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