- Access by Xinjiang University
Study of scalar meson from decays
Phys. Rev. D 83, 054001 – Published 1 March, 2011
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevD.83.054001
Abstract
In the two-quark model supposition for the meson , which can be viewed as either the first excited state (scenario I) or the lowest lying state (scenario II), the branching ratios and the direct -violating asymmetries for decays , and , are studied by employing the perturbative QCD factorization approach. We find the following results: (a) For the decays , , , their branching ratios in scenario II are larger than those in scenario I about one order. So it is easy for the experiments to differentiate between the scenario I and II for the meson . (b) For the decay , due to not receiving the enhancement from the -emission factorizable diagrams, its penguin operator contributions are the smallest in scenario II, which makes its branching ratio drop into the order of . Even so, its branching ratio in scenario II is still larger than that in scenario I about 2.5 times. (c) Even though our predictions are much larger than those from the QCD factorization results, they are still consistent with each other within the large theoretical errors from the annihilation diagrams. (d) We predict the direct -violating asymmetry of the decay is small and only a few percent.
Article Text
References (29)
- N. A. Tornqvist, Phys. Rev. Lett. 49, 624 (1982).
- G. L. Jaffe, Phys. Rev. D 15, 267 (1977); 15, 281(E) (1977); A. L. Kataev, Phys. At. Nucl. 68, 567 (2005); Yad. Fiz. 68, 597 (2005); A. Vijande, A. Valcarce, F. Fernandez, and B. Silvestre-Brac, Phys. Rev. D72, 034025 (2005).
- J. Weinstein and N. Isgur, Phys. Rev. Lett. 48, 659 (1982); Phys. Rev. D 27, 588 (1983); 41, 2236 (1990); M. P. Locher et al., Eur. Phys. J. C 4, 317 (1998).
- V. Baru et al., Phys. Lett. B 586, 53 (2004).
- L. Celenza et al., Phys. Rev. C 61, 035201 (2000).
- M. Strohmeier-Presicek et al., Phys. Rev. D 60, 054010 (1999).
- F. E. Close and A. Kirk, Phys. Lett. B 483, 345 (2000).
- C. Amsler and F. E. Close, Phys. Lett. B 353, 385 (1995); Phys. Rev. D 53, 295 (1996).
- F. E. Close and Q. Zhao, Phys. Rev. D 71, 094022 (2005).
- X. G. He, X. Q. Li, X. Liu, and X. Q. Zeng, Phys. Rev. D 73, 051502 (2006).
- H. Y. Cheng, C. K. Chua, and K. F. Liu, Phys. Rev. D 74, 094005 (2006).
- W. M. Yao et al. (Particle Data Group), J. Phys. G 33, 1 (2006).
- N. Mathur et al., Phys. Rev. D 76, 114505 (2007).
- W. J. Lee and D. Weingarten, Phys. Rev. D 61, 014015 (2000); M. Gockeler et al., 57, 5562 (1998); S. Kim and S. Ohta, Nucl. Phys. B, Proc. Suppl. 53, 199 (1997); A. Hart, C. Mcneile, and C. Michael, 119, 266 (2003); T. Burch et al., Phys. Rev. D 73, 094505 (2006).
- W. A. Bardeen et al., Phys. Rev. D 65, 014509 (2002); T. Kunihiro et al., 70, 034504 (2004); S. Prelovsek et al., 70, 094503 (2004).
- H. Y. Cheng, C. K. Chua, and K. C. Yang, Phys. Rev. D 77, 014034 (2008).
- C. D. Lu and M. Z. Yang, Eur. Phys. J. C 28, 515 (2003).
- H. Y. Cheng, C. K. Chua, and K. C. Yang, Phys. Rev. D 73, 014017 (2006).
- P. Ball, G. W. Jones, and R. Zwicky, Phys. Rev. D 75, 054004 (2007).
- H. N. Li, Phys. Rev. D 66, 094010 (2002).
- H. N. Li and B. Tseng, Phys. Rev. D 57, 443 (1998).
- G. Buchalla, A. J. Buras, and M. E. Lautenbacher, Rev. Mod. Phys. 68, 1125 (1996).
- Z. Q. Zhang and J. D. Zhang, Eur. Phys. J. C 67, 163 (2010).
- Z. J. Xiao, Z. Q. Zhang, X. Liu, and L. B. Guo, Phys. Rev. D 78, 114001 (2008).
- C. Amsler et al. (Particle Data Group), Phys. Lett. B 667, 1 (2008).
- P. del Amo Sanchez et al. (BABAR Collaboration), Phys. Rev. Lett. 105, 121801 (2010).
- R. H. Li, C. D. Lu, W. Wang, and X. X. Wang, Phys. Rev. D 79, 014013 (2009).
- Y. Y. Keum, H. N. Li, and A. I. Sanda, Phys. Rev. D 63, 054008 (2001); Y. Y. Keum and H. N. Li, 63, 074006 (2001).
- X. Q. Yu, Y. Li, and C. D. Lu, Phys. Rev. D 73, 017501 (2006).