1 / 35

XYZ mesons

XYZ News from Belle. XYZ mesons. Stephen L. Olsen, Univ of Hawai’i QWG 2006 June 26-30, Brookhaven. B-factories are Charmonium factories. c c production mechanisms @ a B factory: B meson decays e + e - annihilation gg collisions e + e - radiative return (isr).

johnda
Télécharger la présentation

XYZ mesons

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. XYZ News from Belle XYZ mesons Stephen L. Olsen, Univ of Hawai’i QWG 2006 June 26-30, Brookhaven

  2. B-factories are Charmonium factories cc production mechanisms @ a B factory: • B meson decays • e+e- annihilation • gg collisions • e+e- radiative return (isr)

  3. cc production in B decays J = 0 or 1 j=½ j=½ Spectator model says Jcc= 0 or 1 should dominate exclusive BK(cc) decays.

  4. Allowed decays all have Bf~10-3from PDG2004 hcK 0.9 x10-3 J/yK 1.0 x10-3 J/yK* 1.4 x10-3 J/yK12701.8 x10-3 y’K 0.7 x10-3 y’K* 0.9 x10-3 cc0K 0.6 x10-3 cc1K 0.7 x10-3 BK cc(J=2) still not seen

  5. e+e- J/y + (cc) J/y hc’ cc0 X hc X (almost) always contains (cc) C(X) = +1 M(X) consistent with bkg

  6. gg DD JPC = 0++, 2++ e+e- g (cc) cc JPC = 1--

  7. XYZ particles in Belle • X(3872) • p+p- J/y in BKp+p-J/y • Z(3930) • DD in gg DD • Y(3940) • wJ/y in BK wJ/y • X(3940) • e+e-J/y X & e+e-  J/y DD* • Y(4260) • p+p-J/y in e+e-g p+p- J/y NEW

  8. gg  Z(3931) DD at Belle sin4q (J=2) Belle PRL 96, 082003 (2006) 4111 evts (5.5) M=3931 4  2 MeV =208 3 MeV M(DD) GeV Matches well to cc2’ expectations

  9. Z(3930): candidate for the cc2’ M= 3931 MeV is ~45 MeV low G=20MeV too narrow? 3931 Masses from Barnes, Godfrey & Swanson PRD 72, 054026 (2005)

  10. e+e- J/yX(3940) e+e-J/y + X hep-ex 0507019 submitted to PRL

  11. X(3940)D*D seen(DD & wJ/y not seen) B(DD)<41% B(D*D)>45% From X(3940) → D*D: M = (3943 ± 6 ± 6) MeV G < 52 MeV at 90%CL

  12. Is the X(3940) the hc”? M= 3943 MeV is ~150 MeV low G<52MeV too narrow? 3940

  13. X(3872) in BKp+p-J/y y’p+p-J/y X(3872)p+p-J/y PRL 91, 262001 M(ppJ/y)

  14. Also seen in pp X(3872) D0 CDF 11.6s X(3872) PRL 93, 072004 (2004) PRL 93, 162002 (2004) Production properties similar to those of the y’ hep-ex/0406022

  15. C=+1 is established M(pp) looks like a r X(3872)gJ/y seen in: CDF PRL 96 102002 Belle hep-ex/0505037 Belle & X(3872)”w”J/y seen Belle

  16. ereJ/y k(erxeJ/y) 0++ 0-+ Ruled out by Belle qlp y c2/dof=34/9 c2/dof = 34/9 |cosq| |cosqlp| |cosy| rule out 0++ & 0 -+

  17. Angular analysis from CDF 1++ or 2-+ Ilya Kravchenko: FPCP06

  18. Belle: Threshold peak in BKD0D0p0 Belle hep-ex/0606055  today! M(DDp) DE +0.7 -1.7 M=3875.4  0.7  0.8 MeV Br(BKX)Bf(XD0D0p0 ) = (1.27  0.31 )x10-4 +0.22 -0.39 Br(XD0D0p0) Br(Xp+p-J/y) ~ 10

  19. Comments on the D0D0p0 mass peak PDG MX3872: 3871.2  0.5 MeV ~2s discrepancy PDG05  2xPDG error on mD0 (could be  2.0 MeV) +0.7 -1.7 Fitted M: 3875.4  0.7  0.8 MeV DD* “Binding Energy?”: Here error on mD0 drops out +0.7 -1.7 M–(mD0+ mD*0) = +4.3  0.7 MeV Nominally ~2.3sabove D0D*0 threshold (but errors are non-Gaussian)

  20. X(3872) has no satisfactory cc assignment 3872 cc1’ Br(gJ/y) too small & Br(rJ/y) too big hc2 • hc2rJ/y ispin forbidden • D0D0p0 @ thresh. suppressed • BKcc(J=2) suppressed

  21. Y(3940) in BK wJ/y M≈3940 ± 11 MeV G≈ 92 ± 24 MeV G(Y3940 wJ/y)> 7 MeV (an SUF(3) violating decay) ~ this is 103 x G(y’  hJ/y) (another SUF(3) violating decay) if the Z(3930) is the cc2’ the Y(3940) mass is too high for it to be the cc1’ M(wJ/y) MeV PRL94, 182002 (2005)

  22. Is there a cc slot for Y(3940) ? hc” Mass is low cc1’ Can M(cc1’)>M(cc2’)? 3940 3931 cc0’ “ “ “ “

  23. 233 fb-1 e+e- gisr Y(4260) at BaBar BaBar PRL95, 142001 (2005) Not seen in e+e- hadrons X.H. Mo et al, hep-ex/0603024 Y(4260) 4260 BES data s(e+e-+p-J/)~50pb G(Y4260p+p- J/y) > 1.6MeV @ 90% CL 4260

  24. 13.3 fb-1 BaBar CLEO III N 125  23 (~8) 14.1 +5.2 (4.9) -4.2 Mass (MeV) 4259  8 +2 4283+17 4 -16 -6 Width (MeV) 88  23 +6 70 +40 5 -25 -4 Y(4260) at CLEO-III ISR (1S)-(4S) 13.3 fb-1 Consistent results R.Poling @ Charm 2006

  25. Y(4260) at Belle M=4295  10 +11 MeV G = 133  26 +13 MeV -5 Select e+e- p+p-ℓ+ℓ- +X; Nchg=4 Mℓ+ℓ-=MJ/y30MeV; pJ/y>2 GeV; Mpp>0.4GeV -6 | data  4.2<MppJ/y<4.4 Preliminary MC MX For y’p+p-J/y in the same data: M(y’) = 3685.3  0.1 MeV (PDG: M(y’)=3686.09  0.04)

  26. BaBar vs CLEO vs Belle -4.2 -5 -6 -16 -6 -4 -25 ~2.5s different “Full” report from Belle at ICHEP in Moscow

  27. No 1-- cc slot for the Y(4260) X.H. Mo et al, hep-ex/0603024 4280 4280

  28. DD** threshold in relation to the “Y(4260)” D** spectrum No obvious distortions 4.28-mD M(p+p-J/y) GeV

  29. summary • Z(3931) (ggDD) • Probably the cc2’ • X(3940) (e+e- J/y X) • C=+1 • Could be the hc” (albeit with some stretching) • X(3872): • JPC = 1++ • Br(Xp+p- J/y) large • Br(XD0D0p0) seen; ~ 10xBr(Xp+p-J/y) D*D

  30. 233 fb-1 summary cont’d • Y(3940) • G( Y3940 wJ/y) >7 MeVtoo large for charmonium • Mass too low for a hybrid • “Y(4260)” • Confirmed by Belle but at a higher mass • G(y4260p+p-J/y)>1.6 MeValso very large • JPC=1--, but not seen in e+e- hadrons - Straddles the D**D threshold, but with no obvious distortions to the ppJ/y line-shape

  31. (mine, not Belle’s) conclusions • There is a new hadron spectroscopy in the 3.5~4.5 GeV mass region • Maybe more than one • The new states are characterized by large partial widths (Bfs) to hadrons+J/y • Br(X(3872)rJ/y) > 4.3% (Isospin=1) • G(Y(3940)wJ/y) > 7 MeV (SU(3) octet) • G(Y(4260)p+p-J/y) > 1.6 MeV • There is no apparent transition at the D**D mass threshold

  32. Thank You

  33. Back-up slides

  34. Look at e+e-J/y D(D(*)) • Reconstruct a J/y & a D • use D0K-p+ & D+K-p+p+ • Determine recoil mass

  35. Inclusive BKx from BaBar Fully reconstructed B- tags ?

More Related