Pith. sign in

REVIEW

Are There Tetraquarks at Large N_c in QCD(F)?

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

arxiv 1403.8090 v1 pith:R3476NFC submitted 2014-03-31 hep-ph nucl-th

Are There Tetraquarks at Large N_c in QCD(F)?

classification hep-ph nucl-th
keywords tetraquarkslargeanalysisassociatedconnecteddiagramsexoticquantum-number
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal T4 reserved
0 comments
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN
read the original abstract

Weinberg recently pointed out a flaw in the standard argument that large $N_c$ QCD with color-fundamental quarks [QCD(F)] cannot yield narrow tetraquark states. In particular, he observed that the argument does not rule out narrow tetraquarks associated with the leading-order connected diagrams; such tetraquarks would have a width scaling as $N_c^{-1}$. It is shown here, however, that while the standard analysis of tetraquarks does not rule them out, a more thorough analysis rules out quantum-number exotic tetraquarks associated with the leading-order connected diagrams. This analysis is based entirely on conventional assumptions used in large $N_c$ physics applied to the analytic properties of meson-meson scattering. Our result implies that one of three possibilities must be true: i) quantum-number exotic tetraquarks do not exist at large $N_c$; ii) quantum-number exotic tetraquarks exist, but are associated with subleading connected diagrams and have anomalously small widths that scale as $N_c^{-2}$ or smaller; or iii) the conventional assumptions used in large $N_c$ analysis are inadequate.

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.