Subscribe to the gold package and get unlimited access to Shamra Academy
Register a new userReply to Comment on Mass and K-Lambda Coupling of the N*(1535)
61
0
0.0
(
0
)
Ask ChatGPT about the research
No Arabic abstract
Here we give our reply to the comment by Sibirtsev et al on our paper ``Mass and K-Lambda Coupling of the N*(1535).
rate research
Read More
We study the coupling of the Lambda(1520)= Lambda* resonance to the bar K* vector meson and nucleon. This coupling is not directly measured from the resonance decay, but is expected to be important in hyperon production reactions, in particular for the exotic Theta+ production. We compute the coupling in two different schemes, one in the chiral unitary model where the Lambda* is dominated by the quasibound state of mesons and baryons, and the other in the quark model where the resonance is a p-wave excitation in the three valence quarks. Although it is possible to construct both models such that they reproduce the bar K N and pi Sigma decays, there is a significant difference between the Lambda* bar K* N couplings in the two models. In the chiral unitary model $|g_{Lambda^*bar{K}^* N}| sim 1.5$, while in the quark model $|g_{Lambda^*bar{K}^* N}| sim 10$. The difference of the results stems from the different structure of the Lambda* in both models, and hence, an experimental determination of this coupling would shed light on the nature of the resonance.
In this Reply, we respond to the above Comment. Our computation [Phys. Rev. D 91 (2015) 074512] only took into account pure QCD effects, arising from quark mass differences, so it is not surprising that there are discrepancies in isospin splittings and in the Sigma - Lambda mixing angle. We expect that these discrepancies will be smaller in a full calculation incorporating QED effects.
This paper has been withdrawn by the authors. We have discovered an error in the evaluation of the diagram, which invalidates our conclusion.
A new method is proposed to calculate wave functions in $k_T$-factorization in cite{LiMi} as a comment about our paper cite{FMW}. We point out that the results obtained with the method are in conflict with the translation invariance and depend on the chosen contours for loop-integrals. Therefore, the method is in principle unacceptable and the results with the method cannot be correct.
A corresponding comment, raised by Kao and Hwang, claims that the reconstructor Bob1 is unable to obtain the expected secret information in (t, n) Threshold d-level Quantum Secret Sharing (TDQSS)[Scientific Reports, Vol. 7, No. 1 (2017), pp.6366] . In this reply, we show the TDQSS scheme can obtain the dealers secret information in the condition of adding a step on disentanglement.
Log in to be able to interact and post comments
comments
Fetching comments
Sign in to be able to follow your search criteria
