Whether new data on D_sto f₀(980) e^+ ν_e can be understood if f₀(980) consists of only the conventional qbar{q} structure
read the original abstract
Only two isospin-singlet scalar mesons $f_0(600)$ ($\sigma$) and $f_0(980)$ exist below 1 GeV, so that it is natural to suppose that they are two energy eigenstates which are mixtures of ${1\over\sqrt 2}(u\bar u+d\bar d)$ and $s\bar s$. Is this picture right? Generally, it is considered that $f_0(600)$ mainly consists of ${1\over\sqrt 2}(u\bar u+d\bar d)$, if so, the dominant component of $f_0(980)$ should be $s\bar s$. The recent measurement of the CLEO collaboration on the branching ratio of $D_s\to f_0(980) e^+ \nu_e$ provides an excellent opportunity to testify the structure of $f_0(980)$, namely whether the data can be understood as long as it consists of mainly the conventional $q\bar q$ structure. We calculate the form factors of $D_s\to f_0(980)$ in the light-front quark model (LFQM) and the corresponding branching ratio of the semileptonic decay. By fitting the data, we obtain the mixing angle $\phi$. The obtained mixing angle shows that the $s\bar s$ component in $f_0(980)$ may not be dominant.
This paper has not been read by Pith yet.
Forward citations
Cited by 2 Pith papers
-
Systematic analysis of $D_{(s)}$ meson semi-leptonic decays in the covariant light-front quark model
CLFQM calculations of D(s) to P/S/V/A form factors and branching ratios agree with data for most P and V channels but show notable discrepancies for several S and A channels.
-
Review of experimental studies of charmed meson decays at BESIII
A review of BESIII charmed meson decay studies presents the most precise averages for |V_cs|, |V_cd|, D and D_s decay constants, and several hadronic form factors from combined experimental results.
discussion (0)
Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.