SciPost Submission Page
The charged $Z_c$ and $Z_b$ structures in a constituent quark model approach
by P. G. Ortega, J. Segovia, D. R. Entem and F. Fernández
This is not the latest submitted version.
This Submission thread is now published as
Submission summary
Authors (as registered SciPost users): | Pablo G. Ortega |
Submission information | |
---|---|
Preprint Link: | scipost_201910_00022v1 (pdf) |
Date submitted: | 2019-10-15 02:00 |
Submitted by: | G. Ortega, Pablo |
Submitted to: | SciPost Physics Proceedings |
Proceedings issue: | 24th European Few Body Conference (EFB2019) |
Ontological classification | |
---|---|
Academic field: | Physics |
Specialties: |
|
Approach: | Theoretical |
Abstract
The nature of the recently discovered $Z_c$ and $Z_b$ structures is intriguing. Their charge forces its minimal quark content to be $Q\bar Q q\bar q$ (where $Q=\{c,b\}$ and $q=\{u,d\}$). In this work we perform a molecular coupled-channels calculation of the $I^G(J^{PC})=1^+(1^{+-})$ charm and bottom sectors in the framework of a constituent quark model which satisfactorily describes a wide range of properties of (non-)conventional hadrons containing heavy quarks. All the relevant channels are included for each sector, i.e.: The $D^{(\ast)}\bar D^{\ast}+h.c.$, $\pi J/\psi$ and $\rho\eta_c$ channels for the $Z_c$ and $B^{(\ast)}B^{\ast}$ and $\Upsilon(nS)\pi$ ($n=1,2,3$) channels for the $Z_b$ analysis. Possible structures of these resonances will be discussed
Current status:
Reports on this Submission
Report #1 by Anonymous (Referee 1) on 2019-10-28 (Invited Report)
- Cite as: Anonymous, Report on arXiv:scipost_201910_00022v1, delivered 2019-10-28, doi: 10.21468/SciPost.Report.1266
Strengths
1. Timely
2. Well written
3. Good results
Weaknesses
1. Some confusing statements that can be amended
Report
Report SciPost Physics Proceedings
The charged Zc and Zb structures in a constituent quark model approach
by: P.G. Ortega, J. Segovia, D. Entem, F. Fernandez)
This work analyzes the nature of some charged structures in the chamonium and bottomonium sectors within a constituent quark model. The paper is well presented, sufficient details of the theoretical model are given and the results are clearly presented and discussed.
I have only a few minor comments or typos that, when addressed properly, will leave the manuscript ready for publication:
1. Please, comment in the text (second paragraph in page 5) and in the caption of Fig. 1 the reactions to which the invariant mass distributions of the figure correspond.
2. I find strange that the widths extracted from the poles of the Zb’s are relatively narrow (2.8 and 8.9 MeV, according to Table 2), while these states seem to leave a much wider signature (20 MeV, 30 MeV) in the invariant mass distributions shown in Figure 3. Please comment.
3. Page 8, line 4: what does “point-wise” behaviour mean?
4. The authors mention in page 5, paragraph 3: “while the opening of the D*Dbar* threshold appears as a slight step down in the number of events”. The errors prevent one to see a step down in the data... Do you mean that the model shows a step down? Please clarify.
Some typos:
After Eq. 81): The Goldstone-boson field matrix
9 lines after eq. (4): and an effective cluster-cluster interaction emerges
1st line in page 4: two types of diagrams appear
Page 5 paragraph 3, line 6: only one enhancement appears
Requested changes
See report above
Author: Pablo G. Ortega on 2019-11-14 [id 647]
(in reply to Report 1 on 2019-10-28)We thank the referee for her/his report on the submitted version of our manuscript. We have considered the referee's report and respond to the comments below. For clarity, we follow in our replies the same order as the referee's comments.
and the text in the second paragraph in page 5:
Our total decay width of the Zb structure is not estimated from the signal found in the invariant mass of the relevant channels: $BB*$ for Zb(10610) and $B*B*$ for Zb(10650). This cannot be done because theoretical and experimental agreement still need to be improved. Therefore, we are reporting in Table 2 the sum of the exclusive channels. Since all the exclusive decay channels of the Zb's are not taken into account, our theoretical value of the total widths are smaller than the experimental ones. Besides, such small width is not reflected in the theoretical line shapes because the latter are convoluted with the experimental response function.
For clarity, we have replaced the sentence to the following:
Finally, we have corrected the typos mentioned by the referee in his/her report.
All the changes mentioned above will be included in the new version of the manuscript.