Quantum numbers of the pentaquark states Extra close brace or missing open brace via symmetry analysis

Chong-yao Chen,Muyang Chen,Yu-Xin Liu

Communications in Theoretical Physics ›› 2020, Vol. 72 ›› Issue (12) : 125202.

PDF(261 KB)
Welcome to visit Communications in Theoretical Physics, April 4, 2025
PDF(261 KB)
Communications in Theoretical Physics ›› 2020, Vol. 72 ›› Issue (12) : 125202. DOI: 10.1088/1572-9494/abb7cd
Particle Physics and Quantum Field Theory

Quantum numbers of the pentaquark states Extra close brace or missing open brace via symmetry analysis

Author information +
History +

Abstract

We investigate the quantum numbers of the pentaquark states Pc+, which are composed of 4 (three flavors) quarks and an antiquark, by analyzing their inherent nodal structure in this paper. Assuming that the four quarks form a tetrahedron or a square, and the antiquark is at the ground state, we determine the nodeless structure of the states with orbital angular moment L ≤ 3, and in turn, the accessible low-lying states. Since the inherent nodal structure depends only on the inherent geometric symmetry, we propose the quantum numbers JP of the low-lying pentaquark states Pc+ may be 32, 52, 32+and 52+, independent of dynamical models.

Key words

pentaquark states / exotic hadrons / color confinement / symmetry analysis

Cite this article

Download Citations
Chong-yao Chen, Muyang Chen, Yu-Xin Liu. Quantum numbers of the pentaquark states Pc+ via symmetry analysis[J]. Communications in Theoretical Physics, 2020, 72(12): 125202 https://doi.org/10.1088/1572-9494/abb7cd

1. Introduction

Searching for the multiquark states has attracted great attention for more than four decades [1-7]. Analyzing the J/ψp resonances in experiments at the LHCb indicates that there exist pentaquark states including heavy quarks (c and c¯) [8]. One of the two resonances has a mass of 4380 ± 8 ± 29MeV and a width of 205 ± 18 ± 86 MeV, and another has a mass of 4449.8 ± 1.7 ± 2.5 MeV and a width of 39 ± 5 ± 19 MeV. They are proposed to hold opposite parity, with one state having spin 3/2 and the other 5/2. Even though quite a lot of theoretical investigations have been accomplished consequently (see for example, [9-29], for reviews, see [3, 4]), the concrete spin and parity have not yet been well-assigned to the two states. Recently the pentaquark states have been updated as 4312 MeV with a width about 9.8 MeV, 4440 MeV with a width about 20.6 MeV and 4457 MeV with a width about 6.4 MeV [30], and the quantum numbers of the states have not yet been determined either [31], although many theoretical works have tried to shed light on this. For instance, by considering the states with molecular structure, the quantum numbers are proposed as JP=12,12,32 (or 52) (see for example [32-39]), or 12(or 32) and excited states with JP=12 [40], which are not consistent with those proposed in reference [41]. Furthermore, stringently speaking, pentaquark states refer to the color singlets composed of 4 quarks and 1 antiquark. In such a compact pentaquark scenario, their quantum numbers are proposed as JP=32,12,32 via considering the uncertainty and the rearrangement decay properties (see, e.g., reference [42]). Since fundamental calculation for the pentaquark states via QCD is not available at the present stage, we investigate the quantum numbers by analyzing the symmetry, more explicitly the intrinsic nodal structure, of the color singlets including 4 three flavor quarks and 1 antiquark in this paper.
The remainder of this paper is organized as follows: in section 2, we give a classification of the wave functions of the pentaquark states according to the symmetries of the quarks. Then in section 3 we assume that the 4 quarks form a tetrahedron or a square and analyze the nodeless structure of the states with orbital angular momentum L ≤ 3, in turn, proposing the quantum numbers of the pentaquark states. Finally, we give our conclusion and some remarks in the last section.

2. Structure of the wave functions

It has been known that the wave functions of few-body systems can usually be written as a coupling of the orbital part and an internal part, and the inherent nodal surface (INS) analysis approach is quite powerful to assign the quantum numbers to a system (see, e.g., references [43-46]). One can definitely take the INS analysis approach to investigate the pentaquark states (q4q¯ systems) at the quark model level since they are typically few-body systems. Since quarks and antiquarks can never identified with each other, there does not exist antisymmetric restrictions on the wave function when interchanging a quark with the antiquark. However, if we consider only the 4 quarks, it should be antisymmetric, i.e. it has the symmetry [14], if we ignore the current quark mass difference. Considering the system of the 4 quarks involve three flavors (e.g., uudc, uuds, uudb, and so on), one knows well that the system possesses the internal symmetry SUCFS(18)SUC(3)SUF(3)SUS(2). Meanwhile the orbital part holds the symmetry of the permutation group S4. Let [f]O, [f]C and [f]FS be the irreducible representation (IRREP) of the groups associated with the orbital, the color and the flavor-spin space, respectively, we should have
[14][f]O[f]C[f]FS.
(1)
The lack of experimental observation of free ‘color charge' indicates that all the hadronic states should be SU(3) color-singlets. For the qqqqq¯ system, the IRREP of the SU(3) color space should be [222]. Consequently, we have the IRREP of the color part of the 4-quark system as [f]C=[211]. Then [f]O ⨂ [f]FS should be [3 1], which is the conjugate of [211]. In turn, the configuration of [f]O and [f]FS can be fixed with the reduction principle of the direct product of the IRREPs of the unitary group.
The obtained possible [f]FS and the corresponding [f]O are listed in table 1. Corresponding to each IRREP [f]FS, the flavor and spin decomposition of the three flavors q4 state and the q4q¯ state have been given in reference [47]. We recall them here in tables 2 and 3.
Table 1. IRREPs of the flavor-spin symmetry corresponding to each possible orbital symmetry.
[f]O [f]FS
[4] [31]
[31] [4], [31], [22], [211]
[22] [31], [211]
[211] [31], [22], [211], [1111]
[1111] [211]
Table 2. Spin-flavor decomposition of the three flavor q4 states (taken from reference [47]. The subscripts stand for the dimensions of the IRREP).
[f]O SUFS(6) SUF(3) SUS(2)
[4] [4]126 [4]15 [4]5
[31]15 [31]3
[22]6 [22]1

[31] [31]210 [4]15 [31]3
[31]15 [4]5
[31]15 [31]3
[31]15 [22]1
[22]6 [31]3
[211]3 [22]1
[211]3 [31]3

[22] [22]105 [4]15 [22]1
[31]15 [31]3
[22]6 [4]5
[22]6 [22]1
[211]3 [31]3

[211] [211]105 [31]15 [31]3
[31]15 [22]1
[22]6 [31]3
[211]3 [4]5
[211]3 [31]3
[211]3 [22]1

[1111] [1111]15 [22]6 [22]1
[211]3 [31]3
Table 3. Spin-flavor decomposition of the q4q¯ states (taken from reference [47]. The subscripts stand for the dimensions of the IRREP).
[f]O SUsf(6) SUf(3) SUs(2)
[4] [51111]700 [51]35 [5]6
[51]35 [41]4
[42]27 [41]4
[42]27 [32]2
[33]10 [32]2
[411]10 [5]6
[411]10 [41]4
[411]10 [32]2
[321]8 [41]4
[321]8 [32]2

[4] + [31] [411111]56 [411]10 [41]4
[321]8 [32]2

[31] [42111]1134 [51]35 [41]4
[51]35 [32]2
[42]27 [5]6
2([42]27 [41]4)
2([42]27 [32]2)
[33]10 [41]4
[33]10 [32]2
[411]10 [5]6
2([411]10 [41]4)
2([411]10 [32]2)
[321]8 [5]6
2([321]8 [41]4)
2([321]8 [32]2)
[222]1 [41]4
[222]1 [32]2
[f]O SUsf(6) SUf(3) SUs(2)

[31] + [22] + [211] [321111]70 [411]10 [32]2
[321]8 [41]4
[321]8 [32]2
[222]1 [32]2

[22] [33111]560 [51]35 [32]2
[42]27 [41]4
[42]27 [32]2
[33]10 [5]6
[33]10 [41]4
[33]10 [32]2
[411]10 [41]4
[411]10 [32]2
[321]8 [5]6
2([321]8 [41]4)
2([321]8 [32]2)
[222]1 [41]4

[211] [3211]540 [42]7 [41]4
2([42]7 [32]2
[33]10 [41]4
[33]10 [32]2
[411]10 [41]4
[411]10 [32]2
[321]8 [5]6
2([321]8 [41]4)
2([321]8 [32]2)
[222]1 [5]6
[222]1 [41]4
[222]1 [32]2

[211] + [1111] [222111]20 [321]8 [32]2
[222]1 [41]4

[1111] [22221]70 [33]10 [32]2
[321]8 [41]4
[321]8 [32]2
[222]1 [32]2
It is obvious that such an orbital and flavor-spin configuration space is very large. Therefore we should pick out the significant ones for the low-lying pentaquark states.

3. Inherent nodal structure analysis

From tables 1-3 we can notice that, given an IRREP of the orbital wave function, we can deduce the corresponding flavor and spin part of the wave function. Generally, the orbital wave function depends on the geometric configuration and the dynamics, or, in the present article, we should say models. In this section, we analyze the structure of the wave functions of the pentaquark states independent of dynamical models.
The zero points for the wave function are known as nodes. The locus for the nodes is a surface, i.e. the nodal surface, in configuration space. For usual bound states of a quantum system, the fewer nodes the configuration contains, the lower energy the state has. The dynamical nodal surface depends on the dynamics of the system, while the INS relies only on the inherent geometric configuration of the system.
Let A be a geometric configuration in the coordinate space of a quantum system, and let Oi^ be an element of the operation on the wave function F(A), we have
Oi^F(A)=F(Oi^A).
(2)
If the operation Oi^ leaves the configuration A invariant, i.e. Oi^A=A, the above equation becomes
Oi^F(A)=F(A).
(3)
If there do not exist common non-zero solutions for the wave functions governed by equation (3), all the F(A) must be zero at the configuration A, then a nodal surface appears.
The wave function of the 4 quarks with total angular momentum J and parity π can be written as
Ψ=L,S,λΨLπλS,
(4)
with
ΨLπλS=i,M,MSCLM,SMSJ,MJFLMπλiχSMSλi~,
(5)
where FLMπλi is a function of the spatial coordinates, λ denotes an IRREP of the S4 group, and i indexes the basis vectors of that IRREP. L and S are the total orbital angular momentum and the total spin of the 4 quarks, respectively. They couple to form J via the reduction principle of SU(2)SU(2)SU(2), i.e, CLM,SMSJ,MJ is the Clebsch-Gordan coefficient where M, MS and MJ are the Z-components of L, S and J, respectively. The parity of the 4-quark cluster is given by π=(1)L, and the total parity of the pentaquark state P=π=(1)L+1 since the antiquark holds an instinct negative parity. χSMSλi~ is the wave function of the inner space, belonging to the λi~-representation, the conjugate of λi. FLMπλi spans a representation of the direct product of the rotation group, the space inversion group and the permutation group S4. Thus the transformation property of FLMπλi with respect to the operations in terms of the above groups is prescribed, which will impose a very strong constraint on FLMπλi.
We assume that the 4 quarks form an equilateral tetrahedron (ETH) or a square, which is illustrated in figure 1. We determine all the accessible configurations with L ≤ 3, extending the results of reference [48]. For the case of the ETH, we denote O as the center of the 4 quarks, i^,j^,k^ form the frame, and r12k^, r34k^. Referring to Rδν as a rotation about the axis along the vector ν by an angle δ, pij as an interchange of the particles i and j, pijk and pijkl as permutation among the 3 and 4 particles, and P^ as a space inversion, the ETH is evidently invariant to the operations:
O^1=p12p34Rπk^,
(6)
O^2=p34Rπj^P^,
(7)
O^3=p1423Rπ/2k^P^,
(8)
O^4=p243R2π/3n^.
(9)
Inserting each of these operators into equation (3), we have a set of equations,
(O^iE)FLMπλj(A)=0.
(10)
FLMπλj(A) is the orbital wave function in the body frame, E is the identity matrix, j and M denote the constituent of λ and L. Equations (6)-(9) are the equations that FLMπλj(A) has to fulfill. They are homogeneous linear algebraic equations. If they have common non-zero solutions, we have a nodeless structure. The representations of the permutation group S4 and the rotation group are represented in tables 4 and 5 where we just show those for L = 1 as an example. The equations can be solved easily. The obtained results are shown in table 6, where A denotes the accessible configuration (holds nodeless structure) and ‘−' stands for the inaccessible configuration.
Figure 1. Left panel: body frame illustration of the equilateral tetradedron (ETH) configuration. Right panel: body frame illustration of the square.

Full size|PPT slide

Table 4. IRREPs of the permutation group S4 under the standard basis.
[4] p12 = p23 = p34 = p1423 = p243 = p1324 = 1,
[31] p12=(100110101), p23=(010100001), p34=(100001010),
p1423=(011001101), p243=(001100010), p1324=(011110010),

[22] p12=(1011), p23=(0110), p34=(1011),
p1423=(1011), p243=(1110), p1324=(1011),

[211] p12=(100110101), p23=(010100001), p34=(100001010),
p1423=(011001101), p243=(001100010), p1324=(011110010),

[1111] p12 = p23 = p34 = p1423 = p1324 = − 1,p243 = 1.
Table 5. IRREPs of the rotation group, j is the angular moment, m1 and m2 denote the rows and columns of the matrix, α, β, γ is the Eulerian angular.
Dm1,m2j(α,β,γ) =k(1)k(j+m1)!(jm1)!(j+m2)!(jm2)!exp(iαm1iγm2)sin2km1+m2(β2)cos2j2k+m1m2(β2)k!(jk+m1)!(jkm2)!(km1+m2)!
L = 1 Rπk^=D(0,0,π)=(100010001), Rπj^=D(0,π,0)=(001010100), Rπ/2k^=D(0,0,π/2)=(i0001000i),
R2π/3n^=D(0,θ,0)D(2π/3,θ,0)=(i/21/2+i/21/21/2+i/201/2+i/21/21/2+i/2i/2), θ=Arccos(13).
Table 6. Obtained accessibility of the ETH configuration and the square configuration to the (Lπλ) and related configurations of the wave functions.
Lπ [4] [31] [22] [211] [1111]
ETH 0+ A A
1 A A A A
2+ A A A A A
3 A A A A A

ETH3 0+ A A A
1 A A A A
2+ A A A A A
3 A A A A A

Square 0+ A A
1 A A
2+ A A A A A
3 A A

Square3 0+ A A A A
1 A A
2+ A A A A A
3 A A -
It is believed that the wave functions are strongly constrained at the ETH configuration, however they are less constrained in the neighborhood of the ETH, since it holds the highest symmetry. To check such an idea, we have performed calculations where the shape in the left panel of figure 1 is invariant under the operations O^1, O^2 and O^3, but not O^4. The obtained results are listed as those marked with ETH3 in table 6. It shows apparently that all the configurations accessible to the ETH are definitely accessible to ETH3, and more nodeless configurations are allowed for ETH3.
For the case of the 4 quarks forming a square, the operations for the configuration to be invariant are
O^1=p12p34P^,
(11)
O^2=Rπk^P^,
(12)
O^3=p34Rπj^,
(13)
O^4=p1324Rπ/2k^.
(14)
Inserting them into equation (3), we get another set of equations as equation (10). The obtained accessible configuration of (Lπλ) and the IRREPs of the S4 group of the wave functions are listed as those marked as ‘square' in table 6. In the neighborhood of the square, for example, prolonged along the j^-direction, it is still invariant under O^1, O^2 and O^3, but not O^4. The accessible configurations are also given in table 6 marked ‘square3'. It is evident that the square-accessible component is inherently nodeless in the neighborhood of the square.
Combining tables 2 and 6 one can get the number of accessible (nodeless) states J4π=LπS with orbital angular momentum L ≤ 3. The obtained results are listed in table 7.
Table 7. Obtained number of the accessible (nodeless) states JP with orbital angular momentum L ≤ 3 of the ETH configuration and square configuration of the 4-quark system and the corresponding less restricted ones.
Configuration 0+ 0 1+ 1 2+ 2 3+ 3 4+ 4 5+ 5
ETH 7 10 19 22 25 28 15 26 4 15 0 4
square 7 7 18 15 25 19 15 17 4 10 0 2
ETH3 9 10 21 22 26 28 15 26 4 15 0 4
square3 11 7 25 15 27 19 15 17 4 10 0 2
Considering the fact that, for usual bound states of the quantum system, the fewer nodes the configuration contains, the lower energy the state has, one can recognize that Jπ of the lowest energy state involving 4 quarks with three flavors is J4π=2+ (the accessible number is 50). While that of the second and the third lowest states are 2and 3 (the accessible numbers are 47 and 43, respectively). If the symmetry of the configurations are less constrained, such as those for ETH3 and square3, the result almost stays the same (the accessible numbers become 53, 47 and 46, respectively, but J4π of the third lowest changes to 1+).
In our scheme regarding pentaquark states, we notice that the Pc+ states are composed of a 4-quark cluster involving a c-quark (uudc) and an antiquark c¯ at the ground state. The total spin and the parity of the Pc+ states should be JP(Pc+)=J4π(uudc)12(c¯){32,52,32+,52+}. Since the c-quark is much heavier than the u- and d-quarks, we can assume that the interaction between the cluster and the c¯-quark is similar to that between the c- and c¯-quarks. In view of heavy quark interaction, the energy sequence (from lower to higher) of the doublet with mainly J4π=2±, is {32,52}, {32+,52+}, respectively. Taking the fact that the spin-orbital splitting is proportional to the orbital angular momentum into consideration, one can assign the energy sequence of the JP states to 32, 52, 32+, 52+.
It should also be mentioned that the pentaquark states do not appear as geometric tetrahedrons or squares. It is well known that a microscopic particle is in fact the quantization of a quantum field, or simply a quantum wave. The ETH configuration of the state will then appear as a spheroid, the deformed tetrahedron (for example that corresponding to the ETH3) will appear as a pear, and the state with square configuration (Square3) will display as an oblate ellipsoid (prolate ellipsoid). In this sense the pentaquark states may have finite quadruple moment or dipole moment. Then measuring the electromagnetic property of the pentaquark states could assign the configuration of the states.

4. Summary and remarks

In summary, by analyzing the symmetry, more concretely the inherent nodal structure, of the system including 4 quarks involving three flavors, we show dynamical model independently that the quantum numbers of the lowest-lying pentaquark states Pc+ could mainly be JP=32 with orbital angular momentum L = 2. The quantum numbers of the other two low-lying pentaquark states Pc could be JP=32+, 52+. And there may exist another Pc pentaquark state with JP=52, which may be observed by analyzing the structure of the peak around 4312 MeV. More experiments or analyzing the existing experiments with broader viewpoints (see, e.g., references [49, 50]) are then expected.
It is finally remarkable that our present results seem only valid for the pentaquark states without molecular structures, namely no color singlet 3-quark states and meson-like states. In fact we could not rule out the molecular structure, since we have not constrained the location of the antiquark in our analysis. If the antiquark locates at the center of the configurations that the 4 quarks formed or on the line perpendicular to the ‘plane' formed by the 4 quarks (the balance of the interactions between the antiquark and each of the quark may result in such features), a molecular structure really may not be involved. If the antiquark does not locate at the center or the 4 quarks' configuration is deformed, the antiquark may form a meson-like state with the quark closing to it, and the other 3 quarks may form a baryon. In this sense the molecular structure emerges. Anyway, our present result is a qualitative result based upon symmetry analysis. Taking the presently assigned configuration and the obtained results into dynamical model calculations can apparently help to reduce the load of numerical calculation tasks. In addition, the work analyzing the inherent nodal structure of the pentaquark states with molecular configurations will be given in a future article.

References

1
Jaffe R L 1977 Phys. Rev. Lett. 38 195
2
Jaffe R L 2005 Phys. Rept. 409 1
3
Hicks K 2015 Phys. 8 77
4
Chen H X Chen W Liu X Zhu S L 2016 Phys. Rept. 639 1
Liu Y R Chen H X Chen W Liu X Zhu S L 2019 Prog. Part. Nucl. Phys. 107 237
5
Esposito A Pilloni A Plosa A D 2017 Phys. Rept. 668 1
6
Olsen S L Skwarnicki T Zieminska D 2018 Rev. Mod. Phys. 90 015003
7
Guo F K Hanhart C Meissner U-G Wang Q Zhao Q Zou B S 2018 Rev. Mod. Phys. 90 015004
8
Aaij R (LHCb collaboration) 2015 Phys. Rev. Lett. 115 072001
9
Chen R Liu X Li X Q Zhu S L 2015 Phys. Rev. Lett. 115 132002
10
Chen H X Chen W Liu X Steele T G Zhu S L 2015 Phys. Rev. Lett. 115 172001
11
Kubarovsky V Voloshin M B 2015 Phys. Rev. D 92 031502(R)
12
Wang Q Liu X H Zhao Q 2015 Phys. Rev. D 92 034022
13
Scoccola N N Riska D O Rho M 2015 Phys. Rev. D 92 051501(R)
14
Guo F K Meissner U-G Wang W Yang Z 2015 Phys. Rev. D 92 071502(R)
15
Roca L Nieves J Oset E 2015 Phys. Rev. D 92 094003
16
Mironov A Morozov A 2015 JETP Lett. 102 271
17
Maiani L Polosa A D Riquer V 2015 Phys. Lett. B 749 289
18
Lebed R F 2015 Phys. Lett. B 749 454
19
Meissner U-G Oller J A 2015 Phys. Lett. B 751 59
20
Hsiao Y K Geng C Q 2015 Phys. Lett. B 751 572
21
Li G N He X G He M 2015 J. High Energy Phys. JHEP12(2015)128
22
Karliner M Rosner J L 2016 Phys. Lett. B 752 329
23
He J 2016 Phys. Lett B 753 547
24
Liu X H Wang Q Zhao Q 2016 Phys. Lett. B 757 231
25
Mikhasenko M arXiv:1507.06552
26
Anisovich V V Matveev M A Nyiri J Sarantsev A V Semenova A N arXiv:1507.07652
27
Wang Z G 2016 Eur. Phys. J. C 76 70
28
Wang Z G Huang T 2016 Eur. Phys. J. C 76 43
29
Ghosh R Bhattacharya A Chakrabarti B 2017 Phys. Part. Nucl. Lett. 14 550
30
Aaij R (LHCb collaboration) 2019 Phys. Rev. Lett. 122 222001
31
Fernández-Ramírez C Pilloni A Albaladejo M Jackura A Mathieu V Mikhasenko M Silva-Castro J A Szczepaniak A P 2019 Phys. Rev. Lett. 123 092001
32
Liu M Z Pan Y W Peng F Z Sánchez M S Geng L S Hosaka A Valderrama M P 2019 Phys. Rev. Lett. 122 242001
33
Guo F K Jing H J Meissner U-G Sakai S 2019 Phys. Rev. D 99 091501(R)
34
Chen R Sun Z F Liu X Zhu S L 2019 Phys. Rev. D 100 011502(R)
35
Xiao C J Huang Y Dong Y B Geng L S Chen D Y 2019 Phys. Rev. D 100 014022
36
Meng L Wang B Wang G J Zhu S L 2019 Phys. Rev. D 100 014031
37
Chen H X Chen W Zhu S L 2019 Phys. Rev. D 100 051501(R)
38
Lin Y H Zou B S 2019 Phys. Rev. D 100 056005
39
Sakai S Jing H J Guo F K 2019 Phys. Rev. D 100 074007
40
Zhu R L Liu X J Huang H X Qiao C F 2019 Phys. Lett. B 797 134869
41
Winney D Fanelli C Pilloni A Hiller Blin A N Fernández-Ramírez C Albaladejo M Mathieu V Mokeev V I Szczepaniak A P 2019 Phys. Rev. D 100 034019
42
Cheng J B Liu Y R 2019 Phys. Rev. D 100 054002
43
Bao C G Lin C D 1995 Phys. Rev. A 52 3586
Bao C G 1997 Phys. Rev. Lett. 79 3475
44
Bao C G Liu Y X 1999 Phys. Rev. Lett. 82 61
45
Liu Y X Li J S Bao C G 2002 Phys. Lett. B 544 280
46
Liu Y X Li J S Bao C G 2003 Phys. Rev. C 67 055207
47
Bijker R Giannini M M Santopinto E 2004 Eur. Phys. J. A 22 319
48
Liu Y X Li J S Bao C G arXiv:hep-ph/0401197
49
Voloshin M B 2019 Phys. Rev. D 100 034020
50
Wang X Y He J Chen X R Wang Q J Zhu X M 2019 Phys. Lett. B 797 134869

Acknowledgments

This work was supported by the National Natural Science Foundation of China under Contracts No. 11435001, No. 11775041, and the National Key Basic Research Program of China under Contract No. 2015CB856900.

RIGHTS & PERMISSIONS

© 2020 Institute of Theoretical Physics CAS, Chinese Physical Society and IOP Publishing
PDF(261 KB)

240

Accesses

0

Citation

1

Altmetric

Detail

Sections
Recommended

/