1 / 76

Thomas S. Bauer - NIKHEF

Thomas S. Bauer - NIKHEF. Q. Thomas S. Bauer - NIKHEF. Q with ? s. Some questions and critical remarks to the recently reported exotic states: + = { u u d d s } at 1.540 GeV and X - - = { u d d s s } at 1.862 GeV. Present experimental status.

claude
Download Presentation

Thomas S. Bauer - NIKHEF

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Thomas S. Bauer - NIKHEF Th. S. Bauer - NIKHEF

  2. Q Thomas S. Bauer - NIKHEF Th. S. Bauer - NIKHEF

  3. Qwith ?s • Some questions and critical remarks to • the recently reported exotic states: • + = { u u d d s } at 1.540 GeV and X- - = { u d d s s }at 1.862 GeV. Th. S. Bauer - NIKHEF

  4. Present experimental status • several experiments reporting positive results; • all reported signals are not very strong; • revisiting an intensively studied domain; • several critical remarks published; • possibly other origins of observed effects; Th. S. Bauer - NIKHEF

  5. Present experimental status • several experiments reporting positive results; • all reported signals are not very strong; • revisiting an intensively studied domain; • several critical remarks published; • possibly other origins of observed effects; • but : • no discussion of other results than mass and width; • (almost) no comparison with existing data; • no assessment of consistency of results; • experiments without result refrain to publish ... Th. S. Bauer - NIKHEF

  6. List of experiments: g g g e-scatt. (K+ + Xe) (p + A) (p + p) e-p scatt. • SPring-8 (Japan) hep-ex/0301020 08 Jul. 2003 • CLAS (TJLab) hep-ex/0307018 10 Dec. 2003 • SAPHIR (Bonn) hep-ex/0307083 30 Sep. 2003 • Hermes (HERA) hep-ex/0312044 22 Jan. 2004 • n-data(BEBC and Fermilab) hep-ex/0309042 25 Sep. 2003 • Diana (ITEP) hep-ex/0304040 18 Sep. 2003 • SVD-2 (Protvino) hep-ex/0401024 22 Jan. 2004 • NA49 (CERN) hep-ex/0310014 8 Oct. 2003 • ZEUS (HERA) ... WA89; Graal; H1; CoSy; Hera-B ... Th. S. Bauer - NIKHEF

  7. L and S resonances Q+ {uudds} decays to n K+ and to p K 0 Th. S. Bauer - NIKHEF

  8. X resonances X - - {ssddu} decays to X -p- Th. S. Bauer - NIKHEF

  9. SPring-8 Th. S. Bauer - NIKHEF

  10. SPring-8 (LEPS) ( g + 12C) Some salient features: • new experiment, optimized for f-physics *) ; • uses real photons from Synchr. Radiation Source; • Eg < 2.4 GeV; • LH2target and 12Ctarget - only 12C used; • PID through ToF and magnetic field; • recoiling protons via Si-strip detector; • correction for Fermi-motion. *) “new” = 2001. No printed publication except 2 conference contributions + PQ – paper. Th. S. Bauer - NIKHEF

  11. SPring-8 (LEPS) • first evidence for Q+-state; • produced in : • + n  Q+ + K-; Q+  K+ + n; used C-target; 19 events in peak. Th. S. Bauer - NIKHEF

  12. SPring-8 (LEPS) Particle Identification: magnetic field + Time of Flight ( + Cherenkov ) possible problem: 43 * 106 triggers 8000 events with K+ K-, final signal = 19 events need purity of10-6!! (including other cuts) Th. S. Bauer - NIKHEF

  13. SPring-8 (LEPS) A closer look at Fermi motion: • due tonucleartarget; • “correlated with Q-value”; • correction crucial for final result! • However • measured width of Q+  n K+ • much smaller than width of S !! • (20 MeV vs. 42 MeV) • by the way: shouldn’t the width rather • be correlated to momentum in cms ...? • which would make things worse. Th. S. Bauer - NIKHEF

  14. SPring-8 (LEPS) • Identification of Q+ state relies heavily on absence of (fast) proton: • the Si-strip detector is used as VETO -- • this relies crucially on (very) high efficiency.(no info on this found in the available SPRING-8 documents). (Questions: strip efficiency, coincidence between layers, etc.) • The Veto condition is checked at ± 45 mm around the presumed impact of the proton. • this requires knowledge of the complete kinematics – which is not available! Th. S. Bauer - NIKHEF

  15. SPring-8 (LEPS) (from Nakano et al.) Th. S. Bauer - NIKHEF

  16. SPring-8 (LEPS) Question: “removing” 5 events destroys peak. (from Nakano et al.) Th. S. Bauer - NIKHEF

  17. SPring-8 (LEPS) • Question: • “removing” 5 events destroys peak. • Thus: how can we gain trust in result ? • Answer: • Use data on LH2: • must be able to see Q+ p + K0s; • no problem with proton-veto ; • no problem with Fermi-motion. (from Nakano et al.) Note: SPring-8/LEPS can (in principle) trigger on pions of K0s decay. Th. S. Bauer - NIKHEF

  18. CLAS Th. S. Bauer - NIKHEF

  19. CLAS ( g + 2D, g + 1H ) Some salient features: • Large acceptance experiment, several years of operation; • domain: Baryon resonances; • Eg < 2.9 GeV and < 5 GeV , (respectively) • H2target and 2Dtarget ; • PID through ToF and magnetic field; • Correction for Fermi-motion (when needed). Th. S. Bauer - NIKHEF

  20. CLAS • attempt: analyze D-target data, assuming g + n Q+ + K- , Fermi correction treated as by SPring-8 collaboration: • Problem: “No statistical significant result obtained!” and “CLAS ... unfavorable... for direct Q+photoproduction detection” (Luminita Todor, Seminar@JLAB, Aug. 15, 2003) • --- how to proceed ??? Th. S. Bauer - NIKHEF

  21. CLAS • Goal: n + gQ+ + K-; • Problem: no free neutron target ; • apply trick : • use n in D-target; • require double scattering process to eject proton; • measurement kinematically complete Th. S. Bauer - NIKHEF

  22. CLAS • Prize for re-scattering: yield goes down (later called “quenching”) . (implicit claim CLAS:“~50 %”) • reported yields: f: 124 L1520 : 228 Q+: 42 Attention: difficult to compare: • acceptances not known, presumably not equal. • yield Q/yield L1520 ≈ 0.4 – probably even larger! • Need Monte Carlo in order to determine acceptance and cross section. Th. S. Bauer - NIKHEF

  23. CLAS -- new data • apparently not yet available, though shown at workshop in Trento, Febr. 12, 2004 • two peaks, at 1.528 and 1.578 GeV • yield of 1.578 GeV peak is ~2 times stronger Th. S. Bauer - NIKHEF

  24. SAPHIR Th. S. Bauer - NIKHEF

  25. SAPHIR (Elsa-Bonn) ( g + 1H ) • 133 M events (taken ~5 years ago) • trigger = 2 charged tracks • signal: ~ 50 events • corresponds to production cross section of s ~200 nb. this is “≈ 20 % of L, S and L1520 cross sections” “rising with energy” – and decreasingwith time . Th. S. Bauer - NIKHEF

  26. X-- another member of the anti-decuplet... X- - = { u d d s s }. Q+ = { u u d d s } Th. S. Bauer - NIKHEF

  27. NA49 Th. S. Bauer - NIKHEF

  28. NA49 (p-p, √ s = 17 GeV) • p-p scattering at √ s = 17 GeV • signals for X-- : • combining X- and p- • cross check with other charge combinations. • can use X0*1530 as benchmark. Th. S. Bauer - NIKHEF

  29. NA49 Remarks: • opening angle Qlab > 4.5 º Th. S. Bauer - NIKHEF

  30. NA49 Remarks: • opening angle Qlab > 4.5 º • Qlabis not a physical parameter !!! Th. S. Bauer - NIKHEF

  31. NA49 Remarks: • opening angle Qlab > 4.5 º • Qlabis not a physical parameter !!! • X*01530 visible, but weaker than X--(1860) (due to some cuts... total X*01530 signal is ~150 evts.) Th. S. Bauer - NIKHEF

  32. NA49 versus NA49 • Criticism: (Thanks to H.G. Fischer and S. Wenig, CERN, hep-ex / 0401014 – 12 Jan 2004) • NA49 used 1640 X- and 551 X+ events • NA49 sees a total of ~ 150 X*01530 • S.N. Gangule et al.(NP. B128-408, (1977) report ~ 800 X*01530 from S.N. Gangule et al. Nucl.Phys. B128, 408, (1977) Th. S. Bauer - NIKHEF

  33. NA49 (p-p, √ s = 17 GeV) X-- Th. S. Bauer - NIKHEF

  34. NA49 versus (?) WA89 *) *) taken from Pochodzalla, Mainz, talk at JLab, Oct 2003 Th. S. Bauer - NIKHEF

  35. What is hidden beyond 1.8 GeV inWA89 ?? Note: 63 000 ± 6 000 X0* ? total: ~150 X0* Th. S. Bauer - NIKHEF

  36. NA49 Q+ nK+ what has NA49 to say about Q+ ? Th. S. Bauer - NIKHEF

  37. NA49 Q+ nK+ • nK+ inv. mass spectrum; • deviation from polynomial; Th. S. Bauer - NIKHEF

  38. NA49 Q+ nK+ • nK+ inv. mass spectrum; • deviation from polynomial; • 30 % of L1520 added as a hypothetical Q+ ; • statistical significance of added signal. • note: different E-scale! Th. S. Bauer - NIKHEF

  39. Hermes Th. S. Bauer - NIKHEF

  40. Hermes (e-A, Ee = 27 GeV) How stable is this signal? quoted signal: 54 ... 59 ± 16 Th. S. Bauer - NIKHEF

  41. Hermes (e-A, Ee = 27 GeV) First: one can do much more with 33 datapoints... Th. S. Bauer - NIKHEF

  42. Hermes (e-A, Ee = 27 GeV) 121 40 121 40 Th. S. Bauer - NIKHEF

  43. Hermes (e-A, Ee = 27 GeV) Th. S. Bauer - NIKHEF

  44. Hermes (e-A, Ee = 27 GeV) Th. S. Bauer - NIKHEF

  45. Hermes (e-A, Ee = 27 GeV) L-channel note: width L1670 small (25 ~ 50 MeV/c2) width L1690 small (50 ~ 70 MeV/c2) Th. S. Bauer - NIKHEF

  46. Hermes -- another regard on these data bckgrnd = 5 Gauss + mixing = 6 params signal = Gauss (3param) pretty superfluous!! total = 9 params bckgrnd = parabola (3 params) signal = Gauss (3param) total = 6 params  2/n = 0.64 bckgrnd = parabola (3 params) only total = 3 params  2/n = 1.097 most likely!! from Hermes publication: Th. S. Bauer - NIKHEF

  47. other work • R. A. Arndt, I.I. Strakovsky and R.L. Workman: (nucl-th/0311030, 10 Nov. 2003) • reexamine existing K+p and K+d database; • “how could such a state have been missed”? • “The lack of structure in database implies: • “ a width of an MeV or less , assuming a state exists near 1540 MeV.” Th. S. Bauer - NIKHEF

  48. Hera-B Th. S. Bauer - NIKHEF

  49. Hera-B (p-A, √ s = 42 GeV) K0 - p finally, a signal which one would like to believe... Th. S. Bauer - NIKHEF

  50. Hera-B (p-A, √ s = 42 GeV) finally a signal which we can enhance... Th. S. Bauer - NIKHEF

More Related