4.7 Article

The π f0(500) decay of the a1(1260)

期刊

EUROPEAN PHYSICAL JOURNAL C
卷 81, 期 9, 页码 -

出版社

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1140/epjc/s10052-021-09574-y

关键词

-

资金

  1. CIDEGENT program [CIDEGENT/2019/015]
  2. Spanish national grants [PID2019-106080GB-C21, PID2020-112777GB-I00]
  3. National Natural Science Foundation of China [11975083, 11947413]
  4. European FEDER funds [FIS2017-84038-C2-1-P B]
  5. Generalitat Valenciana [PROMETEO/2020/023]
  6. European Unions Horizon 2020 research and innovation programme [824093]
  7. National Science Foundation [PHY-2012289]
  8. U.S. Department of Energy [DE-SC0016582, DE-AC05-06OR23177]
  9. Spanish Ministerio de Economia y Competitividad [FIS2017-84038-C2-1-P B]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The study evaluates the decay width of a(1)(1260) -> pi sigma(f(0)(500)), providing detailed explanations of the assumptions about the properties of the two resonances and the decay mechanism. Current experimental results show significant differences, indicating the need for additional efforts to accurately extract this important partial decay width.
We evaluate the a(1)(1260) -> pi sigma(f(0)(500)) decay width from the perspective that the a(1)(1260) resonance is dynamically generated from the pseudoscalar-vector interaction and the sigma arises from the pseudoscalar-pseudoscalar interaction. A triangle mechanism with a(1)(1260) -> p pi followed by rho -> pi pi and a fusion of two pions within the loop to produce the sigma provides the mechanism for this decay under these assumptions for the nature of the two resonances. We obtain widths of the order of 13-22 MeV. Present experimental results differ substantially from each other, suggesting that extra efforts should be devoted to the precise extraction of this important partial decay width, which should provide valuable information on the nature of the axial vector and scalar meson resonances and help clarify the role of the ps channel in recent lattice QCD calculations of the a(1).

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据