Stephen Olsen New types of hadrons HEP 10

Stephen Olsen 夏威夷 大学 & 新强子� New types of hadrons HEP 10 南京大学 April 26, 2008 高能所 北京

Constituent Quark Model (CQM) Gell-Mann (& 6 antiquarks) 6 quarks u+2/3 c+2/3 t+2/3 d-1/3 s-1/3 b-1/3 Baryons: qqq p: p: u+2/3 d-1/3 u-2/3 U-2/3 D+1/3 u-2/3 c-2/3 d+1/3 t-2/3 +1/3 s+1/3 b Mesons: q q p+ : p- : u+2/3 d+1//3 u-2/3 d-1/3 Zweig

Fabulously successful mesons q q

QCD suggests non-qq meson spectroscopies glueball

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.

predicted measured

About 20 measured transition rates D 1 D D( *) Ds. Ds DD g p 0 pp, h, p 0 g g pp DD g measured rates all agree with predictions (more-or-less)

About 20 measured transition rates D 1 D D( *) Ds. Ds DD g p 0 pp, h, p 0 g g g pp • • • DD G(pp-allowed) 50~ 100 ke. V G(p – ispin viol)~0. 5 ke. V G(E 1 -gamma) 20~200 ke. V G(M 1 -gamma)~1 ke. V G(D(*)) ≥ 10 Me. V

I’ll emphasize recent results.

X(3872) pp X + p+p-J/y B± K±p+p-J/y ’ ’ ’ X(3872)

M(pp) looks like r pp CDF Belle c 2/dof = 43/39 (CL=28%) PRL 96 102002 kinematic limit≈mr • Belle & CDF: JPC = 1++ most likely = 2 -+ still possible

X(3872) properties (PDG 2007) Me. V MD 0 + MD*0 = 3871. 8 ± 0. 4 Me. V

What is it? • L Maiani et al PRD 71, 014028 (2005) c c cc 1’ charmonium? • T-W Chiu & TH Hsieh • C Meng & KT Chao PRD 75, 114002 (2007) PRD 73, 111503 (2006) • D Ebert et al … PLB 634, 214 (2006) • 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) too light? ? P Lacock et al (UKQCD) PLB 401, 308 (1997)

Is X(3872) a Charmonium state? 3872 Me. V ? ?

Could the X(3872) be the cc 1’ (23 P 1)? ? ? 3872 Me. V • Mass is too low • cc 1’ pp. J/y violates Ispin • G(g. J/y) should be >>G{r. J/y) • expt: G(g. J/y) <<G(r. J/y)

Could the X(3872) be the hc 2 (11 D 2)? 3872 Me. V ? ? • hc 2’ pp. J/y violates Ispin • G(g. J/y) should be very small • expt: G(g. J/y) 0. 1 G(r. J/y) • B Khc 2 should be very small

Is X(3872) a diquark-diantiquark? Where are the “partner states”? Xu(3872) u c c u B+ K-Xu Xd(3872) X+(3872) u c c d d c c d X-(3872) d c c u Ba. Bar: B 0 K 0 Xd M(Xd)-M(Xu)= 2(md-mu)/cosq 8 ± 3 Me. V L Maiani et al PRD 71, 014028 (20050 Bf(B 0 K-X+)Bf(X+ p+p 0 J/y) Bf(B- K-X 0)Bf(X+ p+p-J/y) < 0. 4 (expected value is 2) PRD 71, 031501 (2005)

B KSX & B K±X comparison Ba. Bar 0803. 2838 K± mode KS mode DM = 0. 22 ± 0. 90 ± 0. 27 Me. V Compared to 8± 3 Me. V DM = 2. 7 ± 1. 6 ± 0. 4 Me. V (Maiani et al PRD 71 014028)

0 0 X(3872) D D* ? Ba. Bar & Belle see a DD* threshold enhancement in B KDD* G. Gokhroo et al. (Belle) D 0 p 0 B. Aubert et al. (Ba. Bar) Phys. Rev. D 77, 011102 (2008) Both groups see a high mass value & a Bf(DD*) 10 x Bf(p+p-J/y) “DD* molecular” models Predicted Bf(DDp) 0. 1 Bf(p+p-J/y) (c. f. E. S. Swanson PLB 588, 189 (2004))

ar. Xiv: 0801. 3540 ” ”…

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

The -1 states seen in ISR

+ e e gisr Y(4260) at Ba. Bar PRL 95, 142001 (2005) fitted values: M=4259 8 G = 88 23 233 fb-1 Y(4260) +2 -6 +6 -9 Me. V

Not seen in e+e- hadrons J. Z. Bai et al (BES), PRL 88, 101802 (2006) (e+e- hadrons) (e+e- m+m-) m 4260 G(Y 4260 p+p- J/y) niu o m ar s h BES data y c dard b ge stan u h > 1. 6 Me. V @ 90% CL X. H. Mo et al, PL B 640, 182 (2006)

“Y(4260)” at Belle M=4247 12 +17 -32 Me. V G = 108 19 ± 10 Me. V M=4008 40 +114 -28 (New) Ba. Bar values: M=4259 8 G = 88 23 +2 -6 +6 -9 Me. V G = 226 44 ± 87 Me. V ? ? ? Resonance? Thresh effect? …? C. Z Yuan et al (Belle) ar. Xiv: 0707. 2541 PRL 99, 182004

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

! Is the Y(4260) a cc-gluon hybrid? ! ! e s e c c th f o l • qq-gluon excitations predicted 30 yrs ago l a h c • lowest 1 cc-gluon mass expected at ~4. 3 Ge. V t a m o • relevant open charm tthreshold is D**D (~4. 28 Ge. V) s m e than that for normal charmonium • G(pp. J/y) larger e s ) 0 • G(e e )6 smaller than that for ordinary charmonium 2 4 ( Y 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) Mc. Neile, Michael & Pennanen PRD 65, 094505 (2002) + - Close & Page NP B 443, 233 (1995)

D** spectrum D 1 D D 2 D DD** thresholds in & “Y(4260)” No obvious distortions 4. 28 -m. D M(p+p-J/y) Ge. V

D 1 D D D 2 Ba. Bar’s p+p-y’ peak at 4325 Me. V e+e- g. ISR p+p- y’ 298 fb-1 (Ba. Bar) hep-ex/0610057 Nevt = 68 (<5. 7 Ge. V/c 2) Nbkg = 3. 1 1. 0 M=4324 24 Me. V G = 172 33 Me. V above all D**D thresholds Not Compatible with the Y(4260) Ba. Bar PRL 98 252001 (2007) S. W. Ye QWG-2006 June 2006 2 -prob Y(4260) (4415) < 5. 7 Ge. V/c 2 6. 5 10 -3 1. 2 10 -13 Y(4320) 29%

4325 Me. V p+p-y’ peak in Belle Two peaks! M=4361 9 ± 9 Me. V 4260 G = 74 15 ± 10 Me. V 548 fb-1 (new) (both relatively narrow) (& both above D**D thresh) (& neither consistent with 4260) M=4664 11 ± 5 Me. V G = 48 15 ± 3 Me. V X. L. Wang et al (Belle) ar. Xiv: 0707. 3699 PRL 99, 142002 (2007) Ba. Bar values M=4324 24 Me. V G = 172 33 Me. V

Y(4360) & Y(4660) are above all D**D thresholds D** spectrum 4. 66 -m. D 4. 36 -m. D

No sign of Y(4360) or Y(4660) in e+e- D(*) or DDp 4360 4660 DD+DD*+D*D*+DDp Pakhlova (Belle) PRL 98, 092001 (2007)

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.

Recent News lly a ric ed!! t ec arg l e h c

± M(p y’) K* Kp Veto from B K KVeto 2* Kp? ± p y’ M = 4433 ± 4 ± 1 Me. V Gtot = 45 +17 +30 -13 -11 Me. V M 2(py’) Ge. V 2 Nsig =124 ± 31 evts 6. 5 M 2(Kp) Ge. V 2 M(py’) Ge. V S. -K. Choi et al (Belle) ar. Xiv: 0708. 1790 PRL 100 2 weeks ago

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

comments • • – – – • There seems to be a new hadron spectroscopy in the M=3. 5~5 Ge. V 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) ppy’ & Z+(4430) p+ y’ have large Q but G≈50 Me. V characterized by large partial widths (Bfs) to hadrons+J/y (or y’) – – – • Br(X(3872) r. J/y) > 4. 3% (Isospin=1) G(Y(4260) p+p-J/y) > 1. 6 Me. V G(Z(4430) py’) > 1 Me. V States that decay to y’ not seen decaying to J/y (and vice-versa) – – – Bf(Y(4660) ppy’) >> Bf(y(4660) pp. J/y) same for Y(4360) Z(4430) py’ seen but p. J/y not reported Y(4260) not seen in Y(4260) ppy’ • The new 1 -- states are not apparent in e+e- D(*) cross sections • There are no evident changes at the D**D mass threshold

New 1 -- states p+p- J/y p+p- y’ K+K- J/y C. -Z. Yuan et al (Belle) PRD 77, 011105® (2008)

DD thresholds DSDS thresholds some of the states are near thresholds, but this is not a universal feature

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

Belle: G( (5 S) pp (n. S)) is Huge!!! (4 S) (1 S) p+p- data ossse & ction ) 8 tim es as many event s! 44± 8 evts “ (5 S)” pp (1 S) 23. 6 fb-1 from Belle 2 S 3 S 4 S Belle 0710. 2577 K. F. Chen et al (Belle) PRL 100, 112001 (2008) (4 weeks ago) 325± 20 evts! (1/20 (4 S) pp (1 S) times ~ 1 / 477 fb-1 from Belle 10 th the ctrhe

Partial Widths Assume “ (5 S)” = (5 S) N. B. Resonance cross section 0. 302 ± 0. 015 nb at 10. 87 Ge. V PRD 98, 052001 (2007) [Belle] PDG value taken for (n. S) properties >100 times bigger!! Cf (2 S) (1 S) p+p- ~ 6 ke. V (3 S) 0. 9 ke. V (4 S) 1. 8 ke. V

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

-1 Ys states around 2 Ge. V? Y(2175) f 0(980)f from Ba. Bar confirmed by BESII in J/y h f f 0(980) e+e- g f 0(980)h @ Ecm ~10. 6 Ge. V M(f 0(980)f Ge. V M. Ablikim et al (BES) PRL 100, 102003 (2008) 6 weeks ago

Maybe the X(1835) is one too? J/y g. X(1835) | p+p-h’ s s tly s mo X(1835) M. Ablikim et al (BESII), Phys. Rev. Lett. 95: 262001, 2005

Luciano Maiani @ had-2007

Now it looks like there may also be XYZ-like spectroscopies for the s- & b-quark sectors Implications for BES-III: • J/y (y’) running: systematic study of states decaying to f & h’ • Higher energies: look for states decaying to lower charmonia (hc, J/y, cc 1 etc. ) • …

zz le ? Lots of pieces pu 0) 3 4 (4 e Z Y(3940) ) sa m 0 4 9 3 Ar e th Y(4360) ey Y(4260) ) 0 16 50) 4 ( X Y(40 al lf ro m Y(4660) th e X( X(3872)

Backup Slides

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

Could Z(4430) be a reflection from the Kp channel?

Cos qp vs M 2(py’) qp p y’ K +1. 0 22 Ge. V 2 (4. 43)2 Ge. V 2 0. 25 cosqp M 2(py’) 16 Ge. V 2 M (py’) & cosqp are tightly correlated; a peak in cosqp peak in M(py’) -1. 0

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

Can we make a peak at cosqp≈0. 25 with only S-, P- & D-waves? Not without introducing other, even more dramatic features at other cosqp (&, , other Mpy’) values.

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