4.7 Article

The a0(980) and f0(980) in the process Ds+ → K+K-π+

期刊

PHYSICS LETTERS B
卷 821, 期 -, 页码 -

出版社

ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.physletb.2021.136617

关键词

-

资金

  1. National Nat-ural Science Foundation of China [11505158]
  2. Key Research Projects of Henan Higher Education Institutions [20A140027]
  3. Project of Youth Backbone Teachers of Colleges and Universities of Henan Province [2020GGJS017]
  4. Natural Science Foundation of Henan [212300410123]
  5. Fundamental Research Cultivation Fund for Young Teachers of Zhengzhou University [JC202041042]
  6. Academic Improvement Project of Zhengzhou University

向作者/读者索取更多资源

In this study, the process D-s(+) -> K+ K-pi(+) was investigated, considering the contributions from the S-wave pseudoscalar-pseudoscalar interaction within the chiral unitary approach and the intermediate phi resonance. The dynamically generated f(0)(980) state was found to give the dominant contribution near the K+ K- threshold in the invariant mass distribution of the decay. Our results suggest that the lineshape adopted for the resonances a(0)(980) and f(0)(980) by BESIII and BABAR may not be suitable for fitting data close to the K+ K- threshold.
In this work, we have investigated the process D-s(+) -> K+ K-pi(+), taking into account the contributions from the S-wave pseudoscalar-pseudoscalar interaction within the chiral unitary approach, and also the intermediate phi resonance. By analyzing the BESIII and BABAR measurements, we conclude that the f(0)(980) state, dynamically generated from the S-wave pseudoscalar-pseudoscalar interaction, gives the dominant contribution close to the K+ K- threshold in the K+ K- invariant mass distribution of the decay D-s(+) -> K+ K- pi(+) in S-wave. On the other hand, our results imply that the lineshape adopted by BESIII and BABAR for the resonances a(0)(980) and f(0)(980) is not advisable in the fit to the data close to the K+ K- threshold. (C) 2021 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier B.V.

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