1. 新强子态 Stephen Olsen 夏威夷 大学 & 高能所 北京 New types of hadrons HEP10 南京大学 April 26, 2008

2. X(3872) Y(4260) X(3940) Y(3940) Y(4325) Y(4660) X(4160) Y(4008) Z(4430) Talk outline

3. Constituent Quark Model (CQM) (& 6 antiquarks) Mesons: qq c:c: c +2/3 c:c: C -2/3  + : s -1/3 s +1/3 c -2/3 u -2/3 b +1//3 u +2/3  - : b -1/3 S =1/3 b +1/3 t -2/3 c +2/3 b -1/3 t +2/3 6 quarks Baryons: qqq u -2/3 d +1/3 s +1/3 u +2/3 d -1/3 s -1/3 Gell-Mann Zweig

4. Fabulously successful mesons q q

5. QCD suggests non-qq meson spectroscopies glueball

6. Charmonium model predictions for cc mesons are robust & reliable, both for masses & transition rates. Therefore, it is an especially good system to use to search for non-qq mesons.

7. predicted measured

8.           D1DD1D D(*)D(*)D(*)D(*) DD About 20 measured transition rates D(*)D(*)D(*)D(*) DD DsDsDsDs DsDsDsDs measured rates all agree with predictions (more-or-less)

9.           D1DD1D D(*)D(*)D(*)D(*) DD About 20 measured transition rates D(*)D(*)D(*)D(*) DD DsDsDsDs DsDsDsDs  (  -allowed ) 50~ 100keV  (  – ispin viol)~0.5 keV  (E1-gamma) 20~200 keV  (M1-gamma)~1keV  (D ( * ) D ( * ) ) ≥ 10 MeV

10. I’ll emphasize recent results.

11. X(3872) B ±  K ±     J/  ’’ ’’ ’’ X(3872) pp  X +     J/ 

12. M(  ) looks like     2 / dof = 43/39 (CL=28%) kinematic limit≈m  PRL 96 102002 CDF Belle Belle & CDF: J PC = 1 ++  most likely

13. X(3872) properties (PDG2007) M D0 + M D*0 = 3871.8 ± 0.4 MeV MeV

14. What is it? c c  c1 ’ charmonium? C Meng & KT Chao PRD 75,114002 (2007) 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) … 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) … too light?? P Lacock et al (UKQCD ) PLB 401, 308 (1997)

15. 3872MeV ?? Is X(3872) a Charmonium state?

16. 3872MeV ?? Could the X(3872) be the  c1 ’ (2 3 P 1 )? Mass is too low  c1 ’   J/  violates Ispin  (  J/  ) should be >>  {  J/  ) expt:  (  J/  ) <<  (  J/  )

17. 3872MeV ?? Could the X(3872) be the  c2 (1 1 D 2 )?  c2 ’   J/  violates Ispin  (  J/  ) should be very small expt:  (  J/  )  0.1  (  J/  ) B  K  c2 should be very small

18. Is X(3872) a diquark-diantiquark? u c c u d c c d d c c u u c c d Where are the “partner states”? X u (3872)X d (3872)X + (3872) X - (3872) BaBar: Bf(B 0  K - X + )Bf(X +      J/  ) Bf(B -  K - X 0 )Bf(X +      J/  ) < 0.4 (expected value is  2) PRD 71,031501 (2005) B +  K - X u B 0  K 0 X d M(X d )-M(X u )= 2(m d -m u )/cos  L Maiani et al PRD 71,014028 (20050  8 ± 3 MeV

19. B  K S X & B  K ± X comparison  M = 0.22 ± 0.90 ± 0.27 MeV Compared to 8±3 MeV (Maiani et al PRD 71 014028) BaBar 0803.2838 K S mode K ± mode K S mode K ± mode  M = 2.7 ± 1.6 ± 0.4 MeV

20. X(3872)  D 0 D* 0 ? BaBar & Belle see a DD  threshold enhancement in B  KDD  Both groups see a high mass value & a Bf(DD*)  10x Bf(     J/  ) B. Aubert et al. (BaBar) Phys. Rev. D77, 011102 (2008) G. Gokhroo et al. (Belle) D0D00D0D00 “DD* molecular” models Predicted Bf(DD  )  0.1Bf(     J/  ) (c.f. E.S. Swanson PLB 588, 189 (2004))

21. arXiv: 0801.3540 ” ”…

22. Still (5 yrs after discovery) no universally accepted interpretation of the X(3872). (Although some kind of DD* molecular state --either real or virtual-- seems most popular.)

23. The 1 -- states seen in ISR

24. e + e -   isr Y(4260) at BaBar 233 fb -1 Y(4260) BaBar PRL95, 142001 (2005) M=4259  8 +2 MeV  = 88  23 +6 MeV -6 -9 fitted values:

25. Not seen in e + e -  hadrons  (Y4260      J/  ) > 1.6MeV @ 90% CL X.H. Mo et al, PL B640, 182 (2006) 4260 BES data huge by charmonium standards J.Z.Bai et al (BES), PRL 88, 101802 (2006)  (e+e-  hadrons)  (e+e-   +  -)

26. “Y(4260)” at Belle (New) M=4247  12 +17 MeV  = 108  19 ± 10 MeV -32 M=4008  40 +114 MeV  = 226  44 ± 87 MeV -28 ??? C.Z Yuan et al (Belle) arXiv:0707.2541 PRL 99, 182004 M=4259  8 +2 MeV  = 88  23 +6 MeV -6 -9 BaBar values: Resonance? Thresh effect? …?

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

28. Is the Y(4260) a cc-gluon hybrid? cc qq-gluon excitations predicted 30 yrs ago lowest 1 -- cc-gluon mass expected at ~4.3 GeV relevant open charm threshold is D**D (~4.28 GeV)  (  J/  ) larger than that for normal charmonium  (e + e - ) smaller than that for ordinary charmonium Horn & Mandula PRD 17, 898 (1977) Banner et al, PRD 56, 7039 (1997); Mei & Luo, IJMPA 18, 15713 (2003) Isgur, Koloski & Paton PRL 54, 869 (1985) McNeile, Michael & Pennanen PRD 65, 094505 (2002) Close & Page NP B443, 233 (1995) Y(4260) seems to match all of these !!!

29. DD** thresholds in & “Y(4260)” 4.28-m D D** spectrum M(     J/  ) GeV No obvious distortions D1DD1D D2DD2D

30. BaBar’s      ’ peak at 4325MeV Nbkg = 3.1  1.0 Nevt = 68 (<5.7 GeV/c 2 )  2 -prob < 5.7 GeV/c 2 Y(4260) 6.5  10 -3  (4415)1.2  10 -13 Y(4320)29% e + e -   ISR      ’ M=4324  24 MeV  = 172  33 MeV above all D**D thresholds S.W.Ye QWG-2006 June 2006 Not Compatible with the Y(4260) D1DD1D D2DD2D 298 fb -1 (BaBar) hep-ex/0610057 BaBar PRL 98 252001 (2007)

31. 4325 MeV      ’ peak in Belle (new) M=4324  24 MeV  = 172  33 MeV 548 fb -1 X.L. Wang et al (Belle) arXiv:0707.3699 PRL 99, 142002 (2007) Two peaks! M=4664  11 ± 5 MeV  = 48  15 ± 3 MeV M=4361  9 ± 9 MeV  = 74  15 ± 10 MeV BaBar values (both relatively narrow) (& both above D**D thresh) (& neither consistent with 4260) 4260

32. Y(4360) & Y(4660) are above all D**D thresholds 4.36-m D D** spectrum 4.66-m D

33. No sign of Y(4360) or Y(4660) in e + e -  D ( * ) D ( * ) cross sections DD+DD*+D*D*+DD  4360 4660 Pakhlova (Belle) PRL 98, 092001 (2007)

34. The Y(4260) looks like a hybrid But the Y(4360) and Y(4660) -which look like the Y(4260)- do not look like hybrids.

35. Recent News electrically charged!!

37. M(  ±  ’) from B  K  ±  ’ M 2 (K  ) GeV 2 M 2 (  ’ ) GeV 2 S.-K. Choi et al (Belle) arXiv:0708.1790 PRL 100 2 weeks ago K*  K  K 2 *  K  Veto M(  ’ ) GeV 6.5  M = 4433 ± 4 ±1 MeV  tot = 45 +17 +30 MeV Nsig =124 ± 31evts -13-11

38. Comments on the Z + (4430) Not a reflection from the K  system (see backup slides) ~ No significant signal in B  K  J/  It has non-zero charge  not cc or hybrid Mass, width & decay pattern similar to Y(4360) & Y(4660) c c charmonium

39. comments There seems to be a new hadron spectroscopy in the M=3.5~5 GeV region –Maybe more than one –Bodes well for BESIII, Super-B factories & PANDA Some states are narrow even though they are far above decay thresholds –e.g. Y(4660)   ’ & Z + (4430)     ’ have large Q but  ≈50 MeV characterized by large partial widths (Bfs) to hadrons+J/  (or  ’)  – Br(X(3872)   J/  ) > 4.3% (Isospin=1) –  (Y(3940)   J/  ) > 7 MeV –  (Y(4260)      J/  ) > 1.6 MeV States that decay to  ’ not seen decaying to J/  (and vice-versa) –Bf(Y(4660)   ’) >> Bf(y(4660)   J/  )  same for Y(4360) & Z(4430   ’ –Y(4260) not seen in Y(4260)   ’ The new 1 -- states are not apparent in the e + e -  D ( * ) D ( * ) cross sections There are no evident changes at the D**D mass threshold (mine)

40. New 1 -- states     J/      J/   ’ ’ C.-Z. Yuan et al (Belle) PRD 77, 011105® (2008)

41. some of the states are near thresholds, but this is not a universal feature D S D S thresholdsDD thresholds

42. Are there XYZ counterparts in the ss- & bb- systems?

43. Belle:  (  (5S)   (nS)) 2S 3S 4S  (4S)   (1S)  +    (4S)   (1S) 477 fb -1 from Belle 44±8 evts “  (5S)”   (1S) 23.6 fb -1 from Belle (1/20 times the data & ~1/10 th the crosssection) 325±20 evts! 8 times as many events! Belle 0710.2577 K.F. Chen et al (Belle) PRL 100, 112001 (2008) (4 weeks ago) is Huge!!!

44. Partial Widths N.B. Resonance cross section 0.302 ± 0.015 nb at 10.87 GeV PRD 98, 052001 (2007) [Belle] Cf  (2S)   (1S)     ~ 6 keV  (3S) 0.9 keV  (4S) 1.8 keV Assume “  (5S)” =  (5S) PDG value taken for  (nS) properties >100 times bigger!!

45. It looks like there is a bb version of the Y(4260 ) lurking around the  (5S) If there are bb versions of the XYZ’s, why not ss versions as well? W.-S. Hou PRD 74, 017504 (2007)

46. 1 -- Y s states around 2 GeV? Y(2175)  f 0 (980)  from BaBar (confirmed by BESII) e+e-   f 0 (980)  @ Ecm ~10.6 GeV confirmed by BESII M(f 0 (980)  GeV M.Ablikim et al (BES) PRL 100, 102003 (2008) 6 weeks ago

47. Maybe the X(1835) is one too? M. Ablikim et al (BESII), Phys.Rev.Lett.95:262001,2005 J/    X(1835) |       ’ X(1835) mostly ss

48. Luciano Maiani @ had-2007

49. Now it looks like there may also be XYZ-like spectroscopies for the s- & b-quark sectors Implications for BES-III: J/  (  ’) running: systematic study of states decaying to  &  ’ Higher energies: look for states decaying to lower charmonia (  c, J/ ,  c1 etc. …

50. Lots of pieces Y(4360) Y(4660) Y(4260) Y(4050) X(3872) X(3940) X(4160) Z(4430) Y(3940) Are they all from the same puzzle?

51. 謝謝

52. Backup Slides

54. B-factories produce lots of cc pairs 0 -+, 1 - - or 1 ++ 0 -+, 0 ++, 2 ++ C =+ states 1 - - only

55. Could Z(4430) be a reflection from the K  channel?

56. Cos   vs M 2 (  ’ ) 16 GeV 2 22 GeV 2 M 2 (  ’) +1.0 cos   M (  ’) & cos   are tightly correlated; a peak in cos    peak in M(  ’) (4.43) 2 GeV 2 0.25 ’’  K 

57. Can interference between K  partial waves produce a peak? Only S-, P- and D-waves seen in data interfere Add incoherently

58. Can we make a peak at cos   ≈0.25 with only S-, P- & D-waves? Not without introducing other, even more dramatic features at other cos   (&, , other M  ’ ) values.