Comment on “Tetraquarks as diquark–antidiquark bound systems”

M R Hadizadeh

doi:10.1140/epjc/s10052-015-3484-8

Abstract

The author argues that the calculated masses of heavy tetraquarks obtained by solution of the spin-independent homogeneous Lippmann-Schwinger integral equation in a diquark-antidiquark picture reported by M. Monemzadeh et al., Phys. Lett. B {\bf741}, 124 (2015), are incorrect. We have reexamined all of the published results and we believe that not only the reported tetraquark masses for states with zero total angular momentum are incorrect, the reported masses for states with non-zero total angular momentum are quite misleading, because these states cannot be predicted by a spin-independent formalism.

Highlights

In a recent letter by Monemzadeh et al [1], the tetraquark bound state is studied as a two-body problem in a diquark– antidiquark picture
Our calculated masses are all larger than the predicted results of Ref. [3], which are obtained from a solution of the relativistic and spin-dependent LS integral equation in momentum space
The reported results in Ref. [1] cannot be trusted, because, as shown in Table 1, the J = 0 states are not calculated correctly, they have reported the masses for nonzero J states, like S A√±ASand A A, which cannot be obtained in this formalism. It is a serious challenge and the authors should clarify how this spin-independent formalism can distinguish different spin states and the solution of spin-independent LS integral equation can predict the masses of tetraquarks with non-zero total angular momentum

Summary

Introduction

In a recent letter by Monemzadeh et al [1], the tetraquark bound state is studied as a two-body problem in a diquark– antidiquark picture. The corresponding equation in the published letter [1] (i.e. Eq 2 and Eqs. 4, 9 and 11) is missing a factor of (2π )−1.5, which must be a typo, because our numerical analysis demonstrates that missing this factor leads to completely unreasonable tetraquark masses.1 In order to study tetraquark bound states, the spinindependent part of the diquark–antidiquark potential given in Ref.

Results

Conclusion