Is the $J^P=2^-$ assignment for the $X(3872)$ compatible with the radiative transition data?
Abstract
The very recent analysis by BaBar Collaboration indicates that the may favor the quantum number rather than the previously assumed . By pretending the charmonium to be the , we study the parity-even radiative transition processes within several phenomenological potential models. We take the admixture in into account, and consider the contributions from the magnetic dipole (), electric quadrupole (), and magnetic octupole () amplitudes. It is found that the ratio of the branching fractions of these two channels, as well as the absolute branching fraction of , are in stark contradiction with the existing \textsc{BaBar} measurements. This may indicate that the assignment for the is highly problematic.
Keywords
Cite
@article{arxiv.1007.4541,
title = {Is the $J^P=2^-$ assignment for the $X(3872)$ compatible with the radiative transition data?},
author = {Yu Jia and Wen-Long Sang and Jia Xu},
journal= {arXiv preprint arXiv:1007.4541},
year = {2010}
}
Comments
v2; 14 pages, 3 tables; references, a new table and several footnotes added, text refined; a minus sign added for the definition of J1 in (14b), accordingly Table I and II and equations (21,22,23) are corrected to reflect this change, but the conclusion remains