1. Charmonium Decays in CLEO Tomasz Skwarnicki Syracuse University I will concentrate on the recent results. Separate talk covering Y(4260).

2. Charmonium in CLEO ICHEP'06 Moscow Tomasz Skwarnicki2 CLEO-c Data Samples By far the largest  (3770) sample The  (2S) sample not the largest, but still unique because of the CLEO detector capabilities (excellent tracking, EM calorimeter and PID) 5.6pb -1, 3M  (2S) 20.7pb -1 continuum below  (2S) 281pb -1, 1.8M  (3770) 60pb -1, scan 3.97-4.26 GeV 200pb -1 at 4.17 GeV Ian Shipsey’s talk on Y(4260) J/  (1S) R E(e + e - ) GeV

3. Charmonium in CLEO ICHEP'06 Moscow Tomasz Skwarnicki3 Photon transitions:  (3770)    cJ –Is  (3770) a regular cc state? –Effects due to 1 3 D 1 - 2 3 S 1 mixing? –Reliability of the   predictions for states above the open charm threshold? Two complementary methods: –  cJ   J/  J/  e  e      Excellent background suppression but poor sensitivity to  c0 –  cJ  K  K   K  K                           More backgrounds but good sensitivity to  c0 –Total energy-momentum constraints suppress the backgrounds and improve the photon energy resolution  (2S)    cJ as control sample cc n 2S+1 L J S= 0 1 0 1 0 1 L= 0 1 2 n=1 n=2 l+ll+l  (2S)  (3770)  cJ J/  2K,2K2 ,4 ,6  Rare because    10 0 -10 2 keV while   (3770)  DD =25 MeV Interesting because of well grounded potential model predictions for    (1 3 D 1 )   1 3 P J 

4. Charmonium in CLEO ICHEP'06 Moscow Tomasz Skwarnicki4 Photon transitions:  (3770)    cJ  hadrons PRL 96 182002 (06) hep-ex/0605070  hadrons CLEO-CONF-06-6 signal  (2S) bkg other bkg  c0

5. Charmonium in CLEO ICHEP'06 Moscow Tomasz Skwarnicki5 Photon transitions:  (3770)    cJ Dominant J-dependence  (3770) photon transition rates fit the pattern expected for the 1 3 D 1 cc state In non-relativistic limit no J-dependence of the E1 matrix element signature of the 1 3 D 1 state

6. Charmonium in CLEO ICHEP'06 Moscow Tomasz Skwarnicki6 2 3 S 1 – 1 3 D 1 Mixing ? No consistent solution can be obtained in the non-relativistic approach Mixing angle is small Theoretical curves from the non-relativistic calculations by J. Rosner hep-ph/0411003  (2S)  (3770) CLEO-c results

7. Charmonium in CLEO ICHEP'06 Moscow Tomasz Skwarnicki7 Importance of relativistic corrections Non-relativistic calculations overestimate photon transition rates for the charmonium Qualitatively, potential model predictions work for the 1 3 D 1 state equally well as for the 2 3 S 1 state ( GeV -1 ) Based on CLEO-c results (J-averaged) Non-relativistic Relativistic Rosner hep-ph/0411003 Ding,Qin,Chao PRD44,3562(91) Eichten,Lane,Quigg PRD69,094019(04) Barnes,Godfrey,Swanson PRD72,054026(05)

8. Charmonium in CLEO ICHEP'06 Moscow Tomasz Skwarnicki8 non-DD decays of  (3770) No evidence for anomalously large non-DD component CLEOBR [%]  c0 0.73  0.07  0.06  c1 0.29  0.05  0.04  c2 <0.09  +  - J/  0.19  0.02  0.02  0  0 J/  0.08  0.02  0.02  J/  0.09  0.03  0.02  0 J/  <0.03  0.03  0.01 K0SK0LK0SK0L <0.001 Detected so far 1.41  0.10  0.16 missing event energy (GeV) after finding  +,  -, J/  (  ll) e + e -  (2S)   (J/  +  - )  (3770)  J/  +  - CLEO PRL,96,082004 (06) CLEO PRD,73,012002 (06) (many upper limits presented in this paper too) CLEO PRL,95,121801 (05) CLEO PRL,96,092002 (06) vs. CLEO hep/ex-0603026 CLEO-CONF-06-7 vs. (9 ± 2 ± 6)% BES-II Gang Rong’s talk

9. Charmonium in CLEO ICHEP'06 Moscow Tomasz Skwarnicki9 Results relevant for the interpretation of X(3872) Combining results from the previous slides: –X(3872) cannot be 1 3 D 2 cc state! –A moot point by now, since Belle, CDF, BaBar have shown X(3872) is J PC =1 ++

10. Charmonium in CLEO ICHEP'06 Moscow Tomasz Skwarnicki10 M(K s  ) GeV D0D0 Results relevant for the interpretation of X(3872) D0 mass: –  (3770)  D 0 D 0 Very small background D 0, K s,  have small momenta –D 0 mass scale well calibrated via K s,  masses –1864.85±0.15±0.20 MeV CLEO PRELIMINARY –1864.5±0.40 MeV PDG’06 fit –1864.1±1.00 MeV PDG’06 average M X(3872)  M D 0 D 0* = M X(3872)  (2M D 0 +  M D 0*  D 0 )= –  0.1±1.0 MeV PDG’06 –  0.4±0.7 MeV PDG’06+CLEO The error is now limited by the X(3872) mass measurement Accidental mass coincidence even less likely. D 0 D 0 * molecule, other 4-quark state with small binding energy, or a threshold cusp?  tag  K s  (     )(K  K  )

11. Charmonium in CLEO ICHEP'06 Moscow Tomasz Skwarnicki11  (2S) as  cJ factory e + e − →  (2S) –5pb -1, CLEO III+c, 3M  (2S) –by the end of the year ×10  (2S)→  cJ, J=0,1,2 –B~9% each J, “  cJ factory” –observed in inclusive analysis –B(  cJ →hadrons ) are not well known Selected analyses of  cJ hadronic decays: –Channels involving neutrals:  cJ → η ( ’ ) η ( ’ )  cJ → h + h − h 0, 3-body decays, Dalitz plot analysis  c0  c1  c2 CLEO PRD,70, 112002 (2004)

12. Charmonium in CLEO ICHEP'06 Moscow Tomasz Skwarnicki12  cJ  ( ’ )  ( ’ ) B(  c0    ) = 0.31 ± 0.05 ± 0.04 % B(  c0   /  / ) = 0.18 ± 0.04 ± 0.02 % B(  c0    / ) < 0.05% (90% CL) B(  c2    ) < 0.05% (90% CL) B(  c2   /  / ) < 0.03% (90% CL) B(  c2    / ) < 0.023% (90% CL) Theoretical model by: Qiang Zhao, PRD,72,074001(05) r = Double-OZI/Single-OZI  c1 spin-parity forbidden  c2  c0  c1 CLEO preliminary BES E835 Fits all

13. Charmonium in CLEO ICHEP'06 Moscow Tomasz Skwarnicki13 Analysis of  cJ →h 0 h + h − See results on the next slide  c2  c0  c1  c2  c0  c1  c2  c0  c1  c2  c0  c1   pp   KK KK  KK  ’   pp  Kp

14. Charmonium in CLEO ICHEP'06 Moscow Tomasz Skwarnicki14 Most of them are the first observations! Statistics in  c1 →  +  −, K + K −  0, K 0 s K  sufficient for Dalitz plot analysis of resonant substructure (following slides) Analysis of  cJ →h 0 h + h − CLEO PRELIMINARY (upper limits at 90% C.L.) CLEO-CONF-06-9 (in %)

15. Charmonium in CLEO ICHEP'06 Moscow Tomasz Skwarnicki15 Dalitz plot analysis of  c1 →  +  − May offer the best way to determine a 0 (980) parameters in the future 10x increase in statistics expected this year CLEO PRELIMINARY a 0 (980) f 2 (1270)

16. Charmonium in CLEO ICHEP'06 Moscow Tomasz Skwarnicki16 Dalitz plot analysis of  c1 → K + K −  0 Analyzed together with K 0 s K  see the next slide for the fit results K*(892) a 0 (980) K*(1430)

17. Charmonium in CLEO ICHEP'06 Moscow Tomasz Skwarnicki17 Dalitz plot analysis of  c1 → K 0 s K  K*(892)K,a 0 (980)  clearly seen Need more data to sort out other contributions KK  fit results CLEO PRELIMINARY Model dependent K*(892) a 0 (980) K*(1430)

18. Charmonium in CLEO ICHEP'06 Moscow Tomasz Skwarnicki18 Search for  (2S) →  c (1S)       B(  (2S) →  c       ) < 0.1% (90% C.L.) Rules out “survival before annihilation” model by P.Artoisenet et al. PLB,628,211 (05) invented to explain the “  puzzle” (predicted B > 1%) MC data cc  c → K + K   0,  +    K + K  K + K ,  +    +  , K 0 K   + CLEO CLNS 06/1965 CLEO PRELIMINARY

19. Charmonium in CLEO ICHEP'06 Moscow Tomasz Skwarnicki19 Analysis of  (2S) → 2 pseudo-scalars Confirm BES results The phase difference  between the EM and strong amplitudes around 90 o, which is consistent with the J/  value, contrary to some theoretical speculations that it might be very different CLEO hep-ex/0603020 CLEO-CONF-06-8

20. Charmonium in CLEO ICHEP'06 Moscow Tomasz Skwarnicki20 Summary Potential models predict    for  (3770)    cJ equally well as for  (2S)    cJ No evidence for anomalously high  (3770)  non-DD  (3770) appears to be standard 1 3 D 1 cc state with a small admixture of 2 3 S 1 Preliminary precision measurement of D 0 mass improves M X(3872)  M D 0 D 0* determination to  0.4±0.7 MeV Vast improvement in measurements of exclusive hadronic decay modes of the  cJ states. An order of magnitude increase in  (2S) statistics (x10) expected soon. Significant improvement in  (3770) statistics (x3) expected by 2008.