REVIEW 1 cited by
Could the $X(3915)$ and the $X(3930)$ Be the Same Tensor State?
Not yet reviewed by Pith; the record is open.
This paper has not been read by Pith yet. Machine review is queued; the pith claim, tier, and objections will appear here once it completes.
SPECIMEN: schema-true, not a live event
T0 review · schema-true
One-sentence machine reading of the paper's core claim.
pith:XXXXXXXX · record.json · timestamp
Signed reviews
abstract
By using a combined amplitude analysis of the $\gamma\gamma\rightarrow D\bar{D}$ and $\gamma\gamma\rightarrow J/\psi\omega$ data, we demonstrate that the $X(3915)$, which is quoted as a $J^{PC}=0^{++}$ state in the Particle Data Group table, is favored by the data to be a $J^{PC}=2^{++}$ state appearing in both channels, which means that the $X(3915)$ and the $X(3930)$ can be regarded as the same $J^{PC}=2^{++}$ state. Meanwhile, the data also prefer a large helicity-0 contribution of this tensor resonance to the amplitudes instead of the helicity-2 dominance assumed by {\it BABAR}, which may indicate a sizable portion of non-$q\bar q$ components in this state. Identifying the $X(3915)$ with the $X(3930)$ and abandoning the helicity-2 dominance for this tensor state are helpful for the further understandings of the properties of this state and also of the mysterious "$XYZ$" charmoniumlike resonances.
Forward citations
Cited by 1 Pith paper
-
Updated analysis of charmonium states in a relativized quark potential model
A recalibrated relativized quark model assigns chi_c1(4010), chi_c1(4274), chi_c0(4500), and chi_c0(4700) to conventional charmonium states and predicts chi_c0(2P) near 3851 MeV.
Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.