1 / 47

X Y (but not Z) states, experimental overview

This document provides an overview of the experimental measurements and observations of X and Y mesons in the .XY. states, focusing on decay to final states with a cc pair and Sqi=0. It covers topics such as the decay of X(3872) to Kp+p-J/y, Y(4260) and y' states, and the new measurements from Belle and BaBar experiments. The document also discusses the controversies and different cc assignments for the X(3915), X(3940), and X(4160) states.

cathym
Télécharger la présentation

X Y (but not Z) states, experimental overview

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. XY (but not Z) states, experimental overview Stephen L. Olsen University of Hawai’i (member: BES & Belle expts)

  2. (Decay to final states with a cc pair & Sqi=0 ) X & Y mesons X(3872) BKp+p-J/y Y(4260) y’ Belle BaBar e+e-gISRp+p-J/y Belle X(3872) Y(4008)? M(p+p-J/y)-M(J/y) Belle Y(3940) BaBar M(p+p-J/y) BKwJ/y Y(4350) & Y(4660) e+e-gISRp+p-y’ BaBar Belle M(wJ/y) M(wJ/y) M(p+p-y’) X(4160) X(3940) Y(4140) Y(4630) e+e-DD*J/y e+e-D*D*J/y e+e-gISRLcLc Belle CDF Belle Belle BKfJ/y M(LcLc) M(DD*) M(D*D*) M(fJ/y)

  3. Neutral cc X & Y mesons

  4. What’s new? • Belle sees a ggwJ/y peak @ ~3915 MeV • New to this meeting • Belle measurements of s(e+e- D*Dp) • New to this meeting (G. Pakhlova’s Thurs talk) • CDF evidence for Y(4140)fJ/y • Moriond QCD Kay Yi’s talk this session • Z(4430)+p+y’; Z1(4050)+ & Z2(4250)+p+cc1 • controversy? Chistov & Patrigani in the next session • BaBar results for X(3872)gJ/y & gy’ • Mass measurements from CDF & Belle

  5. The states near 3940 MeV-circa 2005- probably different not seen in wJ/y not seen in DD* Probably the cc2’ X(3940) Y(3940) Z(3930) gg DD e+e- J/y DD* BKwJ/y M(wJ/y) M(DD) M(DD*) M = 3929±5±2 MeV Gtot = 29±10±2 MeV Nsig =64 ± 18evts M≈3940 ± 11 MeV G≈ 92 ± 24 MeV M = 3942 +7± 6 MeV Gtot = 37 +26 ±12 MeV Nsig =52 +24 ± 11evts -6 -15 -16 PRL 96, 082003 PRL94, 182002 (2005) PRL 100, 202001

  6. Y(3940) confirmed by BaBar B±K±wJ/y B0KSwJ/y ratio M(wJ/y) PRL 101, 082001 Some discrepancy in M & G; general features agree

  7. New Belle peak in ggwJ/y undetected l+ X J/y l- p+ w p0 p- undetected

  8. M(p+p-p0)vs M(l+l-) J/yl+l- • 4 trks (1 lepton, no kaons) • Sqi=0 • 1 p0  select best one • veto y’p+p-J/y • W<4.3 GeV • SpT<0.1GeV • … wp+p-p0 M(p+p-p0) GeV M(l+l-) GeV

  9. SpTvs W cut M: 3914  3  2MeV, G: 23  10 +2-8 MeV, Nres = 55  14 +2-14 events Signif. = 7.7s, 7.7s preliminary

  10. The 4 states near 3940 Mass(GeV) Range: (s(stat.)+s(sys.)) Y(3940) Belle X(3940) Z(3930) Good overlap with BaBar “Y(3940)” values This X(3915) Width(GeV)

  11. Could it be the Z(3930)? Seems unlikely

  12. Ggg partial width GggB(wJ/y) = 69  16 +7eV (JP=0+) -18 GggB(wJ/y) = 21  4 +2 eV (JP=2+) -5 For comparison: Z(3930): GggB(DD) = 180  50±30 eV Bf(cc2’wJ/y) Bf(cc2’DD) If X(3915) = Z(3930) = cc2’  0.08 Huge for above-open-charm-threshold charmonium

  13. cc assignments forX(3915), X(3940) & X(4160)? hc’’’ 4160MeV hc” cc0’ 3940MeV 3915MeV • Y(3915) = cco’? G(wJ/y) too large? • X(3940) = hc”?  mass too low? • X(4160) = hc’’’?  mass way too low?

  14. + J/ - primary vertex secondary vertex Lxy +  - B+ + Particle Identification (Kaon LLR) Vertex separation Y(4140) from CDF arXiv:0903.2229 Kai Yi’s talk in This session M: 4143.0  2.9  1.2MeV, G: 11.7 +8.3-5± 3.7MeV, Nres = 14  5events Signif. > 3.8s M=m(+-K+K-)-m(+-)

  15. comment on JPC of the X(3872)

  16. Fit toM(pp)favorsL = 0  hep-ex/0505038 PRL96,102002(2006) JPC values from CDF & Belle JPC = 1++ CDF: PRL 98 132002 JPC = 1++ or 2-+

  17. BaBar: X(3872) gJ/y & gy’ B+K+gJ/y 3.6s 1++ g J/y or gy’  Allowed E1 2-+  gJ/y or gy’  Suppressed E2 M(gJ/y) JPC = 1++ favored over 2-+ B+K+gy’ 3.5s NB: Molecular models have trouble with X(3872)gy’ Swanson PLB 598, 192 (2004) PRL 102,132001 M(gy’)

  18. Is there a cc assignment for X(3872) ? cc1’ hc2 ?? ?? 3872MeV • Mass is too low • especially if cc0=3915 & cc2=3930 • cc1’ppJ/y violates Ispin • Bf(X3872ppJ/y)>4% • G(gJ/y) should be >>G(rJ/y) • expt: G(gJ/y) <<G(rJ/y) • Mass is okay • hc2ppJ/y violates Ispin • Should be ,, hc2 pphc • G(gJ/y) should be tiny • BKhc2 is suppressed

  19. the 1-- Y states Y(4260) Y(4350) & Y(4660) BaBar e+e-gISRp+p-J/y e+e-gISRp+p-y’ BaBar Belle Belle Y(4008)? M(p+p-J/y) GeV M(p+p-y’) GeV e+e-gISRLcLc at least 3, maybe 5 Y(4630) Belle M(LcLc)

  20. Only 1 unassigned 1-- cc level predicted measured

  21. If not charmoniumwhat else?

  22. --many proposals-- • L Maiani et al • PRD 71,014028 (2005) • T-W Chiu & TH Hsieh • PRD 73, 111503 (2006) • D Ebert et al • PLB 634, 214 (2006) • … • NA Tornqvist • PLB 590, 209 (2004) • ES Swanson • PLB 598,197 (2004) • E Braaten & T Kusunoki • PRD 69 074005 (2004) • CY Wong • PRC 69, 055202 (2004) • MB Voloshin • PLB 579, 316 (2004) • F Close & P Page • PLB 578,119 (2004) • X Liu • arXiv 0708..4167 • … • P Lacock et al (UKQCD) • PLB 401, 308 (1997) • SL Zhu • PLB 625, 212 (2005) • FE Close, PR Page • PLB 628, 215 (2005) • E Kou, O Pene • PLB 631, 164 (2005) • … _ cc-gluon hybrid • Etc: • hadro-charmonium • threshold effects • … c c • C Meng & KT Chao • PRD 75, 114002 (2007) • W Dunwoodie & V Ziegler • PRL 100 062006 (2008) • O Zhang, C Meng & HQ Zheng • arXiv:0901.1553 • … • S Dubynski et al • PLB 666,344 (2008) • FK Guo et al • PLB 665, 26 (2008) • DV Bugg • arXiv+0709.1254 • … modified charmonium

  23. Model features diquark-diantiquarks Expect SU(3) multiplets cc-gluon hybrids LQCD: M>~4.3 GeV Open charm thresh =MD+MD**4285 (above Y4260 peak) Non-zero charges are not allowed D(*)D(*) molecules (real or virtual) masses should be near M(D(*))+M(D(*)) mass thresholds • Etc. • hadro-charmonium • light hadron-charmonium • bound states • threshold effects • …

  24. D(*)D(*) Molecules? masses should be near M(D(*))+M(D(*)) mass thresholds Favored model for the X(3872) Lots of literature on this, some very detailed (& some prior to the X(3872) discovery)

  25. X(3872) Mass-- in ppJ/y channel only -- 2 new measurements Belle Avg: MX(3872) = 3871.5±0.2 MeV PDG08: MD0+MD*0 = 3871.8±0.4 MeV CDF T. Kuhr @ QWG08

  26. DD thresholds DSDS thresholds some of the states are near thresholds – notably M(X3872) & M(D0)+M(D*0) - but this is not a universal feature

  27. Hybrids? LQCD: M>~4.3 GeV Open charm thresh =MD+MD** 4285 MeV (above Y4260 peak) Non-zero charges are not allowed Should be seen in open-charm channels above 4285 MeV Favored assignment for the 1-- Y states

  28. DD** thresholds and the Y(4260), Y(4350) & Y(4660) 4.66- 4285 D D 4.35- D Belle D 4.28- 4.26- 3.88- D 3.85- DD Y(4350) & Y(4660) are well above all DD** thresholds & should have strong widths to DD*p

  29. σ(e+e–→open charm) via ISR PRD77,011103(2008) DD ? DD* (4160) Y(4350) PRL98, 092001 (2007) Y(4008) D*D* Y(4260) (4415) (4040) PRL100,062001(2008) Y(4660) DDπ PRL 101 172001 (2008) Λc+Λc– No evidence for any 1-- YD**D

  30. Belle: Sum of all measured exclusive contributions (3770) (4160) Y(4008) Y(4350) (4415) Y(4260) Y(4660) (4040) Durham Data Base if Ruds=2.285±0.03 Almost all open-charm channels are accounted for Inclusive (BES) New Belle results on DD*p in G. Pakhlova’s Thurs PM talk Sexclusive (Belle)

  31. These states have large G(ppJ/y(y’)) eg:G(Y(4260)p+p- J/y) > 1.6MeV @ 90% CL X.H. Mo et al, PL B640, 182 (2006) Much larger than measured charmonium widths: G(y’p+p- J/y) = 0.104 ±0.004 MeV G(y’’p+p- J/y) = 0.044 ±0.008 MeV

  32. diquark-diantiquarks Expect SU(3) multiplets Isospin partners S=-1 partners Xs-= X-= d s doublet of “X(3872)” states DM=8±3 MeV Maiani et al PRD71, 014028

  33. PRD71, 031501 B0 B- X(3872)– X(3872)– M(J/π–π0) M(J/π–π0) No multiplet partners seen BaBar search for “X-(3872)”p-p0 J/y Bf(B0K+X-)Bf(X-p-p0J/y) < 0.4 Bf(B-K+X0)Bf(X0p+p-J/y) (expect  2)

  34. X(3872)→J/ψπ+π– BELLE-CONF-0849 PRD77,111101,2008 B+→XK+ B+→XK+ 12.8 8.6σ B0→XK0s B0→XK0s 2.3σ 5.9 No evidence for X(3872) neutral partner MX= 2.7±1.6±0.4 MeV MX =0.2±0.9±0.3MeV DM=8±3 MeV predicted Maiani et al PRD71, 014028

  35. Mass different in XDD* modes? “new” “old” 605fb-1 D0D0g 414fb-1 D0D0p0 605fb-1 D0D0p0

  36. Light-hadron charmoniumbound states? c c My guess: masses should be near M(cc)+M(“narrow”-light-hadron) thresholds This would account for large decay widths to charmonium & the preference for some states to go to y’ & other J/y • S Dubynski et al • PLB 666,344 (2008) • FK Guo et al • PLB 665, 26 (2008) charmonium +excited light hadrons charmonium + gnd-state light hadrons

  37. Charmonium + (narrow) light hadron thresholds

  38. Scorecard • D(*)D(*) Molecules • favored for the X(3872) • but many XY states are not near thresholds • hybrids • no sign of open charm decays • diquarks-diantiquarks • No sign of SU(2)/SU(3) multiplet partners • Light-hadron charmonium bound states • not much coincidence between states & thresholds

  39. Candidates for XY counterparts in the b- and s-quark sectors

  40. Y(4260) equivalent with b-quarks? Belle s(e+e- p+p-(nS)) _ K.F. Chen et al (Belle) arXiv:0808.2445 Peaks not consistent with known bb states G(pp(nS)) ~ 1000x too large for conventional bottomonium

  41. Y(4260) equivalent with s-quarks? e+e-  g f0(980)f Y(2175)f0(980)f s(e+e- p+p-f(1020)) BaBar f0(980)p+p- M(f0(980)f) BaBar, PRD 74, 091103

  42. Confirmed by BES & Belle confirmed by BESII in J/y  h f f0(980) s(e+e- f0(980)f(1020)) BES Belle M(f0(980)f GeV C.P.Shen et al (Belle) arXiv: 0808.0006 NB: Radial excitation of the f is not ruled out M.Ablikim et al (BES) PRL 100, 102003 (2008)

  43. Do the X & Y mesons have electrically charged counterparts?

  44. The Z+ meson candidates BKp+y’ 6.5  Z(4430)+ M2(p±y’) GeV2 M(p±y’) GeV Not confirmed by BaBararXiv:0811.0564 Discussed by R.Chistov & C.Patrigani in the next session S.-K. Choi et al (Belle) PRl 100, 142001 M2(Kp’) GeV2 BKp+cc1 >6  Z2(4250)+ M(p±cc1) GeV M2(p±c’c1) GeV2 Z1(4050)+ M2(Kp’) GeV2 R.Mizuk,R.Chistov et al (Belle) PRD 78, 072004

  45. Concluding remarks _ • Lots of non-qq mesons candidates are seen • No single non-qq model explains them well • Recurring theme: large widths for decays to final states with charmonium _

  46. Winston Churchill & women v Men occasionally stumble over the truth, but most of them pick themselves up and hurry off as if nothing ever happened. charm, Newinsights often Puzzles

  47. Thank you

More Related