1: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%% file template.tex %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
2: %
3: % This is a template file for The European Physical Journal
4: %
5: % Copy it to a new file with a new name and use it as the basis
6: % for your article
7: %
8: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%% Springer-Verlag %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
9: %
10: \begin{filecontents}{leer.eps}
11: %!PS-Adobe-2.0 EPSF-2.0
12: %%CreationDate: Mon Jul 13 16:51:17 1992
13: %%DocumentFonts: (atend)
14: %%Pages: 0 1
15: %%BoundingBox: 72 31 601 342
16: %%EndComments
17:
18: gsave
19: 72 31 moveto
20: 72 342 lineto
21: 601 342 lineto
22: 601 31 lineto
23: 72 31 lineto
24: showpage
25: grestore
26: %%Trailer
27: %%DocumentFonts: Helvetica
28: \end{filecontents}
29: %
30: \documentclass[epj]{svjour}
31: % Remove option referee for final version
32: %
33: % Remove any % below to load the required packages
34: %\usepackage{latexsym}
35: \usepackage{graphics}
36: % etc
37: %
38: \providecommand{\Journal}[4] {#1 {\textbf {#2}}, #3 (#4)}
39: \providecommand{\CTP}{Commun. Theor. Phys. } %
40: \providecommand{\EPJA}{Eur. Phys. J. A } %
41: \providecommand{\EPJC}{Eur. Phys. J. C } %
42: \providecommand{\JHEP}{J. High Energy Phys.} %
43: \providecommand{\MPLA}{Mod. Phys. Lett. A} %
44: \providecommand{\NCA}{Nuovo Cimento } %
45: \providecommand{\NIM}{Nucl. Instr. Methods } %
46: \providecommand{\NIMA}{Nucl. Instr. Meth. A } %
47: \providecommand{\NP}{Nucl. Phys.} %
48: \providecommand{\NPA}{Nucl. Phys. A } %
49: \providecommand{\NPB}{Nucl. Phys. B } %
50: \providecommand{\NHPA}{Nucl. Hadr. Phys. A } %
51: \providecommand{\PL}{Phys. Lett. } %
52: \providecommand{\PLB}{Phys. Lett. B } %
53: \providecommand{\PR}{Phys. Rev. } %
54: \providecommand{\PRL}{Phys. Rev. Lett. } %
55: \providecommand{\PRC}{Phys. Rev. C } %
56: \providecommand{\PRD}{Phys. Rev. D } %
57: \providecommand{\PRSA}{Proc. Roy. Soc. A } %
58: \providecommand{\RMP}{Rev. Mod. Phys. } %
59: \providecommand{\RMP}{Rev. Mod. Phys. } %
60: \providecommand{\ZPA}{Z. Phys. A } %
61: \providecommand{\ZPC}{Z. Phys. C } %
62: \begin{document}
63: %
64: \title{The 27-plet baryons with spin 3/2 under SU(3) symmetry}
65: %\subtitle{Do you have a subtitle?\\ If so, write it here}
66: \author{Qihua Zhou\inst{1} \and Bo-Qiang Ma\inst{2,1}% etc
67: % \thanks is optional - remove next line if not needed
68: \thanks{\emph{email:} mabq@phy.pku.edu.cn}%
69: } % Do not remove
70: %
71: %\offprints{} % Insert a name or remove this line
72: %
73: \institute{Department of Physics, Peking University, Beijing 100871,
74: China \and CCAST (World Laboratory), P.O.~Box 8730, Beijing 100080,
75: China}
76: %
77: \date{Received: date / Revised version: date}
78: % The correct dates will be entered by Springer
79: %
80: \abstract{ We investigate the spin 3/2 baryons in the 27-plet based
81: on flavor SU(3) symmetry. For $J^p=3/2^+$, we find all the
82: candidates for non-exotic members. For $J^p=3/2^-$, we predict a new
83: non-exotic member $\Lambda(1780)$. Fitting the mass spectrum and
84: calculating the widths of the members show an approximate symmetry
85: of the 27-plet of SU(3). We find that the exotic members have
86: relatively large widths and the $\Xi(1950)$ has spin and parity
87: $J^p=3/2^-$. The possibility of assigning the non-exotic candidates
88: to an octet is also analyzed.
89: %
90: \PACS{
91: {11.30.Hv}{Flavor symmetry} \and
92: {12.39.Mk}{Glueball and nonstandard multiquark/gluon states} \and
93: {13.30.Eg}{Hadron decay}
94: } % end of PACS codes
95: } %end of abstract
96: %
97: \maketitle
98: %
99: \section{Introduction}
100: \label{intro} The SU(3) classification scheme proposed by Gell-Mann
101: and Ne'eman in 1961 has been proved quite successful and fruitful in
102: the investigation of hadron spectroscopy. In this classification
103: scheme, one can group the experimentally known strongly interacting
104: particles with the same quantum numbers of spin and parity into
105: various irreducible representations of the SU(3) group. There are
106: several SU(3) multiplets which have been well established by this
107: means, for example, $J^{P}$=$\frac{1}{2}^{+}$ octet and
108: $J^{P}$=$\frac{3}{2}^{+}$ decuplet baryons, which supplied clear and
109: unambiguous evidence for the SU(3) classification scheme. Higher
110: multiplets are also allowed in SU(3), such as $\bar{10}$, 27, 35,
111: etc. Because they contain the so-called exotic states beyond the
112: three quark $qqq$ content in the language of the conventional quark
113: model as Gell-Mann mentioned~\cite{Gell} and could hardly be found
114: in early year's experiments, the higher multiplet scheme received
115: little attention. From quantum chromodynamics (QCD), the underlying
116: theory of the strong interaction, the possibility for the existences
117: of exotic states can not be ruled out. Chiral soliton model ($\chi
118: SM$)~\cite{XSM} motivated investigations on the antidecuplet which
119: contains the exotic state $\Theta^+$ reported first by LEPS
120: Collaboration later~\cite{LEPS}. The $\Theta^+$ state has the
121: minimal quark content $uudd\bar{s}$~\cite{GnM} and hence is an
122: exotic pentaquark state with positive strangeness. Higher multiplet
123: 27, which contains an isovector $\Theta$, also attracted some
124: attention. $\chi SM$ predicted a new isotriplet of $\Theta$
125: baryon~\cite{BFK,WnM1,WnM2}, with its mass being about 1.6 GeV and
126: width about 80 MeV. With the flux-tube quark model and the QCD sum
127: rules, Kanada-En'yo {\it et al.} predicted the $\Theta$ with
128: $I(J^p)=1(3/2^-)$ and mass $1.4\sim1.6$ GeV~\cite{KMN,NKMY}.
129: Noticeably, recently the STAR collaboration at RHIC presented data
130: indicating a small but significant $\Theta^{++}$ candidate with mass
131: about 1528 MeV~\cite{HZH}. Though it has more and more negative
132: reports against the existence of the $\Theta^+(1540)$ at present, it
133: is worthwhile to explore these new exotic particles.
134:
135: In this paper, we examine possible non-exotic candidates of the
136: 27-plet with spin $3/2$ in baryon particle listings from Particle
137: Data Group~\cite{PDG} by calculating their masses and partial decay
138: widths based on the approximate flavor SU(3) symmetry of the strong
139: interaction. Up to the present, seldom works about the exotics tried
140: to approach this issue using the most general and model-independent
141: method SU(3). In the quark model, these non-exotic candidates were
142: often assigned to the 56-plet of SU(6) with orbital excitation.
143: However, in Ref.~\cite{WnM1}, it could also get a rather good result
144: from chiral soliton model without demanding such analysis. It means
145: that we can try a more general analysis. Our motivation is an
146: attempt to verify whether the SU(3) symmetry, which has been greatly
147: successful in hadron physics~\cite{DeS,SGM}, can continue to play an
148: important role in the investigation of new particles. By this means,
149: Guzey and Polyakov have reviewed the spectrum of all baryons with
150: the mass less than approximately 2000-2200 MeV and catalogued them
151: into twenty-one SU(3) multiplet including 1, 8, 10 and
152: $\bar{10}$~\cite{GnP}. That work can be viewed as an update of
153: Ref.~\cite{SGM}. Likewise, the present study does not depend on any
154: specific model, neither does it introduce any presupposed adjustable
155: parameters. So, it is rather general and can be compared with
156: results of other works which are model-dependent.
157: \section{Mass spectrum and decay width}
158: \label{sec:1} The main tools of SU(3) systematization are the
159: well-known Gell-Mann--Okubo (GMO) mass formulae and the calculations
160: of two-body hadronic decays as showed in Refs.~\cite{DeS,SGM,GnP}.
161: We will follow this classical treatment process. Firstly, the masses
162: of baryons in the 27-plet can be obtained by using the GMO mass
163: formula:
164: \begin{equation}
165: M=M_0+\alpha Y+\beta D^3_3,
166: \end{equation}
167: where $M_0$ is a common mass of a given multiplet and
168: $D^3_3=I(I+1)-Y^2/4-C/6$ with $C=2(p+q)+\frac{2}{3}(p^2+pq+q^2)$ for
169: the $(p,q)$ irreducible representation. $\alpha$ and $\beta$ are
170: mass constants that depend on the representation which the baryon
171: belongs to. For 27-plet, $(p,q)$ is $(2,2)$, whose weight diagram
172: and the labels for the member states are shown in Fig.~\ref{fig1}.
173: \begin{figure}
174: \vspace{0.25cm}
175: \begin{center}
176: \resizebox{0.5\textwidth}{!}{
177: \includegraphics{27fig.eps}}
178: \end{center}
179: \vspace{0.25cm} \caption{Weight diagram for the 27-plet baryons.}
180: \label{fig1}
181: \end{figure}
182: Then we can get
183: \begin{eqnarray}
184: \Theta_1=M_0+2\alpha-\frac{5}{3}\beta,
185: &&\Delta_{27}=M_0+\alpha+\frac{5}{6}\beta, \nonumber\\
186: N_{27}=M_0+\alpha-\frac{13}{6}\beta,
187: &&\Sigma_{27}=M_0-\frac{2}{3}\beta, \nonumber\\
188: \Lambda_{27}=M_0-\frac{8}{3}\beta,
189: &&\Xi_{27}=M_0-\alpha-\frac{13}{6}\beta, \nonumber\\
190: \Sigma_{27,2}=M_0+\frac{10}{3}\beta,
191: &&\Xi_{27,3/2}=M_0-\alpha+\frac{5}{6}\beta, \nonumber\\
192: \Omega_{27,1}=M_0-2\alpha-\frac{5}{3}\beta.
193: \end{eqnarray}
194: From above, one can find some interesting relations, such as
195: the similar octet GMO relation \\
196: \begin{equation}
197: 2N_{27}+\Xi_{27}=3\Lambda_{27}+\Sigma_{27}, \label{oct}
198: \end{equation}
199: and five independent equal-spacing rules \\
200: \begin{equation}
201: \begin{array}{c@{\,-\,}c@{\;=\;}c@{\,-\,}c}
202: \Theta_1 & \Delta_{27} & \Delta_{27}& \Sigma_{27,2}, \\
203: \Sigma_{27,2} & \Xi_{27,3/2} & \Xi_{27,3/2} & \Omega_{27,1}, \\
204: \Theta_1 & N_{27} & N_{27}& \Lambda_{27}, \\
205: \Lambda_{27} & \Xi_{27} & \Xi_{27}& \Omega_{27,1}, \\
206: N_{27} & \Xi_{27} & \Delta_{27} & \Xi_{27,3/2}\label{eqs}.
207: \end{array}
208: \end{equation}
209: In order to determine the mass spectrum, it just needs to know the
210: masses of three certain states in the 27-plet and requires that they
211: do not satisfy Eq.~(\ref{eqs}) at the same time. For the case of
212: $J^p=3/2^+$, we choose the following three well-established
213: resonances taken from PDG as inputs: $\Delta(1600)$, $N(1720)$ and
214: $\Lambda(1890)$. For the case of $J^p=3/2^-$, we choose
215: $\Delta(1940)$, $N(1720)$ and $\Sigma(1940)$. Other inputs are
216: possible, but give no more candidates in PDG than themselves. The
217: best mass fitting results are shown in Table~\ref{tab1}. Note that
218: we now have two sets of 27-plet baryons. For the set of $J^p=3/2^+$,
219: all the non-exotic states have their candidates. For the set of
220: $J^p=3/2^-$, we get a new state $\Lambda_{27}$ with mass 1780 MeV.
221: The existence of new $\Lambda$ hyperon with $J^p=3/2^-$ was
222: predicted in specific constituent quark models with various
223: assumptions about the quark dynamics~\cite{GPVW,LMP}.
224: Ref.~\cite{GPVW} gave the mass about 1780 MeV and model A in
225: Ref.~\cite{LMP} gave the mass of 1775 MeV. Here, we directly get it
226: only by completing the SU(3) picture of the 27-plet baryons. This
227: result comes from model-independent analysis, which just shows the
228: merit of SU(3). In both sets, all exotic states have no candidates
229: at present.
230:
231: Next, we will calculate the two-body partial widths of the 27-plet
232: baryons decaying to the octet baryons and the pseudoscalar mesons to
233: verify this assignment. The SU(3) invariant 27-8-8 interaction
234: Lagrangian can be obtained by constructing the SU(3) singlet like
235: this form
236: \begin{equation}
237: L=g_{27}\bar{T}_{ij}^{kl}B^i_kM^j_l\label{lag},
238: \end{equation}
239: where $T_{ij}^{kl}$ is an irreducible tensor notation to represent
240: the 27-plet baryons, and $B^i_k$ and $M^j_l$ denote the baryon octet
241: and pseudoscalar meson octet respectively. The full expression
242: written in terms of the physical states has been deduced
243: in~\cite{OnH}. For the concrete decay process of a 27-plet baryon
244: $B^\prime$ with spin $3/2$ to an octet baryon $B$ with spin $1/2$
245: and a pseudoscalar meson $M$
246: \begin{equation}
247: B^\prime\rightarrow B+M,
248: \end{equation}
249: the calculation can be performed in the framework of
250: Rarita-Schwinger formalism. The parity-conserving interaction
251: Lagrangian are~\cite{Rush,Carr}
252: %\begin{subequations}
253: \begin{eqnarray}
254: L_+ &=& \frac{g_{B^\prime
255: BM}}{m_\pi}\bar{\psi}\Psi^\mu\partial_\mu\phi, \nonumber \\
256: %\end{equation}
257: %\begin{equation}
258: L_- &=& i\frac{g_{B^\prime BM}}{m_\pi}\bar{\psi}\gamma_5\Psi^\mu
259: \partial_\mu\phi,
260: \end{eqnarray}
261: %\end{subequations}
262: for $B^\prime$ with positive or negative parity respectively, where
263: $\psi$ is the spin $1/2$ field and $\Psi^\mu$ is the spin $3/2$
264: field. The pseudoscalar meson field is $\phi$ and the factor
265: $1/{m_\pi}$ is introduced to make the coupling constant $g_{B^\prime
266: BM}$ relative to the universal coupling constant $g_{27}$ in
267: Eq.~(\ref{lag}) dimensionless. We can get the coupling constant
268: $g_{B^\prime BM}$ by directly computing the Clebsch-Gordan
269: coefficient among the SU(3) irreducible representations of
270: $B^\prime,B,M$. Accordingly, the decay widths are written as
271: %\begin{subequations}
272: \begin{eqnarray}
273: \Gamma_+(B^\prime\rightarrow B M) &=& \frac{g^2_{B^\prime B
274: m}}{12\pi
275: m_\pi^2}p^3\frac{\left[(m_{B^\prime}+m_B)^2-m^2\right]}{m_{B^\prime}^2},
276: %\end{equation}
277: %\begin{equation}
278: \nonumber \\
279: \Gamma_-(B^\prime\rightarrow B M) &=& \frac{g^2_{B^\prime B
280: m}}{3\pi m_\pi^2}p^5\frac{1}{\left[(m_{B^\prime}+m_B)^2-m^2\right]},
281: \end{eqnarray}\label{width}
282: %\end{subequations}
283: where $p$ is the c.m. momentum value of the final meson. In terms of
284: the baryons masses $m_{B^\prime}$, $m_B$ and the meson mass $m$, we
285: have
286: \begin{equation}
287: p=\frac{\sqrt{\left[(m_{B^\prime}+m_B)^2-m^2\right]\left[(m_{B^\prime}-m_B)^2-m^2\right]}}{2m_{B^\prime}}.
288: \end{equation}
289: After some trivial calculations, we get the results expressed by the
290: universal coupling constant $g_{27}^2$ and list them particularly in
291: Table~\ref{tab1}. To examine whether the SU(3) symmetry can hold, we
292: need to compare all the ratios of two certain partial decay widths
293: in Table~\ref{tab1} with the data from experiment. Here, we choose
294: the minimum experimental value of $\Gamma(N_{27}\rightarrow N\pi)$
295: as input just to show the validity. Similarly, other choices can
296: easily be verified. We also list the results in Table~\ref{tab1}.
297: %\renewcommand{\baselinestretch}{1.05}
298: \begin{table*}
299: \centering
300: \caption{\label{tab1}The masses and widths of baryons in
301: the 27-plet (in unit of MeV)}
302: %\begin{ruledtabular}
303: \begin{tabular}{cccccccc}
304: \hline
305: %& Candidate & Width in PDG [MeV] & Decay mode & Branching ratio & $\Gamma_i(exp)$ [MeV] & $\Gamma_i(th)$ [MeV] & $\Gamma_i(th)$ [$g^2_{27}$] \\
306: & Candidate & Width in PDG & Decay mode & Branching ratio &
307: $\Gamma_i(exp)$ & $\Gamma_i(th)$ & $\Gamma_i(th)$
308: [$g^2_{27}$] \\
309: \hline
310: $J^p=3/2^+$ \\
311: \hline
312: $\Delta_{27}(1600)$ & $\Delta(1600)$ & 250-450 & $N\pi$ & 10\%-25\% & 25-112.5 & 129 & 3579.3 \\
313: %\hline
314: $N_{27}(1720)$ & $N(1720)$ & 100-200 & $N\pi$ & 10\%-20\% & 10-40 & 10(input) & 277.5 \\
315: & & & $N\eta$ & $(4.0\pm1.0)\%$ & 3-10 & 30.9 & 857.1 \\
316: & & & $\Lambda{K}$ & 1\%-15\% & 1-30 & 10.5 & 291.7 \\
317: & & & $\Sigma{K}$ & & & 0.2 & 5.1 \\
318: %\hline
319: $\Sigma_{27}(1810)$ & $\Sigma(1840)$ & $120\pm10$ & $N\bar{K}$ & $0.37\pm0.13$ & 26.4-65 & 46.5 & 1290.4 \\
320: %\hline
321: $\Lambda_{27}(1890)$ & $\Lambda(1890)$ & 60-200 & $N\bar{K}$ & 20\%-35\% & 12-70 & 14 & 388.2 \\
322: & & & $\Sigma\pi$ & 3\%-10\% & 1.8-20 & 2.3 & 63.8 \\
323: %\hline
324: $\Xi_{27}(2020)$ & $\Xi(2030)$ & $20^{+15}_{-5}$ & $\Lambda\bar{K}$ & $\sim$20\% & 3-7 & 85.9 & 2384.8 \\
325: & & & $\Sigma\bar{K}$ & $\sim$80\% & 12-28 & 7.3 & 202.9 \\
326: %\hline
327: $\Theta_1(1550)$ & $?$ & ? & $NK$ & ? & ? & 33.2 & 920.1 \\
328: %\hline
329: $\Sigma_{27,2}(1650)$ & $?$ & ? & $\Sigma\pi$ & ? & ? & 164.4 & 4562.1 \\
330: %\hline
331: $\Xi_{27,3/2}(1900)$ & $?$ & ? & $\Xi\pi$ & ? & ? & 125.8 & 3491.2 \\
332: & & & $\Sigma\bar{K}$ & ? & ? & 3.4 & 95.5 \\
333: %\hline
334: $\Omega_{27,1}(2150)$ & $?$ & ?& $\Xi\bar{K}$ & ? & ? & 232.9 & 6461.8 \\
335: \hline
336: $J^p=3/2^-$ \\
337: \hline
338: $\Delta_{27}(1940)$ & $\Delta(1940)$ & $460\pm320$ & $N\pi$ & $0.18\pm0.12$ & 8.4-234 & 136.9 & 1155.2 \\
339: & & & $\Sigma{K}$ & & & 9.7 & 81.7 \\
340: %\hline
341: $N_{27}(1700)$ & $N(1700)$ & 50-150 & $N\pi$ & 5\%-15\% & 2.5-22.5 & 2.5(input) & 21.1 \\
342: & & & $N\eta$ & $(0.0\pm1.0)\%$ & 0-1.5 & 3.7 & 31.3 \\
343: & & & $\Lambda{K}$ & $<$3\% & $<$4.5 & 0.3 & 2.7 \\
344: & & & $\Sigma{K}$ & & & 0.0002 & 0.002 \\
345: %\hline
346: $\Sigma_{27}(1940)$ & $\Sigma(1940)$ & 150-300 & $N\bar{K}$ & $<$20\% & $<$60 & 20.5 & 172.6 \\
347: %\hline
348: $\Lambda_{27}(1780)$ & $?$ & ? & $N\bar{K}$ & ? & ? & 0.3 & 16.2 \\
349: & & & $\Sigma\pi$ & ? & ? & 0.18 & 1.5 \\
350: %\hline
351: $\Xi_{27}(1940)$ & $\Xi(1950)$ & $60\pm20$ & $\Lambda\bar{K}$ & seen & & 9.9 & 83.8 \\
352: & & & $\Sigma\bar{K}$ & possibly seen & & 0.5 & 4.5 \\
353: & & & $\Xi\pi$ & seen & & 0.9 & 7.7 \\
354: %\hline
355: $\Theta_1(1620)$ & $?$ & ? & $NK$ & ? & ? & 48.9 & 412.3 \\
356: %\hline
357: $\Sigma_{27,2}(2260)$ & $?$ & ? & $\Sigma\pi$ & ? & ? & 400 & 3375.9 \\
358: %\hline
359: $\Xi_{27,3/2}(2180)$ & $?$ & ? & $\Xi\pi$ & ? & ? & 63.8 & 538.5 \\
360: & & & $\Sigma\bar{K}$ & ? & ? & 56.4 & 475.6 \\
361: %\hline
362: $\Omega_{27,1}(2100)$ & $?$ & ?& $\Xi\bar{K}$ & ? & ? & 19 & 160 \\
363: \hline
364: \end{tabular}
365: \end{table*}
366: %\renewcommand{\baselinestretch}{1.85}
367:
368: \section{Discussion}
369: Up to now, we only considered the pure 27-plet assignment. Actually,
370: the 27-plet can mix with other representations, such as the octet or
371: the decuplet with spin $3/2$ equally. Because the well-established
372: $J^p=3/2^+$ decuplet works well for the mass spectrum, it will imply
373: that the mixing with the 27-plet is small. Possibly, mixing can take
374: place between the set of the 27-plet with $J^p=3/2^-$ and the
375: potentially octet with the same quantum numbers in the available
376: particle listings~\cite{HnH}. But from Ref.~\cite{GnP}, the possible
377: pure octet assignment of $N(1520)$, $\Lambda(1690)$, $\Sigma(1670)$
378: and $\Xi(1820)$ seems to work well too. So, we do not deeply treat
379: the mixing here.
380:
381: Because of the similar octet GMO relation Eq.~(\ref{oct}), it seems
382: that $N_{27},\Sigma_{27},\Lambda_{27}$ and $\Xi_{27}$ can be
383: assigned to a pure octet. We need to calculate their partial decay
384: widths to examine this possibility. Again, we construct the SU(3)
385: invariant 8-8-8 interaction Lagrangian by two possible couplings,
386: namely, the well-known $f$- and $d$-type interactions. We write the
387: interaction Lagrangian as
388: \begin{equation}
389: L=g_8(d+f)\bar{P}^l_iB^i_kM^k_l+g_8(d-f)\bar{P}^l_iB^k_lM^i_k,
390: \end{equation}
391: where $\bar{P}^l_i$ represents the octet consists of
392: $N_{27},\Sigma_{27},\Lambda_{27}$ and $\Xi_{27}$, and $B^i_k$ and
393: $M^k_l$ denote the baryon octet and the pseudoscalar meson octet
394: respectively. After an analogous process as the foregoing, we list
395: the results expressed by the universal coupling constant $g_8$ and
396: two parameters $f,d$ in Table~\ref{tab2}. The appropriate fitting
397: results of these partial decay widths are also presented. Compared
398: with the results from the 27-plet, the picture of the octet seems to
399: be able to give right relative magnitudes of the partial decay
400: widths of a certain baryon. For example, $\Gamma(N_{27}\rightarrow
401: N\pi)$ should be broader than $\Gamma(N_{27}\rightarrow N\eta)$
402: according to the experimental data while the picture of 27-plet
403: gives the reverse results both in SU(3) and $\chi SM$~\cite{WnM1}.
404: But, there are still some partial decay widths such as
405: $\Gamma(\Sigma_{27}\rightarrow N\bar{K})$ which are depressed too
406: low as can be seen from Table~\ref{tab2}. Simultaneously, note that
407: the analysis~\cite{LMP} predicts that the $\Lambda$ couples very
408: weakly to the $N\bar{K}$ state. The calculation from 27-plet
409: supports this to be more reasonable than that from the octet.
410: Although no appropriate $f/d$ ratio can be found to be compatible
411: with all experimental data, the picture of octet still can not be
412: completely excluded especially for the case of $J^p=3/2^-$ because
413: of the large widths and the imprecise branch ratios of its members.
414: It will need more exact experimental data to examine this
415: possibility. Of course, the picture of 27-plet is more attractive,
416: as it provides also the connection of $\Delta(1600)$ and
417: $\Delta(1940)$ with other 27-plet members with $J^{P}=3/2^{+}$ and
418: $J^{P}=3/2^{-}$ respectively, especially those in the center of
419: weight diagram of 27-plet. So it contains more information than the
420: picture of octet. $\Theta^{++}$ can also be contained in higher
421: multiplet such as 35-plet. However, we know that for 35-plet, any
422: member of which can not decay to a octet baryon and a pseudoscalar
423: meson because of the confinement coming from the group theory.
424: Actually, many particles in PDG as potential candidates have such
425: large decay branch. Therefore we think that the existence of
426: multiplet higher than 27-plet is unlikely possible under the SU(3).
427: For the possible $\Theta^{++}$ referred in Ref.~\cite{KMN,NKMY,HZH},
428: the 27-plet is very hopeful of containing it.
429: %\renewcommand{\baselinestretch}{1.05}
430: \begin{table*}
431: \centering
432: \caption{\label{tab2}The widths of baryons in the octet
433: (in unit of MeV)}
434: \begin{tabular}{cccccccc}
435: \hline
436: %& Candidate & Width in PDG [MeV] & Decay mode & Branching ratio & $\Gamma_i(exp)$ [MeV] & $\Gamma_i(th)$ [MeV] & $\Gamma_i(th)$ [$g^2_8$] \\
437: & Candidate & Width in PDG & Decay mode & Branching ratio & $\Gamma_i(exp)$ & $\Gamma_i(th)$ & $\Gamma_i(th)$ [$g^2_8$] \\
438: \hline
439: $J^p=3/2^+$ \\
440: \hline
441: $N_{27}(1720)$ & $N(1720)$ & 100-200 & $N\pi$ & 10\%-20\% & 10-40 & 27.4 & $2081.3(d+f)^2$ \\
442: & & & $N\eta$ & $(4.0\pm1.0)\%$ & 3-10 & 1.8 & $79.4(d-3f)^2$ \\
443: & & & $\Lambda{K}$ & 1\%-15\% & 1-30 & 1.7 & $27(d+3f)^2$ \\
444: & & & $\Sigma{K}$ & & & 0.01 & $38.3(d-f)^2$ \\
445: %\hline
446: $\Sigma_{27}(1810)$ & $\Sigma(1840)$ & $120\pm10$ & $N\bar{K}$ & $0.37\pm0.13$ & 26.4-65 & 0.4 & $1613(d-f)^2$ \\
447: %\hline
448: $\Lambda_{27}(1890)$ & $\Lambda(1890)$ & 60-200 & $N\bar{K}$ & 20\%-35\% & 12-70 & 13.2 & $215.7(d+3f)^2$ \\
449: & & & $\Sigma\pi$ & 3\%-10\% & 1.8-20 & 3 & $1276d^2$ \\
450: %\hline
451: $\Xi_{27}(2020)$ & $\Xi(2030)$ & $20^{+15}_{-5}$ & $\Lambda\bar{K}$ & $\sim$20\% & 3-7 & 5(input) & $220.7(d-3f)^2$ \\
452: & & & $\Sigma\bar{K}$ & $\sim$80\% & 12-28 & 20(input) & $1521.8(d+f)^2$ \\
453: \hline
454: $J^p=3/2^-$ \\
455: \hline
456: $N_{27}(1700)$ & $N(1700)$ & 50-150 & $N\pi$ & 5\%-15\% & 2.5-22.5 & 10(input) & $158.3(d+f)^2$ \\
457: & & & $N\eta$ & $(0.0\pm1.0)\%$ & 0-1.5 & 1(input) & $2.9(d-3f)^2$ \\
458: & & & $\Lambda{K}$ & $<$3\% & $<$4.5 & 0.1 & $0.3(d+3f)^2$ \\
459: & & & $\Sigma{K}$ & & & 0.001 & $0.02(d-f)^2$ \\
460: %\hline
461: $\Sigma_{27}(1940)$ & $\Sigma(1940)$ & 150-300 & $N\bar{K}$ & $<$20\% & $<$60 & 6.1 & $215.8(d-f)^2$ \\
462: %\hline
463: $\Lambda_{27}(1780)$ & $?$ & ? & $N\bar{K}$ & ? & ? & 4 & $9(d+3f)^2$ \\
464: & & & $\Sigma\pi$ & ? & ? & 0.1 & $30d^2$ \\
465: %\hline
466: $\Xi_{27}(1940)$ & $\Xi(1950)$ & $60\pm20$ & $\Lambda\bar{K}$ & seen & & 2.7 & $7.8(d-3f)^2$ \\
467: & & & $\Sigma\bar{K}$ & possibly seen & & 15.2 & $33.8(d+f)^2$ \\
468: & & & $\Xi\pi$ & seen & & 1.6 & $57.8(d-f)^2$ \\
469: \hline
470: \end{tabular}
471: \end{table*}
472: %\renewcommand{\baselinestretch}{1.85}
473:
474: %\subsection{Subsection title}
475: %\label{sec:2}
476: %as required. Don't forget to give each section
477: %and subsection a unique label (see Sect.~\ref{sec:1}).
478: %
479: % For one-column wide figures use
480: %\begin{figure}
481: % Use the relevant command for your figure-insertion program
482: % to insert the figure file.
483: % For example, with the option graphics use
484: %\resizebox{0.75\textwidth}{!}{%
485: %\includegraphics{leer.eps}
486: %}
487: % If not, use
488: %\vspace{5cm} % Give the correct figure height in cm
489: %\caption{Please write your figure caption here}
490: %\label{fig:1} % Give a unique label
491: %\end{figure}
492: %
493: % For two-column wide figures use
494: %\begin{figure*}
495: % Use the relevant command for your figure-insertion program
496: % to insert the figure file. See example above.
497: % If not, use
498: %\vspace*{5cm} % Give the correct figure height in cm
499: %\caption{Please write your figure caption here}
500: %\label{fig:2} % Give a unique label
501: %\end{figure*}
502: %
503: % For tables use
504: %\begin{table}
505: %\caption{Please write your table caption here}
506: %\label{tab:1} % Give a unique label
507: % For LaTeX tables use
508: %\begin{tabular}{lll}
509: %\hline\noalign{\smallskip}
510: %first & second & third \\
511: %\noalign{\smallskip}\hline\noalign{\smallskip}
512: %number & number & number \\
513: %number & number & number \\
514: %\noalign{\smallskip}\hline
515: %\end{tabular}
516: % Or use
517: %\vspace*{5cm} % with the correct table height
518: %\end{table}
519:
520: \section{Summary}
521: In summary, we use the flavor SU(3) symmetry to examine the possible
522: candidates of 27-plet with spin 3/2. By calculating the partial
523: decay widths of the candidates, the approximate symmetry of the
524: 27-plet of SU(3) can be seen.
525: %It still needs more exact experimental data to examine the possibility of assigning the non-exotic candidates to a pure octet.
526: For $J^p=3/2^-$ multiplet, we predict a new missing baryon
527: $\Lambda(1780)$, no matter in the picture of 27-plet or octet. The
528: picture of 27-plet provides also the connection of $\Delta(1600)$
529: and $\Delta(1940)$ with other members of $J^{P}=3/2^{+}$ and
530: $J^{P}=3/2^{-}$ baryons. Compared with the results from $\chi SM$,
531: the non-exotic candidate $\Xi(1950)$ has $J^p=3/2^-$, which was
532: predicted to be $J^p=3/2^+$ in Ref.~\cite{WnM1}. In both cases, one
533: can find that the exotic members have relatively larger widths than
534: those of non-exotic members, which makes them more difficult to be
535: detected experimentally. The results obtained here are model
536: independent, and would be useful for the future study of new baryons
537: by combining with other dynamical approaches.
538:
539: %\section*{ACKNOWLEGEMENT}
540:
541: We are grateful to Bin Wu for useful discussions. This work is
542: partially supported by National Natural Science Foundation of China
543: (Nos.~10421503, 10575003, 10528510), by the Key Grant Project of
544: Chinese Ministry of Education (No.~305001), by the Research Fund for
545: the Doctoral Program of Higher Education (China).
546:
547: %
548: % BibTeX users please use
549: % \bibliographystyle{}
550: % \bibliography{}
551: %
552: % Non-BibTeX users please use
553: \begin{thebibliography}{}
554: %
555: % and use \bibitem to create references.
556: %
557: %\bibitem{RefJ}
558: % Format for Journal Reference
559: %Author, Journal \textbf{Volume}, (year) page numbers.
560:
561: \bibitem{Gell}
562: M.~Gell-Mann, \Journal{\PL} {8}{214}{1964}.
563:
564: \bibitem{XSM}
565: A.V.~Manohar, \Journal{\NPB} {248}{19}{1984}; M.~Chemtob,
566: \Journal{\NPB} {256}{600} {1985}; H.~Walliser, \Journal{\NPA}
567: {548}{649} {1992}; M.-L.~Yan and X.-H.~Meng, \Journal{\CTP}
568: {24}{435} {1995}; D.~Diakonov, V.~Petrov and M.~Polyakov,
569: \Journal{\ZPA} {359}{305}{1997}.
570:
571: \bibitem{LEPS}
572: LEPS, T.~Nakano, {\it et al.}, \Journal{\PRL} {91}{012002}{2003}.
573: %hep-ex/0301020.
574:
575: \bibitem{GnM}
576: H.~Gao and B.-Q.~Ma, \Journal{\MPLA} {14}{2313}{1999}.
577: %hep-ph/0305294.
578:
579: \bibitem{BFK}
580: D.~Borisyuk, M.~Faber and A.~Kobushkin, hep-ph/0307370.
581:
582: \bibitem{WnM1}
583: B.~Wu and B.-Q.~Ma, \Journal{\PRD}{69}{077501}{2004}.
584: %hep-ph/0312041.
585:
586: \bibitem{WnM2}
587: B.~Wu and B.-Q.~Ma, \Journal{\PLB}{586}{62}{2004}.
588: %hep-ph/0312326.
589:
590: \bibitem{KMN}
591: Y.~Kanada-En'yo, O.~Morimatsu and T.Nishikawa, \Journal{\PRC}
592: {71}{045202}{2005}.
593: %hep-ph/0404144.
594:
595: \bibitem{NKMY}
596: T.~Nishikawa, Y.~Kanada-En'Yo, O.~Morimatsu and Y.~Kondo,
597: \Journal{\PRD} {71}{076004}{2005}.
598: %hep-ph/0411224.
599:
600: \bibitem{HZH}
601: H.Z.~Huang, nucl-ex/0509037.
602:
603: \bibitem{PDG}
604: Particle Data Group, S.~Eidelman, {\it et al.},
605: \Journal{\PLB}{592}{1}{2004}.
606:
607: \bibitem{DeS}
608: J.J.~de~Swart, \Journal{\RMP} {35}{916}{1963}.
609:
610: \bibitem{SGM}
611: N.P.~Samios, M.~Goldberg and B.T.~Meadows, \Journal{\RMP}
612: {46}{49}{1974}.
613:
614: \bibitem{GnP}
615: V.~Guzey and M.V.~Polyakov, hep-ph/0512355.
616:
617: \bibitem{GPVW}
618: L.Y.~Glozman, W.~Plessas, K.~Varga and R.F.~Wagenbrunn,
619: \Journal{\PRD} {58}{094030}{1998}.
620:
621: \bibitem{LMP}
622: U.~Loring, B.C.~Metsch and H.R.~Petry, \Journal{\EPJA}
623: {10}{447}{2001}.
624:
625: \bibitem{OnH}
626: Y.~Oh and H.~Kim, \Journal{\PRD} {70}{094022}{2004}.
627:
628: \bibitem{Rush}
629: J.G.~Rushbrooke, \Journal{\PR} {143}{1345}{1966}.
630:
631: \bibitem{Carr}
632: P.~Carruthers, \Journal{\PR} {152}{1345}{1966}.
633:
634: \bibitem{HnH}
635: T.~Hyodo and A.~Hosaka, \Journal{\PRD} {71}{054017}{2005}.
636:
637: % Format for books
638: %\bibitem{RefB}
639: %Author, \textit{Book title} (Publisher, place year) page numbers
640: % etc
641: \end{thebibliography}
642:
643: \end{document}
644:
645: % end of file template.tex
646: