-
In electron-proton scattering, diffractive production of vector mesons is important given that the photon in electro-production is off-mass-shell. It is interesting to analyze how the internal structures of the particles influence the vector meson production in electron-proton scattering. The diagrams for the s-channel and t-channel of
$ ep\to eVp $ are depicted in Fig. 1. In the s-channel (left graph), the virtual photon and initial proton produce resonances (e.g.,$ P_c $ and$ P_b $ states), and then, the pentaquark resonance states decay into vector mesons and a proton. In the t-channel (right graph), the virtual photon interacts with protons via exchanging pomerons or gluons and then converts into the final vector mesons. In this study, we made use of exchanging of pomerons in the t-channel. We treat the t-channel contribution as a background of resonance contributions of pentaquark states. We parameterized the cross section of$ \gamma p\to Vp $ as the basic input to the simulation of the$ ep\to eVp $ reaction. This can be recognized by the eSTARlight package.Figure 1. Diagrams for
$ J/\psi $ and$ \Upsilon (1S) $ production in electron-proton scattering via$ P_c $ and$ P_b $ pentaquark resonance in the s-channel (left graph) and pomeron exchange in the t-channel (right graph).In the electron proton scattering, the cross section of
$ ep\to eVp $ is expressed in terms of the cross section of$ \gamma^* p\to Vp $ . In particular, it is written as follows [53]:$ \sigma(ep\to eVp) = \int {\rm d}k{\rm d}Q^2\frac{{\rm d}N^2(k,Q^2)}{{\rm d}k{\rm d}Q^2}\sigma_{\gamma^* p\to Vp}(W,Q^2), $
(1) where k is the momentum of the photon emitted from the initial electron in the target rest frame, W is the center of mass (c.m.) energy of the virtual photon and proton system, and
$ Q^2 $ is the virtuality of the virtual photon. The photon flux is expressed as follows [56]:$ \frac{{\rm d}^2N(k,Q^2)}{{\rm d}k{\rm d}Q^2} = \frac{\alpha}{\pi kQ^2}\Bigg[1-\frac{k}{E_e}+\frac{k^2}{2E^2_e}-\Bigg(1-\frac{k}{E_e}\Bigg)\Bigg|\frac{Q^2_{\rm min}}{Q^2}\Bigg|\Bigg], $
(2) where
$ E_e $ is the energy of the incoming electron in the proton rest frame, and$ Q^2_{\rm min} $ is defined as follows:$ Q^2_{\rm min} = \frac{m_e^2k^2}{E_e(E_e-k)}. $
(3) The maximum
$ Q^2 $ is determined by the energy loss of the initial electron as follows:$ Q^2_{\rm max} = 4E_e(E_e-k). $
(4) The
$ Q^2 $ dependence of$ \sigma_{\gamma^*p\to Vp}(W,Q^2) $ is factorized as follows:$ \sigma_{\gamma^*p\to Vp}(W,Q^2) = \sigma_{\gamma p\to Vp}(W,Q^2 = 0)\Bigg(\frac{M_V^2}{M_V^2+Q^2}\Bigg)^\eta, $
(5) where
$ \eta = c_1+c_2(M_V^2+Q^2) $ with the values of$ c_1 = 2.36\pm0.20 $ and$ c_2 = 0.0029\pm 0.43\quad\mathrm{ GeV}^2 $ , which are determined by the data of$ \gamma^*p\to Vp $ with$ Q^2 \neq 0 $ [53]. We used the same$ Q^2 $ dependence for pentaquark and pomeron channels, as these values are unknown for pentaquark resonance channels. Because of the very strong$ Q^2 $ dependence of photon flux in Eq. (2), the impact of this prescription is expected not to be large in the final results.For the resonance channel of the pentaquark states , the cross sections of
$ \gamma p{\to}Vp $ can be written in a compact Breit-Wigner form [29, 30]:$ \sigma^{P_X}_{\gamma p{\to}Vp}(W) = \frac{2J+1}{2(2s_2+1)}\frac{4\pi}{k^2_{in}}\frac{\Gamma^2_{P_X}}{4} \frac{\mathcal{B}(P_X\to\gamma p)\mathcal{B}(P_X\to Vp)}{(W-M_{P_X})^2+\Gamma^2_{P_X}/4}, $
(6) where
$ P_X $ denotes pentaquark states, such$ P_c $ and$ P_b $ ,$ s_1 $ is the spin of the initial proton, and J is the total spin of the$ P_c $ and$ P_b $ pentaquark states. Here,$ M_{P_X} $ and$ \Gamma_{P_X} $ denote the mass and total decay width of the$ P_c $ and$ P_b $ states, respectively;$ k_{\rm in} $ is the magnitude of three momenta of initial states in the c.m. frame. The branching ratio of$ P_X\to \gamma p $ is calculated by the vector meson dominant model:$ \mathcal{B}(P_X\to \gamma p) = \frac{3\Gamma(V \to e^+e^-)}{\alpha M_V} \left(\frac{k_{\rm in}}{k_{\rm out}}\right)^{2L+1}\mathcal{B}(P_X\to Vp), $
(7) where
$ \alpha $ is the fine structure constant, and$ \Gamma (V\to e^+e^-) $ is the dilepton decay width of vector mesons. Besides,$ k_{\rm out} $ is the magnitude of three momenta of the final state in the c.m. frame. In this study, we used the lowest orbital excitation$ L = 0 $ for the$ J/\psi+ p $ system and$ J = 1/2 $ . Other quantum numbers of$ P_X $ can be similarly calculated. We adopted$ \mathcal{B}(P_c\to J/ \psi p) $ = 5% and$ \mathcal{B}(P_b\to \Upsilon(1S)p) $ = 5% for the calculations in this study; these values concide with the upper limits from the GlueX group [14]. A comparison of our values for$ \sigma^{P_c}_{\gamma p{\to}J/\psi p}(W) $ with the GlueX data can be found in Ref. [57].To study the rapidity distributions and transverse momentum distributions of the vector mesons and proton in final states, we need angular distributions of the decay process
$ P_X \to Vp $ . In the process of$ P_X\to Vp $ , the angle distribution of$ P_X\to Vp $ has the following general expression:$ \frac{{\rm d}\sigma}{{\rm d}\cos\theta}\propto 1+\beta \cos^2\theta. $
(8) Here,
$ \theta $ is the polar angle of the vector meson or proton in the rest frame of$ P_c $ and$ P_b $ states, and$ \beta $ depends on the quantum number$ J^p $ of the$ P_X $ pentaquark, only if the lowest partial wave is considered. However, several partial waves were usually presented in this study. Thus, the actual value of$ \beta $ deviates from these values. The relation of$ \beta $ and$ J^p $ are listed in Table 1. These results are employed in the calculations of$ J/\psi $ and$ \Upsilon(1S) $ rapidity distributions.$ J^p $ $ \frac{1}{2}^- $ $ \frac{1}{2}^+ $ $ \frac{3}{2}^- $ $ \frac{3}{2}^+ $ $ \beta $ −1 0 0 1 Table 1.
$ \beta $ for different quantum numbers of$ P_c $ and$ P_b $ states.For the contribution of Pomeron exchange in the t-channel, the cross section of
$ \gamma p\to Vp $ is expressed as follows [58]:$ \sigma^t_{\gamma p\to Vp}(W) = \sigma_p\cdot\Bigg(1-\frac{(m_p+m_{V})^2}{W^2}\Bigg)\cdot W^\epsilon, $
(9) with
$ \sigma_p $ = 4.06 nb and$ \epsilon $ = 0.65 for$ J/\psi $ and$ \sigma_p $ = 6.4 pb and$ \epsilon $ = 0.74 for$ \Upsilon(1S) $ . These values were determined by the experimental data of$ \gamma p\to Vp $ with$ Q^2 = 0 $ and applied successfully to previous studies of$ J/\psi $ and$ \Upsilon(1S) $ electroproduction [58].In this study, we first employed eSTARlight to simulate resonance production processes of pentaquark states via photon-proton interaction. Then, the decay process of
$ P_c\to J/\psi+p $ and$ P_b\to \Upsilon(1S)+p $ was implemented in eSTARlight. Finally, the vector mesons to dilepton was simulated. The resonance channel production in eSTARlight was newly studied. It can be applied to other resonance channels considered in the next step. -
In this study, two pentaquark states,
$ P_c(4312) $ and$ P_b(11120) $ , were selected to analyze the production of vector mesons. The properties of$ P_c(4312) $ and$ P_b(11120) $ are listed in Table 2, in which the decay width of$ P_b(11120) $ is taken from Ref. [48]. Throughout this study, we used the central values of the masses of two pentaquark states. We investigated their production in proposed EICs, including EicC and EIC-US, whose collider energies are also listed. A detailed comparison of the proposed EICs is presented in Refs. [49, 54].States Properties [12, 48] Collider EicC EIC-US Energy (e.vs. p) 3.5 GeV vs 20 GeV 18 GeV vs 275 GeV $ P_c(4312) $ Mass $ 4.311\pm0.7^{+6.8}_{-0.6} $ GeV$\sigma_t(ep\to eJ/\psi p)$ 0.69 nb 9.1 nb Width $ 9.8\pm2.7^{+3.7}_{-4.5} $ MeV$\sigma_s(ep\to eJ/\psi p)$ 0.89 pb 1.3 pb $ P_b(11120) $ Mass 11.120 GeV $\sigma_t(ep\to e \Upsilon p)$ 0.13 pb 15 pb Width 30 - 300 MeV $\sigma_s(ep\to e \Upsilon p)$ 9.3 - 82 fb 0.022-0.19 pb Table 2. Cross sections of
$ J/\psi $ and$ \Upsilon(1S) $ vector mesons in two channels for proposed EicC and EIC-US. The s-channel is the resonance channel of pentaquark states.First, we present the estimated
$ J/\psi $ and$ \Upsilon(1S) $ cross sections in the s-channels and t-channel in Table 2. The cross sections of the t-channel is viewed as the background of the t-channel pentaquark production. For all the calculations in this study, we employed$ 0<Q^2<5 $ $ \mathrm{GeV}^2 $ and$ \beta = -1 $ . According to Table 2, the$ J/\psi $ cross section in the t-channel is much larger than that in the s-channel in both EicC and EIC-US. However, the cross sections of$ \Upsilon(1S) $ in the t-channel are not significantly larger than that in the s-channel during$ J/\psi $ production. This conclusion is crucial for the study of pentaquark states because the t-channel can be viewed as a background to identify pentaquark states in experiments.Second, we present the pseudo-rapidity distributions of
$ J/\psi $ in two channels for the proposed EicC and EIC-US in Fig. 2. Given that the cross section of$ J/\psi $ in the t-channel is much larger than that in the s-channel, the s-channel cross section is smaller than that of the t-channel. Consequently, we can neglect the interference between the t-channel and the s-channel because the amplitude in the s-channel is much smaller than that of the t-channel.Figure 2. (color online) Pseudo-rapidity distributions of
$ J/\psi $ in two channels for EicC (left graph) and EIC-US (right graph).The rapidity distributions of
$ J/\psi $ in the two channels for the proposed EicC and EIC-US are depicted in Fig. 3. It indicates that s-channel is too weak to identify the pentaquark states in rapidity distributions. According to Fig. 2 and Fig. 3, it is difficult to distinguish the contributions from pentaquark resonance channels as the background. It is also difficult to identify the pentaquark states in$ J/\psi $ +p production.Figure 3. (color online) Rapidity distributions of
$ J/\psi $ produced in two channels for the proposed EicC (left graph) and EIC-US (right graph).Moreover, the distributions of
$ \Upsilon(1S) $ are shown in Fig. 4 to Fig. 7. Given that the width of$ P_b(11120) $ is not determined in this case, we used 30-300 MeV as the range of width [48]. In Fig. 4, the pseudo-rapidity distributions of$ \Upsilon(1S) $ are shown in two channels with a lower limit of width. The upper limit of$ P_b(11120) $ is applied for the calculations, and the results are depicted in Fig. 5. According to Fig. 4 and Fig. 5, the peak of$ \Upsilon(1S) $ in the pentaquark resonance exchange channel is remarkable compared to the background of the pomeron exchange channel, especially in EicC. The reason is that the cross section of$ \Upsilon(1S) $ in the t-channel in EicC is much smaller than the cross section in EIC-US, as listed in Table 2.Figure 4. (color online) Pseudo-rapidity distributions of
$ \Upsilon(1S) $ in two channels for the proposed EicC (left graph) and EIC-US (right graph). A width of$ P_b(11120) $ 30 MeV was assumed in the calculations.Figure 7. (color online) Rapidity distributions of
$ \Upsilon (1S) $ in two channels for the proposed EicC (left graph) and EIC-US (right graph). A width of$ P_b(11120) $ 300 MeV was assumed in the calculations.Figure 5. (color online) Pseudo-rapidity distributions of
$ \Upsilon(1S) $ in two channels for the proposed EicC (left graph) and EIC-US (right graph). A width of$ P_b(11120) $ 300 MeV was assumed in the calculations.Furthermore, the rapidity distributions of
$ \Upsilon(1S) $ in two channels in lower and upper limits of width of$ P_b(11120) $ are presented in Fig. 6 and Fig. 7. The same conclusions can be drawn from the rapidity distributions compared to the pseudo-rapidity distributions. These results indicate that the$ P_b $ pentaquark states of EicC are produced near the mid-rapidity region. However, the$ P_b $ pentaquark states are produced at large rapidity regions in EIC-US because the collider energies of EIC-US is much higher than those of EicC. Hence, it is easy to identify$ P_b $ states in the EicC platform given that the detector system can observe$ P_b $ easily at the mid-rapidity region.Figure 6. (color online) Rapidity distributions of
$ \Upsilon (1S) $ in two channels for the proposed EicC (left graph) and EIC-US (right graph). A width of$ P_b(11120) $ 30 MeV was assumed in the calculations.Finally, from above discussions, it can be concluded that
$ P_c(4312) $ is difficult to identify in electron-proton scattering process in the proposed EicC and EIC-US because of the strong background of the t-channel. By contrast, the signals of$ P_b(11120) $ are remarkable in electron-proton scattering, especially in the proposed EicC. Thus, EicC is a good platform to search for$ P_b $ pentaquark states in the future, according to the predictions from this study.
Production of hidden-charm and hidden-bottom pentaquark states in electron-proton collisions
- Received Date: 2020-09-29
- Available Online: 2021-04-15
Abstract: Electro-production of several pentaquark states is investigated in this study. The eSTARlight package is adapted to study the electro-production of