Can the 
                
                  
                
                $$\psi (4040)$$
                
                  
                    
                      ψ
                      (
                      4040
                      )
                    
                  
                
               explain the peak associated with Y(4008)?

Piotrowska, Milena; Giacosa, Francesco; Kovács, P.

doi:10.1140/epjc/s10052-019-6615-9

Cited by 13 publications

(15 citation statements)

References 54 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Note, Λ should not be regarded as a cutoff of a fundamental theory, but as a parameter which is inversely proportional to the radius of mesons. We shall start with 500 MeV (typical for mesonic objects [42,44]), but as we find qualitatively similar results by varying Λ in the above mentioned range (see the Appendix A).…”

Section: The Model and Its Consequencessupporting

confidence: 63%

“…The precise form of F Λ (k) has a small influence on the results, as long as it is a smooth function which guarantees convergence, see the detailed discussion in Refs. [42][43][44]47]. As shown in Ref.…”

Section: The Model and Its Consequencesmentioning

confidence: 82%

“…5), and the coupling constant g χc1DD * is sizable (see also the recent argument in Ref. [44]). At m = 3.872 GeV, corresponding to the X(3872), one has the following ratio:…”

Section: B Consequences Of the Approachmentioning

confidence: 87%

“…[37][38][39][40][41][42] for the light sector and Refs. [43,44] for the charmonium sector), we follow a different and quite simple idea: instead of working with quark degrees of freedom, a Lagrangian in which a single axial-vector field χ µ c1 , which we identify -in the non-interacting limit-as acc seed state χ c1 ≡ χ c1 (2P ) with a bare mass between 3.90 and 3.95 GeV, is considered. This field couples strongly to the D 0 D * 0 and D + D * − meson pairs.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 3 more Smart Citations

X(3872) as virtual companion pole of the charm–anticharm state χc1(2P)

Giacosa

Piotrowska

Coito

2019

Int. J. Mod. Phys. A

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

We study the spectral function of the axial-vector charmonium state χc1(2P ) coupled to DD * mesons, by employing a quantum field theoretical approach: a pronounced enhancement close to the D 0 D * 0 threshold, to be identified with the X(3872), emerges. In the complex plane we find two poles: a pole for the broad seed state χc1(2P ), and -in the easiest scenario-a virtual pole for the X(3872). Thus, our approach describes both the seed state and the dynamically generated X(3872) simultaneously. In particular, it explains the most prominent, both molecular-like and quarkoniumlike, features of the X(3872): its very small width (the decay into D 0 D * 0 is predicted to be about 0.5 MeV), the enhanced radiative decay into ψ(2S)γ w.r.t. ψ(1S)γ, and the isospin breaking decay into J/ψρ (thanks to DD * loops mediating this decay channel). At the same time, we aim to determine the pole position and the properties of the charmonium seed state: quite interestingly, even if a pole is always present, it is possible that there is no peak corresponding to this state in the spectral function, thus potentially explaining why the corresponding resonance could not yet be seen in experiments.X(3872). This result is achieved naturally by the mesonic quantum fluctuations dressing the bare state and without considering explicitly the Fock space with bothqq and molecular components. It is important to stress that there is only one spectral function, correctly normalized to 1, hence strictly speaking there is only 'one object'. However, the shape of this spectral function is non-trivial and two (relevant) poles on the complex plane are present. Quite interestingly, for certain sets of parameters, the spectral function shows only one peak close to threshold and no peak corresponding to the seed state, thus possibly explaining why thecc seed state could not yet be experimentally measured.Moreover, our study can easily explain why the strong decay into D 0 D * 0 is dominant (predictions for this decay width are evaluated to be about 0.5 MeV). Moreover, one can understand why radiative decays are in agreement with the charmonium assignment: since X(3872) is part of the spectral function of the whole state χ c1 (2P ) (originally acc seed state dressed by DD * loops), the coupling constants are basically the same (see later for details), hence the decay into ψ(2S)γ is larger than the decay into ψ(1S)γ. For the very same reason, the prompt production of the X(3872) in heavy ion collisions is quite natural. However, due to the close threshold and dressing, various 'molecular-like' properties also emerge: the ratio X(3872) → J/ψω → J/ψπ + π − π 0 over X(3872) → J/ψρ → J/ψπ + π − can be correctly described by taking into account the small difference between the D 0 D * 0 and D + D * − loop functions.In the end, it should be stressed that within our approach the very existence of the X(3872) is not possible without the seed charmonium state. If one sends the mass of the latter to infinity and/or reduce the interaction strength to DD * mesons, the...

show abstract

Section: The Model and Its Consequencessupporting

confidence: 63%

Section: The Model and Its Consequencesmentioning

confidence: 82%

“…5), and the coupling constant g χc1DD * is sizable (see also the recent argument in Ref. [44]). At m = 3.872 GeV, corresponding to the X(3872), one has the following ratio:…”

Section: B Consequences Of the Approachmentioning

confidence: 87%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

X(3872) as virtual companion pole of the charm–anticharm state χc1(2P)

Giacosa

Piotrowska

Coito

2019

Int. J. Mod. Phys. A

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The formalism used in the present work is similar to the one used in [17] in the study of the ψ(4040) resonance, earlier used also in the study of the lineshape of the ψ(3770) [18], renormalizing the vector propagators by the meson-meson selfenergy. Apart from some technical details, the major difference is that the couplings of the resonance to the D ( * )D( * ) channels are taken from experiment (actually from the ratios of Table 3), while we have determined them theoretically by means of the 3 P 0 model.…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Analysis of the $$\psi (4040)$$ and $$\psi (4160)$$ decay into $$D^{()} {{\bar{D}}}^{()}$$, $$D_s^{()}{{\bar{D}}}_s^{()}$$

2020

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

We have performed an analysis of the e + e − → D ( * )D( * ) data in the region of the ψ(4040) and ψ(4160) resonances which have a substantial overlap and require special care. By using the 3 P 0 model to relate the different D ( * )D( * ) production modes, we make predictions for production of these channels and compare with experiment and other theoretical approaches. As a side effect we find that these resonances qualify largely as cc states and the weight of the meson-meson components in the wave function is very small.

show abstract