Paper detail

Insight into $f_0(980)$ through the $B_{(s)}$ charmed decays

Through analyzing the $B_{(s)}$ charmed decays $B^{0}\to \bar D_{0}f_0(980)$ and $B_{s}\to \bar D_{0}f_0(980)$ within the framework of the PQCD factorization approach and comparing with the current data, we find that there are two possible regions for the $f_0(980)-f_0(500)$ mixing angle $θ$: one is centered at $34^\circ\sim38^\circ$ and the other is falls into $142^\circ\sim154^\circ$. The former can overlap mostly with one of allowed angle regions extracted from the decay $B^{0}\to \bar D_{0}f_0(500)$. The branching fractions of $B_s$ decay modes are less sensitive to the mixing angle compared with those of B decay modes. Especially, for the decay $B_{s}\to D^0 f_0(980)$, its branching fraction changes only slightly between $(1.2\sim1.8)\times10^{-7}$ when the mixing angle $θ$ runs from $0^\circ$ to $180^\circ$. All of our results support the picture that the $f_0(980)$ is dominated by two quark component in the B decay dynamic mechanism. Furthermore, the $s\bar s$ component is more important than the $q\bar q=(u\bar u+d\bar d)/\sqrt{2}$ component. This point is different from $f_0(500)/σ$. Last but not least, our picture is not in conflict with the popular four-quark explanation.

preprint2016arXivOpen access

Signal facts

What is known right now

Open access3 authors1 topic

Next steps

Decide what to do with this paper

Use like or dislike for the fast social read. The more specific scholarly feedback stays available below when needed.

Log in to curate

Reading frame

Keep the important context close to the paper

Keep the important signals around this paper in one place: votes, save state, collection context, reviews and the metadata you need before deciding what to do next.

Institutions

Add specific reaction

Move through the context

Research map

Open full explorer

Move through nearby people, institutions, topics and adjacent work without leaving the paper page.

Building this map preview

BZPEER is loading the nearby papers, people, topics and institutions for this page.

Structured reviews

0 review(s)

ContributeLeave structured feedbackUse the review template when you have a concrete strength, concern or method question.Open review form

No structured reviews yet. High-signal critique starts here.

Work discussion

0 comment(s)

DiscussAdd a high-signal commentKeep quick notes, caveats and replication pointers separate from formal reviews.Open comment form

No discussion yet. The first strong comment sets the tone.