Download presentation
Presentation is loading. Please wait.
1
Exotics at & Stephen L. Olsen Seoul National University 447 th Wilhelm & Else Heraeus Seminar: Charmed Exotics Aug 10-12, 2009 Bad Honnef Germany & CDF
2
cc production at B factories division of labor
3
Outline X(3872) States near 3940 MeV Z(4430) and Z 1 (4050) & Z 2 (4250 )
4
X(3872) J/ in Belle recent results diquark-diquark prediction: M=8±3 MeV Maiani et al PRD71, 014028 arXiv:0809.1224 605 fb -1
5
X(3872) J/ in BaBar recent results B 0 X(3872)K 0 S 2.3 413 fb -1 m J/ψπ+π- (GeV/c 2 ) B + X(3872)K + 8.6 413 fb -1 m J/ψπ+π- (GeV/c 2 ) B A B AR : PRD 77,111101 (2008) [413 fb -1 ] B A B AR = (2.7 ± 1.6 ± 0.4) MeV = 0.41 ± 0.24 ± 0.05
6
X(3872) J/ in CDF recent results arXiv:0906.5218 ~6000 events! M X = 3871.61 ± 0.16 ± 0.19 MeV M X < 3.6 MeV @ 95% CL Fits for 2 nearby states
7
M(X(3872)) J/ mode only new CDF meas. new Belle meas. M D0 + M D*0. = 3871.46 ± 0.19 MeV m = -0.35 ± 0.41 MeV
8
No sign of a mass doublet ala Maiani et al M X(3872) in J/ mode more precise than M D0 + M D*0 ± 190keV± 360keV BES III can improve on this
9
The on-going saga of X 3872 D* 0 D 0 414fb -1 D 0 D 0 0 Belle 2006 X 3872 D 0 D 0 0 Fit with truncated BW BaBar 2006 X 3872 D 0 D* 0 ( 0 D 0, D 0 ) Fit with truncated BW Is this the higher mass partner state predicted by Maiani et al?
10
Belle in 2009 605fb -1 D 0 D* 0 (D 0 605fb -1 D 0 D* 0 (D 0 0 ) Fit with a phase-space modulated BW E signal = 50 +15 evts Signif.=7.9 -11
11
Flatte formula fits well also ala Hanhart et al, PRD76, 034007 (2007) g=0.3. f =0.007 both fixed E f = -14.9 ± 2.0 MeV E signal = 63.5 ±1 2.0 evts Signif.=8.8
12
Braaten 2009 Still wrong guys!!! arXiv: 0907.3167 --- & the next speaker J/ D0D00D0D00 D 0 D* 0 (D 0 0 )
13
Braaten’s fits
14
theorists here should agree on the proper form & then experimenters should use it in a proper unbinned fit
15
X(3872) J/ & ’ from BaBar X(3872) J/ X(3872) S BABAR PRL 102, 132001 (2009) 3.0 3.5 BF(B + X 3872 K + )×(X 3872 J/ ) =(2.8 ± 0.8 ± 0.2) × 10 -6 BF(B + X 3872 K + )×(X 3872 ’ ) =(9.5 ± 2.7 ± 0.9) × 10 -6 C-parity = +1 J PC = 2 -+ disfavored multipole suppression Bf(X 3872 ’) > Bf(X 3872 J/ ) bad for molecules
16
B K X(3872) from Belle arXiv:0809.1224 605 fb -1 ~90 events Very weak K*(890) M(K ) M( J/ ) Backgrounds from J/ sidebands Bf(B J/ K* 0 ) Bf(B J/ K NR ) ~4
17
DD* molecular models for the X(3872) attribute its production & decays charmonium to an admixture of c1 ’ in the wave fcn. But B K X(3872) is very different from B K charmonium BaBar PRD 71 032005 Belle arXiv 0809.0124 Belle PRD 74 072004 K ’ K J/ K c1 K c Belle F.Fang Thesis Belle PRD 74 072004 K X 3872 M(K )
18
States near 3940 MeV
19
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/ ) B K J/ 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)
20
Y(3940) DD* ? B KDD* 3940 MeV
21
X(3940) J/ ? e + e - J/ + ( J/ ) M( J/ ) PRL 98, 082001
22
X(3940) ≠ Y(3940) @ 90% CL
23
Y(3940) confirmed by BaBar B ± K ± J/ B 0 K S J/ J ) ratio Some discrepancy in M & ; general features agree PRL 101, 082001
24
Belle-BaBar direct comparison Belle will update with the complete (4S) date set later this Fall Same binning (Belle published result : 253 fb -1 ) 492fb -1
25
Y(3915) J/ from Belle 7.7 M: 3914 3 2 MeV, : 23 10 +2 -8 MeV, N res = 55 14 +2 -14 events Signif. = 7.7 , preliminary Probably the same as the Belle/BaBar Y(3915) C.Z. Yuan’s talk in the next session
26
cc assignments for X(3940) & y(3915)? 3940MeV Y(3915) = co ’? ( J/ ) too large? X(3940) = c ”? mass too low? c”c” c ’’’ 3915MeV c0 ’ _
27
Z(4430) and Z 1 (4050) & Z 2 (4250) u c d c Smoking guns for charmed exotics:
28
B K ’ (in Belle) K*(890) K + - M 2 (K + - ) M 2 ( + ’) K*(1430) K + - ? ??
29
The Z(4430) ± ± ’ peak M( ± ’ ) GeV BK +’BK +’ Z(4430) M ( ’ ) GeV evts near M( ’) 4430 MeV M 2 ( ± ’ ) GeV 2 M 2 ( ’ ) GeV 2 “K* Veto”
30
Shows up in all data subsamples
31
Could the Z(4430) be due to a reflection from the K channel?
32
Cos vs M 2 ( ’ ) 16 GeV 2 22 GeV 2 +1.0 cos M ( ’) & cos are tightly correlated; a peak in cos peak in M( ’) 0.25 ’’ K (4.43) 2 GeV 2 M 2 ( ’)
33
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.
34
But…
35
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 ~1.9 from zero; fixing mass and width increases this to only ~3.1 .” Belle PRL: (4.1 ± 1.0 ± 1.4)x10 -5
36
Reanalysis of Belle’s B K ’ data using Dalitz Plot techniques
37
2-body isobar model for K ’ KZ + K2*’K2*’ K* ’ K ’ Our default model ’ K*(890) ’ K*(1410) ’ K 0 *(1430) ’ K 2 *(1430) ’ K*(1680) ’ KZ +
38
Results with no KZ + term fit CL=0.1% 1 2 3 4 5 12 3 45 A B C AB C
39
Results with a KZ + term fit CL=36% 1 1 23 2 3 45 4 A 5 B A C B C
40
Compare with PRL results Signif: 6.4 Published results Mass & significance similar, width & errors are larger With Z(4430) Without Z(4430) Belle: = (3.2 +1.8+9.6 )x10 -5 0.9-1.6 BaBar: No big contradiction K* veto applied
41
Variations on a theme Others: Blatt f-f term 0 r=1.6fm 4fm; Z + spin J=0 J=1; incl K* in the bkg fcn Z(4430) + significance
42
The Z 1 (4050) + & Z 2 (4250) + + c1 peaks R. Mizuk et al (Belle), PRD 78,072004 (2008)
43
Dalitz analysis of B 0 K - + c1 K*(890) K*(1400)’s K*(1680) K 3 *(1780) M (J ) GeV E GeV ???
44
B K c1 Dalitz-plot analyses KZ + K 2 * c1 K* c1 K c1 Default Model c1 K*(890) c1 K*(1410) c1 K 0 *(1430) c1 K 2 *(1430) c1 K*(1680) c1 K 3 *(1780) c1 KZ +
45
Fit model: all low-lying K*’s (no Z + state) ab cd ef g abcd g f e C.L.=3 10 -10
46
Fit model: all K*’s + one Z + state ab cd ef g abcd g f e C.L.=0.1%
47
Are there two? abcd ? ? ? ?
48
Fit model: all K*’s + two Z + states ab cd ef g abcd g f e C.L.=42%
49
Two Z-states give best fit Projection with K* veto
50
Systematics of B 0 → K - π + c1 fit Significance of Z 1 (4050) + and Z 2 (4250) + is high. Fit assumes J Z1 =0, J Z2 =0; no signif. improvement for J Z1 =1 &/or J Z2 =1. M=1.04 GeV; G=0.26 GeV
51
Z(4430) + signal in B K ’ 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 Z 1 (4050) & Z 2 (4250), seen in B K c1, have similar properties (i.e. M & ) & product Bf’s –signif. (at least one Z + )>10 ; (two Z + states)>5
52
Summary The X3872 mass keeps getting closer & closer to MD0 + MD*0 B K X 3872 is very different from B K 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 Z 1 (2050) + & Z 2 (2050) + + c1 peaks further evidence for charmed exotics Most XYZ states have large partial widths to hidden charm final states e + e - J/ X 3940 B K Y 3940 DD* J/ by charmonium standards
53
Summary
54
Improvement to M(D 0 )? Best single measurement from CLEOc: M D0 = 1864.847 ± 0.150 (stat) ± 0.095 (syst) MeV CLEOc uses invariant mass: large M D0 dominates the error small 0 not a big contrib. & only uses D 0 K S ( K + K - ) decays: well known ±2x16keV ±22keV 0.1 M D0 measured Bf 0.002 319 evts stat error dominates
55
M(D 0 ) measurement @ BESIII Use “beam constrained mass @ ” : need to know E beam precisely Use backscattered laser beam at the unused X-ing region to measure E beam (&M D0 ) to better than ±100 keV Approved, funded,& under construction
Similar presentations
© 2025 SlidePlayer.com. Inc.
All rights reserved.