Spectrum of fully-heavy tetraquarks from a diquark+antidiquark perspective

This is a self-archived version of an original article. This version may differ from the original in pagination and typographic details. Author(s): Title: Year: Version: Copyright: Rights: Rights url: Please cite the original version: CC BY 4.0 https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ Spectrum of fully-heavy tetraquarks from a diquark+antidiquark perspective © The Author(s) 2020 Published version Bedolla, M. A.; Ferretti, J.; Roberts, C. D.; Santopinto, E. Bedolla, M. A., Ferretti, J., Roberts, C. D., & Santopinto, E. (2020). Spectrum of fully-heavy tetraquarks from a diquark+antidiquark perspective. European Physical Journal C, 80(5), Article 1004. https://doi.org/10.1140/epjc/s10052-020-08579-3 2020 Eur. Phys. J. C (2020) 80:1004 https://doi.org/10.1140/epjc/s10052-020-08579-3 Regular Article - Theoretical Physics Spectrum of fully-heavy tetraquarks from a diquark+antidiquark perspective M. A. Bedolla1,2,3,a, J. Ferretti4,5,b, C. D. Roberts6,7,c, E. Santopinto2,d 1Mesoamerican Centre for Theoretical Physics, Universidad Autónoma de Chiapas, Carretera Zapata Km. 4, Real del Bosque (Terán), 29040 Tuxtla Gutiérrez, Chiapas, Mexico 2Istituto Nazionale di Fisica Nucleare (INFN), Sezione di Genova, Via Dodecaneso 33, 16146 Genoa, Italy 3Instituto de Física y Matemáticas, Universidad Michoacana de San Nicolás de Hidalgo, Edificio C-3, Ciudad Universitaria, 58040 Morelia, Michoacán, Mexico 4Center for Theoretical Physics, Sloane Physics Laboratory, Yale University, New Haven, CT 06520-8120, USA 5Department of Physics, University of Jyväskylä, P.O. Box 35, 40014 Jyväskylä, Finland 6School of Physics, Nanjing University, Nanjing 210093, Jiangsu, China 7Institute for Nonperturbative Physics, Nanjing University, Nanjing 210093, Jiangsu, China Received: 8 July 2020 / Accepted: 19 October 2020 © The Author(s) 2020 Abstract Using a relativized diquark model Hamiltonian, we calculate the masses of JPC =0++ ground-state tetraquarks in the following systems: bs ¯ b¯s,bb¯n¯n(n=u,d), bb¯s¯s,cc¯c¯c,bb ¯ b¯ b,bc ¯ b¯cand bb¯c¯c. We also compute extensive spectra for the fully-heavy quark flavour combinations. Finally, as a test of the diquark model approach, we compute the masses of fully-heavy baryons in the diquark model. Our results may be compared soon to the forthcoming experimental data for fully-heavy three-quark systems. 1 Introduction Until the current millennium, the spectrum of detected hadrons was limited to systems that fit simply into the patterns typical of constituent-quark models [1,2], i.e. quark– antiquark (q¯q)mesons and three-quark (qqq)baryons. Notwithstanding this, Refs. [1,2] also raised the possibility of complicated hadrons, e.g. qq ¯q¯qand q¯qqqq.Afew years later, Lichtenberg suggested that “exotic mesons might be realized by replacing the quark and antiquark of a normal meson with a diquark and antidiquark, respectively”[3,4]. Investigations on the phenomenology of qq ¯q¯ qmesons were conducted in the 1970s, when Jaffe proposed a four quark interpretation for light scalar mesons [5,6] and Iwasaki the possible existence of hidden-charm tetraquarks [7]. Later, a similar study related to multiquark systems indicated the ae-mail: [email protected] be-mail: [email protected] ce-mail: [email protected] de-mail: [email protected] (corresponding author) possible existence of baryon–antibaryon mesons [8]. Potential models to study qq ¯q¯qsystems were presented in Refs. [9,10], and fully-heavy tetraquarks were hypothesized in Ref. [11]. Today, a large amount of data, obtained at both e+e−and hadron colliders, has provided evidence for the possible existence of such exotic hadrons. In particular, we need to mention a recent LHCb study [12], where the J/ψ-pair invariant mass spectrum was studied by using pp collision data [12]. A narrow structure, dubbed the X(6900), which matches the lineshape of a resonance, and a broad one, next to the di- J/ψ mass threshold, were found. The global significance of either the broad or the X(6900)structure was determined to be larger than five standard deviations. It was stated that “The X(6900)structure could originate from a hadron state consisting of four charm quarks,Tcc¯c¯c,predicted in various tetraquark models.”[12]. Herein we focus on those exotic systems which may be considered tetraquarks, viz. systems with meson-like quantum numbers that can be built using two valence quarks and two valence antiquarks. Some tetraquark candidates cannot be described using typical constituent quark models [13– 22] because they carry electric charge; hence, cannot simply be q¯qsystems. Consequently, they are good candidates for: hidden-charm/bottom tetraquarks [5,9,23–41],or molecular systems constituted from a pair of charm/bottom mesons [42– 47]; or hadro-charmonia [48–51]. Owing to the large masses of the valence degrees of freedom, the possible existence of fully-heavy QQ ¯ Q¯ Qstates (Q=c,b) and similar, mixed systems (c¯cb ¯ b,¯c¯cbb ∼cc ¯ b¯ b) can reasonably be explored using nonrelativistic tools for 0123456789().: V,-vol 123 1004 Page 2 of 10 Eur. Phys. J. C (2020) 80:1004 QCD phenomenology and theory. Here, in contrast to systems involving light-quarks, for which both light-meson and gluon exchange may play a role in tetraquark formation, binding in fully-heavy systems is very probably dominated by gluon-exchange forces because the typical gluon massscale (mg∼0.5GeV[52]) is much lighter than that of any necessarily-heavy meson that could be exchanged between two subsystems within the tetraquark composite. It is thus natural to suppose that the favoured structural configuration for a fully-heavy tetraquark state is diquark+antidiquark. Fully-heavy tetraquark states have been studied by some theorists since the 1980s [10,11,53–55], even though those investigations did not receive much attention due to the lack of experimental data. We compute the spectra of cc¯c¯c,c¯cb ¯ b,¯c¯cbb ∼cc ¯ b¯ b,bb ¯ b¯ b tetraquarks from the diquark+antidiquark perspective, using a potential model characterised by linear confinement and one-gluon exchange. Using the same approach and assuming isospin symmetry, we also calculate the ground-state masses of similarly viewed bq ¯ b¯q,bb ¯q¯qsystems (q=u,s). Finally, as a test of the diquark model approach, we compute the masses of fully-heavy baryons in the diquark model. Our results may be compared soon to the forthcoming experimental data for fully-heavy baryons. 2 Relativized diquark model We assume that the tetraquark states are colour-antitriplet (¯ 3c) diquark + colour-triplet (3c) antidiquark (D¯ D) states. Furthermore, the constituent D,¯ Dare each treated as being inert against internal spatial excitations [56–59]. This should be a fair approximation for fully-heavy systems owing to the suppression of quark exchange between the diquark subclusters in this case [60]. Consequently, dynamics within the D¯ D system can be described by a single relative coordinate rrel, with conjugate momentum qrel. To describe the internal dynamics of a Da¯ Dbsystem, we choose the Hamiltonian constrained elsewhere [33,35]: HREL =T+V(rrel), (1a) T=q2 rel +m2 Da+q2 rel +m2 ¯ Db,(1b) with the interaction being the sum of a linear-confinement term and a one-gluon exchange (OGE) potential: [13,35,61, 62], V(rrel)=− 3 4βrrel +G(rrel)+2SDa·S¯ Db 3mDam¯ Db ∇2G(rrel) −1 3mDam¯ Db3SDa·ˆrrel S¯ Db·ˆrrel −SDa·S¯ Db ×∂2 ∂r2 rel −1 rrel ∂ ∂rrel G(rrel)+EFDa·F¯ Db; (2) Table 1 Parameters specifying the Hamiltonian in Eq. (1). Here: n=u or d; and the superscripts “sc” and “av” indicate scalar and axial-vector diquarks, respectively. Mn,s,c,bare the valence quark masses Parameter Value Parameter Value α10.25 γ12.53 fm−1 α20.15 γ28.01 fm−1 α30.20 γ380.1 fm−1 σ09.29 fm−1s1.55 β3.90 fm−2E−370 MeV Mn220 MeV Ms419 MeV Mc1628 MeV Mb4977 MeV Msc nn 691 MeV Mav nn 840 MeV Mav ss 1136 MeV Msc cs 2229 MeV Mav cs 2264 MeV Msc bn 5451 MeV Mav bn 5465 MeV Msc bs 5572 MeV Mav bs 5585 MeV Msc bc 6599 MeV Mav bc 6611 MeV Mav cc 3329 MeV Mav bb 9845 MeV it is worth to note that this is the same as [35, Eq. (7a)]; here, we have only included the product of color matrices, FDaand F¯ Db, explicitly.1The Coulomb-like piece is [13,62] G(rrel)=− 4αs(rrel) 3rrel =− k 4αk 3rrel Erf(τDa¯ Dbkrrel). (3) Here, Erf is the error function and [13,62]: τDa¯ Dbk=γkσDa¯ Db σ2 Da¯ Db+γ2 k ,(4a) σ2 Da¯ Db=1 2σ2 0⎡ ⎣1+4mDam¯ Db (mDa+m¯ Db)24⎤ ⎦(4b) +s22mDam¯ Db mDa+m¯ Db2 .(4c) The parameters defining our Hamiltonian are listed in Table 1. The strength of the linear confining interaction, β, and the value of the constant, E,inEq.(2)aretakenfrom [35, Table I]; and in Eqs.(3), (4), the values of the parameters αkand γk(k=1,2,3), σ0and sare drawn from Refs. [13,62]. The valence quark masses are extracted from [13, Table II]. This leaves the diquark masses; they are determined 1The Fsymbols of Eq. (2) are defined as Fa,b=1 2λa,b,wheretheλs are Gell-Mann color matrices; the underscripts aand bdenote (quark/antiquark or diquark/antidiquark) constituents. We also have that Fa·Fb=−4 3if the constituents aand bare a q¯q,qD or D¯ Dpair −2 3for a qq pair , where the quarks/diquarks we consider here are color triplets/antitriplets. 123 Eur. Phys. J. C (2020) 80:1004 Page 3 of 10 1004 by “binding” a (q1q2)sc,av system, {q1,q2=n,s,c,b}, n=u=d, by means of a OGE potential; see [13] and [63, Table 1]. Hence, the results we subsequently report are parameter-free predictions. If we hypothesize the existence of a dynamical baryon– meson supersymmetry in hadrons [64,65], the Hamiltonian of Eq. (1) can also be used to calculate the spectrum of baryons in the quark–diquark approximation. In the diquark model, baryons and tetraquarks are described as quark–diquark and diquark–antidiquark configurations, respectively, whose internal dynamics is described in terms of a single relative coordinate; see e.g. Refs. [56–58]. Because of these premises: (I) the solution of either the diquark– antidiquark or quark–diquark eigenvalue problems is substantially the same; (II) not only the Hamiltonian of Eq. (1) is unchanged, but also the values of the diquark model parameters are expected to remain the same both in the baryon and tetraquark sectors, provided that one substitutes the valence antidiquark, ¯ D, with a quark, q, with q=n,s,cor b. 3 Fully-heavy baryon and tetraquark states 3.1 bb ¯q¯qand bq ¯ b¯qground-state masses As an exploratory exercise, we first compute the masses of J=0++ heavy-light tetraquarks – bq ¯ b¯q,bb ¯q¯qsystems (q=n,s). Using the Hamiltonian specified by Eq. (1) and the parameters in Table 1, we obtain the following ground-state masses: Mgs bn ¯ b¯n=10.29 (08)GeV (sc–sc configuration) 10.12 (11)GeV (av–av configuration)(5) and Mgs bs ¯ b¯s=10.52 (08)GeV (sc–sc configuration) 10.35 (10)GeV (av–av configuration),(6) where the energies of the two possible D¯ Dconfigurations are both shown, viz. scalar-scalar and axial-vector–axial-vector. Evidently, when combining ¯ 3cand 3cconstituents, the OGE colour-hyperfine interaction favours a lighter av–av combination. This is because the spin-spin interaction in Eq.(2)is attractive. The nature of our uncertainty estimate is discussed in Sect. 3.3 (first procedure). Turning now to bb ¯q¯qsystems, we obtain Mgs bb¯n¯n=10.31 (17)GeV,(7a) Mgs bb¯s¯s=10.53 (16)GeV.(7b) (Owing to Pauli statistics, only av–av configurations are allowed in these cases.) In Sect. 3.3 (second procedure), we suggest an alternative prescription to estimate the theoretical uncertainties on our Table 2 Row 1: experimental meson-meson thresholds. They are 2ηc, 2ηb,ηbηcand Bc¯ Bcin the cc¯c¯c,bb ¯ b¯ b,bc ¯ b¯cand bb¯c¯ccases, respectively. Row 2: our computed results for the masses of J=0++ ground-state tetraquark systems. For comparison, the other rows list values obtained elsewhere. Masses are in MeV. All entries describe av–av configurations, except those marked by an asterisk, which are sc–sc. The entry highlighted by †was obtained previously [33] Source cc¯c¯cbb ¯ b¯ bbc ¯ b¯cbb¯c¯c Threshold 5968 18797 12383 12550 Herein 5883 18748†12374 (12521∗) 12445 [33]··· 18720 ··· ··· [66] 5966 18754 ··· ··· [67] 6440 18450 ··· ··· [68] 6192 18826 ··· ··· [69] 6035 18834 ··· ··· [70] 5990 18840 ··· ··· [71] 6487 19322 13035 (13050∗) 12953 [72](5300 ±500)··· ··· ··· [73] 5969 ··· ··· ··· [74] 5973 ··· ··· ··· results. If we make use of it, we get for the ground-state (av–av configuration): Mgs bn ¯ b¯n=10.12 (19)GeV, Mgs bs ¯ b¯s= 10.35 (19)GeV, Mgs bb¯n¯n=10.31 (22)GeV, and Mgs bb¯s¯s= 10.53 (21)GeV. These errors are slightly larger than those in Eqs. (5–7), even though the order of magnitude remains the same. 3.2 cc¯c¯c,bb ¯ b¯ b,bc ¯ b¯c,bb¯c¯cground-states In QQ ¯ Q¯ Qsystems treated as colour triplet-antitriplet pair configurations, fermion statistics also precludes a role for scalar diquarks. Consequently, the ground-state cc¯c¯cis an av–av combination; and using Eq. (1) we find Mgs cc¯c¯c=5.88 (17)GeV.(8) Using the same framework, the calculated mass of the analogous bb ¯ b¯ bsystem is Mgs bb ¯ b¯ b=18.75(07)GeV.(9) Table 2lists our prediction for the mass of these systems alongside a sample of values obtained elsewhere [33,66–74]. We also need to mention: Ref. [53], where the authors stated that for any confining potential there is no state below the threshold; Ref. [75], where the authors studied tetraquark states in a potential model calculation. They used a kind of individual-particle wave function, with a removal of the center-of-mass energy, Hcm −3 2¯ h;see[75, Eq. (1)]. was determined from c¯cstates and, as the four-body system is more diluted than a quark–antiquark one, there is a risk of over-correction; Ref. [76], where the authors investigated 4- 123 1004 Page 4 of 10 Eur. Phys. J. C (2020) 80:1004 quark states in a potential model with a chromo-electric interaction. Considering the bc ¯ b¯ccase, both sc–sc and av–av configurations can exist; and we find Mgs bc ¯ b¯c=12.52 (08)GeV (sc–sc configuration) 12.37 (09)GeV (av–av configuration).(10) One can also imagine J=0++ bb¯c¯c(¯ b¯ bcc) configurations. In this case, only the av–av (bb)¯ 3c(¯c¯c)3cconfiguration is possible and its ground-state mass is Mgs bb¯c¯c=12.45 (11)GeV .(11) Analogously to what is done at the end of Sect. 3.1,wemake use of the alternative prescription from Sect. 3.3 (second procedure) to give a second estimate of the theoretical uncertainties. We get: Mgs cc¯c¯c=5.88 (17)GeV, Mgs bb ¯ b¯ b=18.75(23) GeV, Mgs bc ¯ b¯c=12.37 (20)GeV, Mgs bb¯c¯c=12.45 (21)GeV. Again, even though the theoretical uncertainties resulting from the application of this second prescription are larger than those from Eqs. (8–11), they are still of the same order of magnitude. 3.3 Estimate of model uncertainty In the following, we discuss two prescriptions to estimate the theoretical errors on our predictions of Eqs. (5–11). First procedure In order to provide an estimate of our theoretical uncertainty, we also compute tetraquark masses using the Relativized Quark Model (RQM) Hamiltonian introduced in Ref. [13]. Only a few obvious changes are necessary because this Hamiltonian was also constructed to bind a colour triplet-antitriplet pair into a colour-singlet system. The theoretical error on our results is then given by the difference between the predictions for the tetraquark masses obtained by using: I) the tetraquark model Hamiltonian of Eq. (1), with the values of the model parameters reported in Table 1; II) the RQM Hamiltonian [13], where the masses of the quarks are substituted with those of the diquarks, extracted from Table 1herein. When forming a S-wave system from two axial-vector constituents, the only contribution from spin-dependent interactions in the RQM is that produced by the contact term, Vcont: S 1S 2SVcont(r)|S1S2S=110 |Vcont(r)|110  ∝1 2S2−S2 1−S2 2=−2.(12) Contrarily, in the case of tensor, Vtens, and spin-orbit, Vso, interactions, one obtains the matrix elements SLJVtens(r)|SLJ =000 |Vtens(r)|000  ∝LY(2)|L∝020 000 =0,(13) where Y(2)is a L=2 spherical harmonic [77], and SLJVso(r)|SLJ =000 |Vso(r)|000  ∝L(L+1)(2L+1)=0.(14) The smearing function coefficient employed in Ref. [13], σC1C2, with C1,2denoting the constituents, is the same as that we use, given by Eq. (4). As an illustrative example, consider the fully-bJ = 0 tetraquark. Our prediction for the ground-state mass is reported in Eq.(9). Using the RQM Hamiltonian and a computed value of σ(bb)( ¯ b¯ b)=77.9fm −1, one finds Egs,RQM bb ¯ b¯ b=18822 MeV.(15) Our mass prediction cannot be judged more accurate than the difference between this result and that in Eq.(9), viz.74MeV. We therefore list this value as the uncertainty in Eq.(9). Second procedure Below, we discuss an alternative prescription to estimate the errors on our diquark model results. In this second scheme, the errors are extracted by first providing estimates of the uncertainties on the model parameters in Table 1and then by propagating those theoretical errors on the tetraquark model results. We start by evaluating the theoretical errors on the diquark masses. The diquark masses are computed by binding a quark– quark pair via the Relativized QM Hamiltonian [13,63]. The errors on both the quarkonium and diquark masses can be estimated by comparing the RQM predictions of Refs. [13, 78–82] to the existing experimental data for heavy and light quarkonia [83] and extracting the average mass deviations between them. In the case of heavy and heavy-light mesons, we estimate the deviation to be of the order of 0.5%. We thus get: Mav cc =3329±17 MeV, Msc bn =5451±27 MeV, Mav bn = 5465 ±27 MeV, Msc bs =5572 ±28 MeV, Mav bs =5585 ±28 MeV, Msc bc =6599 ±33 MeV, Mav bc =6611 ±33 MeV and Mav bb =9845 ±49 MeV. In the case of light diquarks, Mav nn and Mav ss , the previous procedure may underestimate the theoretical uncertainties. We thus assign the Mav nn and Mav ss masses an error of 17 MeV, which is the same as that on Mav cc .Wehave:Mav nn =840±17 MeV and Mav ss =1136±17 MeV. The error on the linear confining potential parameter, β,is roughly estimated as the difference between the value used herein and in Refs. [33,35] and that from Ref. [13]. We get: β=3.90±0.72 fm−2. We do the same for the constant E: E=−370 ±117 MeV. The other model parameters, αi 123 Eur. Phys. J. C (2020) 80:1004 Page 5 of 10 1004 and γi(with i=1,2,3), σ0and s, assume the same values both in the RQM [13] and the diquark model of Refs. [33, 35]. Therefore, in first approximation, we assume that their values have no theoretical error. By doing this, we somehow underestimate the theoretical error in this second procedure. Finally, we can use the model parameters of Table 1with their theoretical errors, see above, to calculate the tetraquark masses with their theoretical uncertainties. For example, in the fully-btetraquark case of Eq. (9)wehave:Mgs bb ¯ b¯ b= 18.75 (23)GeV. 3.4 Complete tetraquark spectra The Hamiltonian in Eq. (1) predicts a rich spectrum; and in Tables 3,4we report the lightest states in the spectra of cc¯c¯c, bb ¯ b¯ b,bc ¯ b¯cand bb¯c¯csystems. These results should serve as useful benchmarks for other analyses, which are necessary in order to identify model-dependent artefacts and develop a perspective on those predictions which might only be weakly sensitive to model details. Moreover, given that the decay modes of fully-bJ=0++ tetraquarks may be difficult to access experimentally [84–86], our predictions for orbitallyexcited and J= 0 tetraquarks may serve useful in guiding new experimental searches for fully-heavy four-quark states. Our predictions for the masses of the fully-charm states can be compared to the recent LHCb experimental results [12]. In particular, it can be noticed that we have several candidates in the 6.2–7.4 GeV energy range with 0++,1 ++ and 2++ quantum numbers. 3.5 ηc,ηband Bcground-state masses The Relativized QM [13] and Relativized Diquark Model [33,35] Hamiltonians can also be used to calculate the masses of fully-heavy mesons, including the ηc,theηband the Bcstates. These estimates can provide further informations regarding the theoretical uncertainties in our approach. Starting from the ηc,wehave Mηc=2.91 (06)GeV.(16) The Hamiltonian that we use here is that of Eq. (1) where, according to hadron supersymmetry, we can substitute the valence diquark/antidiquarks with antiquarks/quarks; the model parameters, including the valence quark masses, are reported in Table 1. The theoretical error, 0.06 GeV, is extracted according to the procedure discussed in Sect. 3.3 (first procedure). Analogously, for the ηband Bcwe have Mηb=9.33 (07)GeV (17) and MBc=6.18 (08)GeV,(18) respectively. It is worth noting that the theoretical errors on the meson ground-state masses of Eqs. (16–18), O(100 MeV), are of the same order of magnitude as those on the tetraquark energies of Eqs. (5–11). Therefore, we can state that the theoretical error on our results for both tetraquarks (Sects. 3.1–3.4) and ordinary mesons (Sect. 3.5)isO(100 MeV). 3.6 Fully-heavy baryon masses Here, we extend the diquark model results of the previous sections and Refs. [33,35] to the study of fully-heavy baryons. We calculate the ground-state masses of the ccb,bbc, ccc and bbb fully-heavy baryons and also those of their radial excitations in the quark–diquark picture. We do that by making use of both the Hamiltonian of Eq. (1), with the model parameters reported in Table 1, and that of the relativized QM of Ref. [13] (where the diquark mass values are extracted from Table 1herein); analogously to the Q¯ Qmeson case of Sect. 3.5, we also need to substitute a valence antidiquark with a quark. QQQ baryons are made up of a heavy quark, Q=cor b, and an axial-vector diquark, {Q,Q}. Scalar-diquark configurations, [Q,Q], are only permitted in the ccb and bbc cases. Starting from the ccc and bbb ground-states, characterized by JP=3 2 +quantum numbers, we have Mgs ccc =4.66 (08)GeV (19) and Mgs bbb =14.16 (09)GeV;(20) these states are described as S-wave quark-axial-vector diquark configurations. The errors on these results are estimated by using the procedure outlined in Sect. 3.3 (first procedure). As an example, we discuss the calculation of the ccc mass with its theoretical uncertainty. If we make use of the Relativized Diquark Model (RDM) [33,35], we get Mgs ccc =4655 MeV; on the contrary, if we calculate the mass of the ccc ground-state in the Relativized QM (RQM) [13], we obtain Mgs ccc =4732 MeV. Our result of Eq. (19) is thus given by the RDM prediction, 4.66 GeV, with the theoretical error being the difference between the previous RDM and the RQM results. Our predictions for the 1 2 +and 3 2 +ccc and bbb and their radial excitations are reported in Table 5.It is worth to note that our RQM and RDM results differ by O (100 MeV); however, the splittings among radial excitations in the two approaches are very similar. For example, those between the first and second 3 2 +radial excitations are 304 MeV (RDM) and 334 MeV (RQM). In the case of ccb and bbc ground-states, we get Mgs ccb =7.72 (07)GeV (21) 123 1004 Page 6 of 10 Eur. Phys. J. C (2020) 80:1004 Table 3 Spectra obtained by solving the eigenvalue problem defined by Eq.(1). Following Sect. 3.3 (first procedure), the model uncertainty in each result is 2 %. The states are labelled thus: Nis the radial quantum number (N=1 is the ground state); SD,S¯ Dare the spin of the diquark and antidiquark, respectively, coupled to the total spin of the meson, S; the latter is coupled to the orbital angular momentum, L,to get the total angular momentum of the tetraquark, J. Degenerate states are orthogonal combinations of diquark+antidiquark spin vectors [35] bb¯c¯cspectrum cc¯c¯cspectrum bb ¯ b¯ bspectrum JPC N[(SD,S¯ D)S,L]JE th (MeV) JPC N[(SD,S¯ D)S,L]JE th (MeV) JPC N[(SD,S¯ D)S,L]JE th (MeV) 0++ 1[(1,1)0,0]0 12445 0++ 1[(1,1)0,0]0 5883 0++ 1[(1,1)0,0]0 18748 0++ 1[(1,1)2,2]0 13208 0++ 2[(1,1)0,0]0 6573 0++ 2[(1,1)0,0]0 19335 0++ 2[(1,1)0,0]0 13017 0++ 1[(1,1)2,2]0 6827 0++ 1[(1,1)2,2]0 19513 0++ 2[(1,1)2,2]0 13482 0++ 3[(1,1)0,0]0 6948 0++ 3[(1,1)0,0]0 19644 0++ 3[(1,1)0,0]0 13349 0++ 2[(1,1)2,2]0 7125 0++ 2[(1,1)2,2]0 19760 0++ 3[(1,1)2,2]0 13712 0++ 4[(1,1)0,0]0 7237 0++ 4[(1,1)0,0]0 19877 0++ 3[(1,1)2,2]0 7380 0++ 3[(1,1)2,2]0 19964 1+− 1[(1,1)1,0]1 12536 1+− 1[(1,1)1,0]1 6120 1+− 1[(1,1)1,0]1 18828 1+− 2[(1,1)1,0]1 13060 1+− 2[(1,1)1,0]1 6669 1+− 2[(1,1)1,0]1 19366 1+− 3[(1,1)1,0]1 13381 1+− 1[(1,1)1,2]1 6829 1+− 1[(1,1)1,2]1 19511 1+− 1[(1,1)1,2]1 13205 1+− 3[(1,1)1,0]1 7016 1+− 3[(1,1)1,0]1 19665 1+− 2[(1,1)1,2]1 13479 1+− 2[(1,1)1,2]1 7128 1+− 2[(1,1)1,2]1 19758 1+− 3[(1,1)1,2]1 13709 1+− 4[(1,1)1,0]1 7293 1+− 4[(1,1)1,0]1 19893 1+− 3[(1,1)1,2]1 7382 1+− 3[(1,1)1,2]1 19962 1−− 1[(1,1)0,1]1 12967 1−− 1[(1,1)0,1]1 6580 1−− 1[(1,1)0,1]1 19281 1−− 2[(1,1)0,1]1 13304 1−− 1[(1,1)2,1]1 6584 1−− 1[(1,1)2,1]1 19288 1−− 3[(1,1)0,1]1 13565 1−− 2[(1,1)0,1]1 6940 1−− 2[(1,1)0,1]1 19597 1−− 1[(1,1)2,1]1 12977 1−− 2[(1,1)2,1]1 6943 1−− 2[(1,1)2,1]1 19602 1−− 2[(1,1)2,1]1 13311 1−− 3[(1,1)0,1]1 7226 1−− 3[(1,1)0,1]1 19833 1−− 3[(1,1)2,1]1 13572 1−− 3[(1,1)2,1]1 7229 1−− 3[(1,1)2,1]1 19837 0−+ 1[(1,1)1,1]0 12976 0−+ 1[(1,1)1,1]0 6596 0−+ 1[(1,1)1,1]0 19288 0−+ 2[(1,1)1,1]0 13311 0−+ 2[(1,1)1,1]0 6953 0−+ 2[(1,1)1,1]0 19602 0−+ 3[(1,1)1,1]0 13571 0−+ 3[(1,1)1,1]0 7236 0−+ 3[(1,1)1,1]0 19837 1++ 1[(1,1)2,2]1 13206 1++ 1[(1,1)2,2]1 6827 1++ 1[(1,1)2,2]1 19512 1++ 2[(1,1)2,2]1 13480 1++ 2[(1,1)2,2]1 7125 1++ 2[(1,1)2,2]1 19759 1++ 3[(1,1)2,2]1 13710 1++ 3[(1,1)2,2]1 7380 1++ 3[(1,1)2,2]1 19963 2++ 1[(1,1)2,0]2 12614 2++ 1[(1,1)2,0]2 6246 2++ 1[(1,1)2,0]2 18900 2++ 1[(1,1)0,2]2 13204 2++ 1[(1,1)2,2]2 6827 2++ 1[(1,1)2,2]2 19510 2++ 1[(1,1)2,2]2 13204 2++ 1[(1,1)0,2]2 6827 2++ 1[(1,1)0,2]2 19510 2++ 2[(1,1)2,0]2 13101 2++ 2[(1,1)2,0]2 6739 2++ 2[(1,1)2,0]2 19398 2++ 2[(1,1)0,2]2 13478 2++ 2[(1,1)2,2]2 7125 2++ 2[(1,1)2,2]2 19757 2++ 2[(1,1)2,2]2 13478 2++ 2[(1,1)0,2]2 7126 2++ 2[(1,1)0,2]2 19758 2++ 3[(1,1)2,0]2 13412 2++ 3[(1,1)2,0]2 7071 2++ 3[(1,1)2,0]2 19688 2++ 3[(1,1)0,2]2 13708 2++ 3[(1,1)2,2]2 7380 2++ 3[(1,1)2,2]2 19961 2++ 3[(1,1)2,2]2 13708 2++ 3[(1,1)0,2]2 7380 2++ 3[(1,1)0,2]2 19962 and Mgs bbc =11.01 (12)GeV;(22) these states are described as S-wave quark-axial-vector diquark configurations, {c,c}band {b,b}c, with JP=1 2 + quantum numbers. For their radial excitations, we get Mre ccb =8.26 (13)GeV (23) and Mre bbc =11.53 (16)GeV.(24) Our results can be compared to those of previous studies [87–94]. The recent experimental observation of doublycharmed baryons [95,96] will pave the way, hopefully within a few years, for that of fully-heavy three-quark systems. Once experimental results for the fully-heavy baryons are 123 Eur. Phys. J. C (2020) 80:1004 Page 7 of 10 1004 Table 4 As Table 3,butforbc ¯ b¯cstates bc ¯ b¯cspectrum JPC N[(SD,S¯ D)S,L]JE th (MeV) JPC N[(SD,S¯ D)S,L]JE th (MeV) JPC N[(SD,S¯ D)S,L]JE th (MeV) 0++ 1[(1,1)0,0]0 12374 1++ 1[(1,0)1,0]1 12533 0−+ 1[(1,0)1,1]0 12922 0++ 1[(0,0)0,0]0 12521 1++ 1[(1,0)1,2]1 13154 0−+ 1[(1,1)1,1]0 12943 0++ 1[(1,1)2,2]0 13170 1++ 1[(1,1)2,2]1 13168 0−+ 2[(1,0)1,1]0 13250 0++ 2[(1,1)0,0]0 12975 1++ 2[(1,0)1,0]1 13036 0−+ 2[(1,1)1,1]0 13269 0++ 2[(0,0)0,0]0 13024 1++ 2[(1,0)1,2]1 13418 0−+ 3[(1,0)1,1]0 13501 0++ 2[(1,1)2,2]0 13433 1++ 2[(1,1)2,2]1 13432 0−+ 3[(1,1)1,1]0 13519 0++ 3[(1,1)0,0]0 13301 1++ 3[(1,0)1,0]1 13342 0++ 3[(0,0)0,0]0 13330 1++ 3[(1,0)1,2]1 13638 0++ 3[(1,1)2,2]0 13653 1++ 3[(1,1)2,2]1 13652 1−− 1[(0,0)0,1]1 12910 2++ 1[(1,1)2,0]2 12576 1+− 1[(1,1)1,0]1 12491 1−− 1[(1,0)1,1]1 12922 2++ 1[(0,0)0,2]2 13143 1+− 1[(1,0)1,0]1 12533 1−− 1[(1,1)0,1]1 12934 2++ 1[(1,1)2,2]2 13166 1+− 1[(1,0)1,2]1 13154 1−− 1[(1,1)2,1]1 12944 2++ 1[(1,1)0,2]2 13166 1+− 1[(1,1)1,2]1 13167 1−− 2[(0,0)0,1]1 13238 2++ 2[(1,1)2,0]2 13063 1+− 2[(1,1)1,0]1 13022 1−− 2[(1,0)1,1]1 13250 2++ 2[(0,0)0,2]2 13406 1+− 2[(1,0)1,0]1 13036 1−− 2[(1,1)0,1]1 13262 2++ 2[(1,1)2,2]2 13429 1+− 2[(1,0)1,2]1 13418 1−− 2[(1,1)2,1]1 13269 2++ 2[(1,1)0,2]2 13430 1+− 2[(1,1)1,2]1 13431 1−− 3[(0,0)0,1]1 13490 2++ 3[(1,1)2,0]2 13365 1+− 3[(1,1)1,0]1 13335 1−− 3[(1,0)1,1]1 13501 2++ 3[(0,0)0,2]2 13627 1+− 3[(1,0)1,0]1 13342 1−− 3[(1,1)0,1]1 13513 2++ 3[(1,1)2,2]2 13650 1+− 3[(1,0)1,2]1 13638 1−− 3[(1,1)2,1]1 13519 2++ 3[(1,1)0,2]2 13650 1+− 3[(1,1)1,2]1 13651 0−− 1[(1,0)1,1]0 12922 0−− 2[(1,0)1,1]0 13250 0−− 3[(1,0)1,1]0 13501 Table 5 ccc and bbb baryon spectra (up to the 2nd radial excitation), obtained by solving the eigenvalue problems of the Relativized QM (RQM) [13, Eqs. (2)] and relativized Diquark Model (RDM) [Eq. (1) herein] Hamiltonians. The values of the model parameters are extracted from [13, Table II] and Table 1, respectively. In the diquark model, the quark–diquark states are labelled as N(Sq,SD)S,L;JP. Here, Nis the radial quantum number; Sq,SDare the spin of the quark and diquark, respectively, coupled to the total spin of the baryon, S; the latter is coupled to the orbital angular momentum, L, to get the total angular momentum of the baryon, JP, with parity P.ForJP=1 2 +states, we have N(1 2,1)3 2,2;1 2 +;forJP=3 2 +states, we have N(1 2,1)3 2,0;3 2 +, where N=1,2,3. Our results are compared with those of lattice QCD calculations, Ref. [87]fortheccc sector and Ref. [88]forthebbb sector JPERQM ccc [MeV] ERDM ccc [MeV] ELAT ccc [MeV] JPERQM bbb [MeV] ERDM bbb [MeV] ELAT bbb [MeV] 1 2 +5438 5271 5395 ±13 1 2 +14926 14766 14938 ±15 ±16 1 2 +5784 5591 1 2 +15211 15028 14953 ±14 ±17 1 2 +6084 5865 1 2 +15451 15248 3 2 +4732 4655 4759 ±63 2 +14247 14158 14371 ±4±11 3 2 +5289 5169 5313 ±31 3 2 +14784 14652 14840 ±12 ±14 3 2 +5682 5524 5426 ±13 3 2 +15118 14956 14958 ±14 ±16 123 1004 Page 8 of 10 Eur. Phys. J. C (2020) 80:1004 released, the quality of the match between our predictions and the data will give indications on the validity of the diquark model approach and the possible existence of a baryon– meson dynamical supersymmetry. 4 Summary and perspective Adopting a perspective in which tetraquarks are viewed as states made up of elementary colour-antitriplet diquarks and colour-triplet antidiquarks and baryons as two-body quark– diquark configurations and using a well-constrained model Hamiltonian, built with relativistic kinetic energies, a onegluon exchange potential and linear confinement (Sect.2), we computed the masses of b¯ bq ¯q,bb ¯q¯q,cc¯c¯c,bb ¯ b¯ b,bc ¯ b¯c, bb¯c¯cstates and also fully-heavy QQQ baryons (Q=c or b) (Sect.3). The eigenvalue problems were solved using a numerical variational procedure in concert with harmonicoscillator trial wave functions. In each channel, we compared our prediction for the mass of the JPC =0++ tetraquark ground-state (including its theoretical error) with those of previous studies. Our results for the masses of 1++,2 ++, 0++ four-quark excited states, and so on, may be of help to the experimentalists in their search for a tetraquark signal in those channels which do not involve the decay of the 0++ ground-state tetraquark. Our predictions for QQQstates will be of use to the experimentalists as the recent experimental observation of doubly-charmed baryons [95,96] will pave the way, hopefully within a few years, for that of fully-heavy three-quark systems. Once experimental results for the fullyheavy baryons are released, the quality of the match between our predictions and the data will give indications on the validity of the diquark model approach and the possible emergence of a baryon–meson dynamical supersymmetry. While there is a large number of studies on the spectroscopy of tetraquark states, there are few investigations regarding their production [97–103] and principal decay modes [33,69,85,86,104–109]. Some progresses have been made. In this regard, one can notice that there is a big difference between resonances that can spontaneously dissociate into two mesons, and bound states that decay weakly (e.g., bb¯c¯c)[107] or by internal annihilation (e.g., bb ¯ b¯ b)[86]. We also observe that while the ϒis so narrow, O(50 keV), because of the Zweig rule, the fully-bground-state tetraquark case is different; see Ref. [86]. Indeed, in this second instance one can make use of a Fierz transformation to re-write the ground-state tetraquark wave function as a linear combination of (b¯ b)1(b¯ b)1and (b¯ b)8(b¯ b)8components [86,Eq. (7)], where the subscripts 1 and 8 indicate color-singlet and octet components, respectively. Then, a color-octet quark– antiquark component, (b¯ b)8, can couple to a gluon (or, in other words, annihilate into one), giving rise to the possibility of hadronic decays characterized by a relatively large, O(10 MeV), decay width [86]. Acknowledgements We are grateful for constructive comments from L. Maiani, P. Bicudo, Z.-F. Cui, G. Eichmann, A. Lovato and J. Segovia. Work supported by: CONACyT, México; INFN Sezione di Genova; Instituto de Física y Matemáticas, Universidad Michoacana de San Nicolás de Hidalgo, Morelia, Michoacán 58040, México; Jiangsu Province Hundred Talents Plan for Professionals; the Academy of Finland, Project No. 320062; and US Department of Energy, Office of Nuclear Physics, contract No. DE-FG-02-91ER-40608. Data Availability Statement This manuscript has no associated data or the data will not be deposited. [Authors’ comment: No data has been deposited. This was our choice. We have no explanation or comment about it.] Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article’s Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article’s Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecomm ons.org/licenses/by/4.0/. Funded by SCOAP3. References 1. M. Gell-Mann, Phys. Lett. 8, 214 (1964) 2. G. Zweig, An SU(3)model for strong interaction symmetry and its breaking. Parts 1 and 2 (CERN Reports No. 8182/TH. 401 and No. 8419/TH. 412) (1964) 3. D.B. Lichtenberg, Phys. Rev. 178, 2197 (1969) 4. D.B. Lichtenberg, E. Predazzi, D.H. Weingarten, J.G. Wills, Phys. Rev. D 18, 2569 (1978) 5. R.L. Jaffe, Phys. Rev. D 15, 267 (1977) 6. R.L. Jaffe, Phys. Rev. D 15, 281 (1977) 7. Y. Iwasaki, Prog. Theor. Phys. 54, 492 (1975) 8. L. Montanet, G.C. Rossi, G. Veneziano, Phys. Rep. 63, 149 (1980) 9. J.D. Weinstein, N. Isgur, Phys. Rev. D 27, 588 (1983) 10. K.T. Chao, Z. Phys. C 7, 317 (1981) 11. L. Heller, J.A. Tjon, Phys. Rev. D 32, 755 (1985) 12. R. Aaij et al. [LHCb Collaboration], Observation of structure in the J/ψ-pair mass spectrum. arXiv:2006.16957 13. S. Godfrey, N. Isgur, Phys. Rev. D 32, 189 (1985) 14. E. Eichten, K. Gottfried, T. Kinoshita, K.D. Lane, T.-M. Yan, Phys. Rev. D 17, 3090 (1978) [Erratum: Phys. Rev. D 21, 313 (1980)] 15. M.R. Pennington, D.J. Wilson, Phys. Rev. D 76, 077502 (2007) 16. P.G. Ortega, J. Segovia, D.R. Entem, F. Fernandez, Phys. Rev. D 81, 054023 (2010) 17. P.G. Ortega, D.R. Entem, F. Fernandez, J. Phys. G 40, 065107 (2013) 18. J. Ferretti, G. Galatà, E. Santopinto, A. Vassallo, Phys. Rev. C 86, 015204 (2012) 19. J. Ferretti, G. Galatà, E. Santopinto, Phys. Rev. C 88, 015207 (2013) 123