exotics at
DESCRIPTION
&. Exotics at. Stephen L. Olsen Seoul National University 447 th Wilhelm & Else Heraeus Seminar: Charmed Exotics Aug 10-12, 2009 Bad Honnef Germany. & CDF. cc production at B factories. division of labor. Outline. X(3872) States near 3940 MeV Z(4430) and Z 1 (4050) & Z 2 (4250 ). - PowerPoint PPT PresentationTRANSCRIPT
Exotics at
&
Stephen L. OlsenSeoul National University
447th Wilhelm & Else Heraeus Seminar: Charmed ExoticsAug 10-12, 2009 Bad Honnef Germany
& CDF
cc production at B factories
division of labor
Outline
•X(3872)
•States near 3940 MeV
•Z(4430) and Z1(4050) & Z2(4250)
X(3872) J/in Bellerecent results
diquark-diquark prediction:M=8±3 MeV
Maiani et al PRD71, 014028
arXiv:0809.1224 605 fb-1
X(3872) J/in BaBarrecent results
B0X(3872)K0S
2.3
413 fb-1
mJ/ψπ+π- (GeV/c2)
B+X(3872)K+
8.6
413 fb-1
mJ/ψπ+π- (GeV/c2)
BABAR: PRD 77,111101 (2008) [413 fb-1]
BABAR
= (2.7 ± 1.6 ±0.4) MeV
= 0.41 ± 0.24 ± 0.05
X(3872) J/in CDFrecent results
arXiv:0906.5218
~6000 events!
MX = 3871.61 ± 0.16 ± 0.19 MeV
MX < 3.6 MeV @ 95% CL
Fits for 2 nearby states
M(X(3872)) J/ mode only
new CDF meas.
new Belle meas.
MD0 + MD*0.
<MX>= 3871.46 ± 0.19 MeV
m = -0.35 ± 0.41 MeV
•No sign of a mass doublet ala Maiani et al
•MX(3872) in J/ mode more precise than MD0 + MD*0
± 190keV ± 360keV
BES III canimprove on this
The on-going saga of X3872 D*0D0
414fb-1
D0D00
Belle 2006X3872 D0D00
Fit with truncated BW
BaBar 2006X3872 D0D*0(0D0,D0)
Fit with truncated BW
Is this the higher mass partner state predicted by Maiani et al?
Belle in 2009605fb-1
D0D*0(D0
605fb-1
D0D*0(D00)
Fit with a phase-space modulated BW
Esignal= 50+15 evtsSignif.=7.9
-11
Flatte formula fits well alsoala Hanhart et al, PRD76, 034007 (2007)
g=0.3. f=0.007 both fixed Ef= -14.9±2.0 MeV
Esignal= 63.5±12.0 evtsSignif.=8.8
Braaten 2009
Still wrong guys!!
!
arXiv: 0907.3167 --- & the next speaker
J/
D0D00
D0D*0(D00)
Braaten’s fits
theorists here should agree on the proper form & thenexperimenters should use it in a proper unbinned fit
X(3872)J/ & ’ from BaBar
X(3872) J/ X(3872) S
BABAR BABAR
PRL 102, 132001 (2009)
3.0 3.5
BF(B+X3872K+)×(X3872J/)=(2.8 ± 0.8 ± 0.2) × 10-6
BF(B+X3872K+)×(X3872’)=(9.5 ± 2.7 ± 0.9) × 10-6
• C-parity = +1
• JPC = 2 -+ disfavored multipole suppression
•Bf(X3872’) > Bf(X3872J/) bad for molecules
BKX(3872) from Belle
arXiv:0809.1224 605 fb-1
~90 events
Very w
eak K*(8
90)
M(K)M(J/)
Backgrounds from J/ sidebands
Bf(BJ/ K*0)
Bf(BJ/ KNR)~4
DD* molecular models for the X(3872) attribute its production& decays charmonium to an admixture of c1’ in the wave fcn.
But BK X(3872) is very different from BKcharmonium
BaBar PRD 71 032005
Belle arXiv 0809.0124
Belle arXiv 0809.0124
Belle PRD 74 072004
K’
KJ/
Kc1
Kc
Belle F.Fang Thesis
Belle PRD 74 072004
KX3872
M(K)
M(K)
M(K)
M(K)
M(K)
States near 3940 MeV
The states near 3940 MeV-circa 2005-
M = 3942 +7 ± 6 MeV
tot = 37 +26 ±12 MeV
Nsig =52 +24 ± 11evts
-6
-15
-16
PRL 100, 202001
e+e- J/ DD*
M(DD*)
M≈3940 ± 11 MeV≈ 92 ± 24 MeV
PRL94, 182002 (2005)
M(J/)
BKJ/
M = 3929±5±2 MeV
tot = 29±10±2 MeV
Nsig =64 ± 18evts
DD
M(DD)
PRL 96, 082003
Z(3930)
Probably the c2’
X(3940) Y(3940)
Y(3940) DD* ?BKDD*
3940 M
eV
3940 M
eV
X(3940)J/?
e+e-J/ + ( J/)
M( J/)
PRL 98, 082001
X(3940) ≠ Y(3940) @ 90% CL
Y(3940) confirmed by BaBar
B±K±J/
B0KSJ/
J)
ratio
Some discrepancy in M & ; general features agree
PRL 101, 082001
Belle-BaBar direct comparison
Belle will update with the complete (4S) date set later this Fall
Same binning(Belle publishedresult : 253 fb-1)492fb-1
Y(3915)J/ from Belle
7.7 M: 3914 3 2 MeV,
: 23 10 +2 -8 MeV, Nres = 55 14 +2 -14 events
Signif. = 7.7,
prel
imin
ary
Probably the same as the Belle/BaBar Y(3915)C.Z. Yuan’s talk in the next session
cc assignments for X(3940) & y(3915)?
3940MeV
•Y(3915) = co’? (J/) too large?•X(3940) = c”? mass too low?
c
”
c’’’
3915MeVc0’
_
Z(4430) and Z1(4050) & Z2(4250)
ucd
c
Smoking guns for charmed exotics:
BK ’ (in Belle)
K*(890)K+-
M2(K+-)
M2(
+’)
K*(1430)K+-?
??
The Z(4430)± ±’ peak
M(
±’)
Ge
V
BK +’
Z(4430)
M (’) GeV
evts near M(’)4430 MeV
M2 (±
’)
GeV
2
M2(’) GeV2
“K* Veto”
Shows up in all data subsamples
Could the Z(4430) be due to a reflection from the K
channel?
Cos vs M2(’)
16 GeV2
22 GeV2 +1.0
-1.0
cos
M (’) & cosare tightly correlated;a peak in cos peak in M(’)
0.25
’
K
(4.43)2GeV2M
2(’)
S- P- & D-waves cannot make a peak (+ nothing else) at
cos≈0.25
not without introducing other, even more dramatic features at other cos (i.e., other M’) values.
But…
BaBar doesn’t see a significant Z(4430)+
“For the fit … equivalent to the Belle analysis…we obtain mass
& width values that are consistent with theirs,… but only ~1.9from zero; fixing mass and width increases this to only ~3.1.”
Belle PRL: (4.1±1.0±1.4)x10-5
Reanalysis of Belle’s BK’ data using Dalitz Plot
techniques
2-body isobar model for K’
KZ+
K2*’
K*’
K’
Our default model
’
K*(890)’
K*(1410)’
K0*(1430)’
K2*(1430)’
K*(1680)’
KZ+
Results with no KZ+ term
fit CL=0.1%
12
3 4
5
1 2 3 4 5
A
B
C
A B
C
Results with a KZ+ term
fit CL=36%
1
1
2 3
2
34 5
4
A5
B
A
C
B
C
Compare with PRL results
Signif: 6.4Published results
Mass & significance similar,width & errors are larger
With Z(4430)
WithoutZ(4430)
Belle: = (3.2+1.8+9.6 )x10-5 0.9-1.6
BaBar:
No big contradiction
K* veto applied
Variations on a theme
Others: Blatt f-f term 0r=1.6fm4fm; Z+ spin J=0J=1; incl K* in the bkg fcn
Z(4430)+ significance
The Z1(4050)+ & Z2(4250)+ +c1 peaks
R. Mizuk et al (Belle), PRD 78,072004 (2008)
Dalitz analysis of B0K-+c1
K*(
89
0)
K*(
14
00
)’s
K*(
16
80
)
K3*(
17
80
)
M (J) GeV
E GeV ???
BKc1 Dalitz-plot analyses
KZ+
K2*c1
K*c1
Kc1
Default Model
c1
K*(890)c1
K*(1410)c1
K0*(1430)c1
K2*(1430)c1
K*(1680)c1
K3*(1780)c1
KZ+
Fit model: all low-lying K*’s (no Z+ state)
a b
c d
e f
g
a b c d g
f
e
C.L.=310-10
Fit model: all K*’s + one Z+ state
a b
c d
e f
g
a b c d g
f
e
C.L.=0.1%
Are there two?
a b c d
? ?? ?
Fit model: all K*’s + two Z+ states
a b
c d
e f
g
a b c d g
f
e
C.L.=42%
Two Z-states give best fit
Projection with K* veto
Systematics of B0 → K- π+ c1 fit
Significance of Z1(4050)+ and Z2(4250)+ is high.
Fit assumes JZ1=0, JZ2=0; no signif. improvement for JZ1=1 &/or JZ2=1.
M=1.04 GeV; G=0.26 GeV
• Z(4430)+ signal in BK’ persists with a more complete amplitude analysis.– signif. ~6, product Bf ~3x10-5 (with large errors)
• No significant contradiction with the BaBar results – signif. = 2~3, Product Bf<3x10-5
• Z1(4050) & Z2(4250), seen in BKc1, have similar properties (i.e. M & ) & product Bf’s– signif. (at least one Z+)>10; (two Z+ states)>5
Summary
•The X3872 mass keeps getting closer & closer to MD0 + MD*0
•BK X3872 is very different from BK charmonium
•The X(3940) & Y(3940) seem to be distinct states
•Y(3940)Y(3915)?
•Belle’s Z(4430)++’ signal is not a reflection from the K channel
•Z1(2050)+ & Z2(2050)++c1 peaks further evidence for charmed exotics
•Most XYZ states have large partial widths to hidden charm final states
e+e-J/X3940 BKY3940DD* J/
by charmonium standards
Summary
Improvement to M(D0)?
iiKK
ii KEMME
S2
Best single measurement from CLEOc:
MD0 = 1864.847±0.150 (stat) ±0.095 (syst) MeV
CLEOc uses invariant mass:
large MD0
dominatesthe error
small 0not a bigcontrib.
& only uses D0KS(K+K-) decays:
i i
iiinv pEM 22 )()(
well known
±2x16keV±22keV
0.1 MD0
measured
Bf0.002319 evtsstat errordominates
M(D0) measurement @ BESIII
i
ibeambc pEM 22 )(
Use “beam constrained mass @ ”:
need toknow Ebeam preciselyUse backscattered laser beam at
the unused X-ing region to measureEbeam (&MD0) to better than ±100 keV
Approved, funded,& under construction