412210.
689: \bibitem{cf05} P.Colangelo,F. De Fazio, A. Ozpineci,
690: Phys. Rev. D 72 (2005) 074004.
691: \bibitem{gk05} X.-H. Guo, H.-W. Ke, X.-Q. Li, X. Liu, S.-M. Zhao,
692: hep-ph/0510146.
693: \bibitem{mm05} T. Matsuki, T. Morii, K. Sudoh,
694: hep-ph/0510269, at the XIth International Conference
695: on Hadron Spectroscopy (HADRON05), August 2005, Rio de Janeiro,
696: Brazil.
697:
698: \bibitem{ld06} J. Lu, W.-Z. Deng, X.-L. Chen, S.-L. Zhu,
699: hep-ph/0602167.
700:
701: %4q or DK or D_s\pi
702: \bibitem{ch03} H.-Y. Cheng, W.-S. Hou,
703: Phys. Lett. B 566 (2003) 193.
704: \bibitem{cl04} Y.-Q. Chen, X.-Q. Li,
705: Phys. Rev. Lett. 93 (2004) 232001.
706: \bibitem{ko05} H. Kim, Y. Oh,
707: Phys. Rev. D 72 (2005) 074012.
708: \bibitem{nm05} M. Nielsen, R.D. Matheus, F.S. Navarra, M.E. Bracco, A. Lozea,
709: hep-ph/0509131, at the Workshop on Light-Cone QCD and
710: Nonperturbative Hadron Physics 2005 (LC2005), July 2005, Cairns,
711: Australia.
712:
713: \bibitem{te05} K. Terasaki,
714: hep-ph/0512285, at the Workshop on Resonances in QCD,
715: July 2005, Trento, Italy.
716:
717: \bibitem{ww62} Z.-G. Wang, S.-L. Wan,
718: hep-ph/0602080.
719: \bibitem{sz03} A. P. Szczepaniak,
720: Phys. Lett. B 567 (2003) 23.
721: \bibitem{bc03} T. Barnes, F.E. Close, H.J. Lipkin,
722: Phys. Rev. D 68 (2003) 054006.
723: \bibitem{kl04} E.E. Kolomeitsev, M.F.M. Lutz,
724: Phys. Lett. B 582 (2004) 39.
725: \bibitem{hl04} J. Hofmann, M.F.M. Lutz,
726: Nucl. Phys. A 733 (2004) 142.
727: \bibitem{zc06} Y.-J. Zhang, H.-C. Chiang, P.-N. Shen, B.-S. Zou,
728: hep-ph/0604271.
729:
730: %c{\bar s} mixing with 4q or DK
731: \bibitem{br03} E. van Beveren, G. Rupp,
732: Phys. Rev. Lett. 91 (2003) 012003.
733: \bibitem{ww63} Z.-G. Wang, S.-L. Wan,
734: hep-ph/0603007.
735: \bibitem{bp04} T.E. Browder, S. Pakvasa, A.A. Petrov,
736: Phys. Lett. B 578 (2004) 365.
737: \bibitem{vf06} J. Vijande, F. Fern\'{a}ndez, A. Valcarce,
738: Phys. Rev. D 73 (2006) 034002.
739:
740: % 4q or hybrid
741: \bibitem{bi05} P. Bicudo,
742: hep-ph/0512041.
743: %Width
744: \bibitem{wz05} W. Wei, P.-Z. Huang, S.-L. Zhu,
745: Phys. Rev. D 73 (2006) 034004.
746: \bibitem{ni05} M. Nielsen, Phys. Lett. B 634 (2006) 35.
747: \bibitem{ly06} X. Liu, Y.-M. Yu, S.-M. Zhao, X.-Q. Li,
748: hep-ph/0601017.
749:
750: %D_0^*(2308)
751: \bibitem{be04} Belle Collaboration, K. Abe et al.,
752: Phys. Rev. D 69 (2004) 112002.
753: \bibitem{fo04} FOCUS Collaboration, J.M. Link,
754: Phys. Lett. B 586 (2004) 11.
755: \bibitem{bl05} M.E. Bracco, A. Lozea, R.D. Matheus, F.S. Navarra, M. Nielsen,%
756: Phys. Lett. B 624 (2005) 217.
757: %ChUA
758: \bibitem{oo97} J.A. Oller, E. Oset,
759: Nucl. Phys. A 620 (1997) 438;
760: (Erratum) {\it ibid.} 652 (1999) 407;
761: \bibitem{oo99} J.A. Oller, E. Oset, J.R. Pel\'{a}ez,
762: Phys. Rev. Lett. 80 (1998) 3452;
763: Phys. Rev. D 59 (1999) 074001.
764: \bibitem{oond} J.A. Oller, E. Oset,
765: Phys. Rev. D 60 (1999) 074023.
766: \bibitem{ka98} N. Kaiser,
767: Eur. Phys. J. A 3 (1998) 307.
768: \bibitem{na99} J. Nieves, E. Ruiz Arriola,
769: Phys. Lett. B 455 (1999) 30.
770: \bibitem{ma00} V.E. Markushin,
771: Eur. Phys. J. A 8 (2000) 389.
772: \bibitem{gp05} F.-K. Guo, R.-G. Ping, P.-N. Shen, H.-C. Chiang, B.-S. Zou,
773: accepted for publication in Nucl. Phys. A [hep-ph/0509050].
774: \bibitem{ol00} J.A. Oller,
775: Phys. Lett. B 477 (2000) 187.
776: \bibitem{ol01} J.A. Oller,
777: Phys. Lett. B 500 (2001) 263.
778: \bibitem{ol03} J.A. Oller,
779: Nucl. Phys. A 725 (2003) 85.
780: \bibitem{ro05} L. Roca, E. Oset, J. Singh,
781: Phys. Rev. D 72 (2005) 014002.
782:
783:
784: %chiral
785: \bibitem{bd92} G. Burdman, J.F. Donoghue,
786: Phys. Lett. B 280 (1992) 287.
787: \bibitem{wise} M.B. Wise,
788: Phys. Rev. D 45 (1992) 2188.
789: \bibitem{yc92} T.-M. Yan, H.-Y. Cheng, C.-Y. Cheung, G.-L. Lin, Y.C. Lin, H.-L. Yu,
790: Phys. Rev. D 46 (1992) 1148.
791: \bibitem{hl05} J. Hofman, M.F.M. Lutz,
792: Bucl. Phys. A 763 (2005) 90.
793:
794: %
795: \bibitem{bk82} A.M. Badalyan, L.P. Kok, M.I. Polikarpov, Yu.A. Simonov,
796: Phys. Rept. 82 (1982) 31.
797: \bibitem{ol05} J.A. Oller,
798: Phys. Rev. D 71 (2005) 054030.
799: \bibitem{cw94} P. Cho, W.B. Wise,
800: Phys. Rev. D 49 (1994) 6228.
801: \bibitem{dash} R. Dashen,
802: Phys. Rev. 183 (1969) 1245.
803:
804: \end{thebibliography}
805: \end{document}
806: %
807: % ****** End of file template.aps ******
808: