## f0(500) and f0(980) are not tetraquarks

Last week I have been in Giovinazzo, a really beautiful town near Bari in Italy. I participated at the QCD@Work conference. This conference series is now at the 7th edition and, for me, it was my second attendance. The most striking news I heard was put forward in the first day and represents a striking result indeed. The talk was given by Maurizio Martinelli on behalf of LHCb Collaboration. You can find the result on page 19 and on an arxiv paper . The question of the nature of f0(500) is a vexata quaestio since the first possible observation of this resonance. It entered in the Particle Data Group catalog as f0(600) but was eliminated in the following years. Today its existence is no more questioned and this particle is widely accepted. Also its properties as the mass and the width are known with reasonable precision starting from a fundamental work by Irinel Caprini, Gilberto Colangelo and Heinrich Leutwyler (see here). The longstanding question around this particle and its parent f0(980) was about their nature. It is generally difficult to fix the structure of a resonance in QCD and there is no exception here.

The problem arose from famous papers by Jaffe on 1977 (this one and this one) that using a quark-bag model introduced a low-energy nonet of states made of four quarks each. These papers set the stage for what has been the current understanding of the f0(500) and f0(980) resonances. The nonet is completely filled with all the QCD resonances below 1 GeV and so, it seems to fit the bill excellently.

Someone challenged this kind of paradigm and claimed that f0(500) could not be a tetraquark state (e.g. see here and here but also papers by Wolfgang Ochs and Peter Minkowski disagree with the tetraquark model for these resonances). The answer come out straightforwardly from LHCb collaboration: Both f0(500) and f0(980) are not tetraquark and the original view by Jaffe is no more supported. Indeed, people that know the Nambu-Jona-Lasinio model should know quite well where the f0(500) (or $\sigma$ ) comes from and I would also suggest that this model can also accommodate higher states like f0(980).

I should say that this is a further striking result coming from LHCb Collaboration. Hopefully, this should give important hints to a better understanding of low-energy QCD.

$\overline{B}^0\rightarrow J/ψπ^+π^-$ decays arXiv arXiv: 1404.5673v2
Irinel Caprini, Gilberto Colangelo, & Heinrich Leutwyler (2005). Mass and width of the lowest resonance in QCD Phys.Rev.Lett.96:132001,2006 arXiv: hep-ph/0512364v2
Jaffe, R. (1977). Multiquark hadrons. I. Phenomenology of Q^{2}Q[over ¯]^{2} mesons Physical Review D, 15 (1), 267-280 DOI: 10.1103/PhysRevD.15.267
Jaffe, R. (1977). Multiquark hadrons. II. Methods Physical Review D, 15 (1), 281-289 DOI: 10.1103/PhysRevD.15.281
G. Mennessier, S. Narison, & X. -G. Wang (2010). The sigma and f_0(980) from K_e4+pi-pi, gamma-gamma scatterings, J/psi,
phi to gamma sigma_B and D_s to l nu sigma_B Nucl.Phys.Proc.Suppl.207-208:177-180,2010 arXiv: 1009.3590v1

Marco Frasca (2010). Glueball spectrum and hadronic processes in low-energy QCD Nucl.Phys.Proc.Suppl.207-208:196-199,2010 arXiv: 1007.4479v2

### 4 Responses to f0(500) and f0(980) are not tetraquarks

1. ohwilleke says:

“[P]eople that know the Nambu-Jona-Lasinio model should know quite well where the f0(500) (or \sigma ) comes from and I would also suggest that this model can also accommodate higher states like f0(980).”

Given your past postings on the subject, do I correctly assume that you mean that it is probably a glueball state?

• mfrasca says:

The sigma state comes out naturally from a Nambu-Jona-Lasinio model and is considered the reason way the chiral symmetry is broken. This idea can be traced back to nobody else than Nambu himself. What I added to this scenario is that there is also a large gluon contribution (see here for a first derivation).

2. I disagree with the pole position , with the direct relation to the Jona- Lasinio model : f0(500) is really f0(1000,Gamma~1100) in MeV for the pole position. Peter Minkowski

• mfrasca says:

Dear Professor Minkowski,

That would be interesting but clashes against all evidence collected so far, both experimentally and theoretically. Please, could you give some arguments supporting your claims?

Marco