360 likes | 369 Views
Spectroscopy Results from Belle. SooKyung Choi Gyeongsang National University. Spectroscopy session : Heavy Quarks & Leptons 2010 Oct 11 Laboratori Nazionali di Frascati. XYZ mesons (>5 s signif). Electrically neutral. Electrically charged. The X(3872).
E N D
Spectroscopy Results from Belle SooKyungChoi GyeongsangNational University Spectroscopy session : Heavy Quarks & Leptons 2010 Oct 11 LaboratoriNazionalidiFrascati
XYZ mesons (>5s signif) Electrically neutral Electrically charged
The X(3872) in BK p+p-J/y discovered by Belle (140/fb) y’p+p-J/y X(3872)p+p-J/y M(ppJ/y) – M(J/y) seen in 4 experiments S.K. Choi , S.L.Olsen et al PRL 91, 262001
X(3872) mass in p+p-J/ychannel only <MX>= 3871.46 ± 0.19 MeV Belle meas. new CDF meas. CDF PRL103,152001(2009) MD0 + MD*0. 2010 3871.78 ± 0.29 MeV/c2 Dm(deuteron) = -2.2 MeV m = -0.32 ± 0.35 MeV
X(3872)p+p-J/y in Belle recent results arXiv:0809.1224 605 fb-1 (BaBar) : (2.7 ± 1.6 ±0.4) MeV diquark-diquark prediction: DM=8±3 MeV Maiani et al PRD71, 014028 (BaBar) 0.41 ± 0.24 ± 0.05 BABAR: PRD 77,111101 (2008) [413 fb-1]
p+p- system in X(3872)p+p- J/y comes from rp+p- Belle CDF: PRL 98 132002 rp+p- lineshape M(p+p- ) M(p+p- ) p+ r p- X3872 J/y
JPC of the X(3872) Angular distributions for BKX(3872)KrJ/y Partial Wave basis: 775 MeV X(3872)r J/y is right at threshold neglect higher partial waves 3872 MeV 3097 MeV 1++: L: S-Wave D-wave S: 1 1,2 2-+: L: P-Wave F-wave S: 1,2 1,2 Only 1 amplitude: BLS=B01 1 free parameter: 2 amplitudes: BLS=B11 & B12 3 free parameters normalization normalization complex
CDF results 1++ fits well with no adjustable parameters 2-+ looks like 1++ for All JPC values other than 1++ or 2-+are ruled out with high confidence CDF: PRL 98 132002 1++ no adj. params 2- +2 adj. params 1- - O++
_ Possible 1++ cc assignment: cc1 ‘ set by: Mcc2=3930 MeV ‘ • Mass is too low? • 3872 vs 3905 MeV • G(cc1 gy’) ~180 keV • G(cc1 g J/y) ~14 keV • G(cc1 gy’)/G(cc1 g J/y)>>1 ‘ ‘ T.Barneset al PRD 72, 054026 • Gp+p- J/y=(3.4±1.2)GgJ/y ~45 keV huge for Isospin-violating decay c.f.: G(y’p0J/y)≈0.4 keV
_ Possible 2-+ cc assignment: hc2 set by: My”=3770 MeV • Mass is too high?: • 3872 vs 3837 MeV • G(hc2 gy’) ~0.4 keV • G(hc2 g J/y) ~9 keV • G(hc2 gy’)/G(hc2 g J/y)<<1 Y. Jiaet al arXiv:0107.4541 • Gp+p- J/y=(3.4±1.2) GgJ/y ~30 keV • huge for Isospin-violating decay • c.f.: G(y’p0J/y)≈0.4 keV • BKhc2 violates factorization • BKhc not seen • BKcc2 barely seen • hc2 DD* expected to be tiny • Belle & BaBar:: • G(XDD*)/G(XppJ/y)=9.5±3.1 Y. Kalasnikovaet al arXiv:1008.2895 hc2ghc s& pphc modes expected to dominate
X(3872)g J/y (y’) ?? BaBar 2009: PRL 102, 132001 3.6s 3.5s X3872gy’ X3872gJ/y bkg subtracted B(B+K+ X3872)xB(X3872gJ/y)=(2.8±0.8)x10-6 B(B+K+ X3872)xB(X3872gy‘)=(9.5±2.8)x10-6 B(B+K+ X3872)xB(X3872gy’) B(B+K+ X3872)xB(X3872gJ/y) =3.4 ± 1.4 X3872g/y’ > X3872gJ/y !!
Belle (May 2010): B+ K+ g J/y 1st evidence for B+K+cc2 calibration reaction cc1gJ/y 3.6s cc2gj/y Bf(B+K+cc1)=(49±3)x10-5 Bf(B+K+cc2)=(1.11±0.37)x10-5 B(B+K+cc2) B(B+K+cc1) = 0.022 ±0.007 0 -+,1++,1 -- factorization suppression penalty V. Bhardwaj QWG 2010
X(3872)g J/y (y’) ?? Belle 2010: X3872gy’ X3872gJ/y no signals!! 4.9s B(B+K+ X3872)xB(X3872gJ/y)=(1.8±0.5)x10-6 BaBar:(2.8±0.8)x10-6 B(B+K+ X3872)xB(X3872gy’)<3.4 x10-6 B(B+K+ X3872)xB(X3872gy’) B(B+K+ X3872)xB(X3872gJ/y) BaBar:(9.5±2.8)x10-6 <2.1 (90%) disagreement BaBar = 3.4 ± 1.4
B K w J/y (275M BB) Belle 2005: M(p+p-p0 )= mw±22MeV B(X3872wJ/y) B(X3872p+p-J/y) =1.0 ± 0.5 “Y(3940)” PRL 94, 182002 X(3872)”w” J/y not seen in DD*
2010: X3872w J/y by BaBar M(p+p-p0 )= mw+18MeV B+ K+ w J/y -40 BaBar PRD 82, 011001 Nevts =26.7±7.6 B0 K0 w J/y X(3872)”w” J/y ?? B(X3872wJ/y) B(X3872p+p-J/y) =0.8 ± 0.3 S-wave fit prob: 7.1% 1++ P-wave fit prob: 61.9% 2-+ 2-+ favored NB: this is equivalent to a ~1.5s effect
1++ -- SCORECARD -- 2-+(Copied from Steve Olsen’s slide) • Prospects: • Angular studies will ultimately work but only • with LHCb- &/or Belle II – type statistics • In the meantime Belle is revisiting X3pJ/y & • looking for Xpphc & gghc with all the data
The X(3915) The Y(3940)
Belle new peak in ggwJ/y PRL 101, 082001 undetected X l+ l- J/y p+ w p0 p- undetected M = 3915 3 2MeV G = 17 10 3 MeV N = 49 14 4 events Significance = 7.7 s
Is X(3915) = cc2‘ or cc0’ ? JPC not yet determined, but M = 3929±5±2 MeV Gtot = 29±10±2 MeV Nsig = 64 ± 18 evts GggB(wJ/y) = 61 ±17±8 eV (JP=0+) GggB(wJ/y) = 18 ±5±2 eV (JP=2+) PRL 96, 082003 For comparison: Z(3930): GggB(DD) = 180±50±30 eV If X(3915)=Z(3930)=cc2’ >~ 0.1 Huge for above-open-charm-threshold charmonium For both JP options, If Ggg ~1keV, G(wJ/y) ~ 1 MeV also too large to be Charmonium
G(Y3940wJ/y) is large Assume: B(B+K+ Y3940) B(B+K+J/y)= (10.1+0.4) x10-4 B(Y3940wJ/y) 4% G(Y3940wJ/y) 1.1 MeV too large for charmonium? using Belle-BaBar average: B(B+K+ Y3940)xB(Y3940wJ/y) = (5.0±0.8)x10-5 and PDG average: Gtot(Y3940)= 40-13 MeV +18
The Y(4260) Y(4260): seen in e+e- gISRp+p-J/y At a dip in s(e+e-) hadrons) BES, PRL 88, 101802 PRL95, 142001 4260 ~50 pb ~3nb (cf:.G(y”p+p- J/y) 50keV) G(Y4260p+p-J/y) > 1.6MeV @90% CL > 10 G(y’p+p-J/y) X.H. Mo et al, PL B640, 182 (2006)
(4S) (1S) p+p- 2S 3S 4S Belle: G((4S)p+p-(1S)) 477 fb-1 radiative return 52±10 evts
Belle: G(5Sp+p-1S) 325±20 evts! 1/20th the data: 1/5th the cross-section But >6 times as many events 477 fb-1 23.6 fb-1 K.F. Chen et al (Belle) PRL 100, 112001 (2008)
Partial Widths Assuming the source is the (5S) PDG value taken for (nS) properties N.B. Resonance cross section 0.302 ± 0.015 nb at 10.87 GeV PRD 98, 052001(2007) [Belle] >300 times bigger than that for the 4S!! Cf G (2S) (1S)p+p- ~ 6 keV (3S) (1S)p+p- 0.9 keV (4S) (1S)p+p- 1.9 keV
Are these events from the 5S? s(e+e- p+p-nS ) from a cm energy scan PDG(6S): m = 11019 ± 8 MeV G = 79 ±16 MeV 5S peak position Fitted parameters m = 10888.4 +2.7-2.6 ± 1.2 MeV/c2Γ = 30.7 +8.3-7.0± 3.1 MeV/c2 K.F. Chen et al (Belle) arXiv: 0810.3829 PDG(5S):
Peak & width in p+p-(nS) different from (5S) e+e-p+p-(nS) Simplest interpretation: b-quark-sector equivalent to the c-quark-sector’s Y(4260) e+e- hadrons
Summary • Belle results contradict the BaBar claim of a strong X3872gy’ decay width • Angular analyses of X3872p+p-J/y eliminate all JPC other than 1++ & 2 -+ • BaBar confirms the Belle Y3940 wJ/y threshold peak in B KwJ/y • & confirms Belle’s X3872wJ/y observation • X3872”w”J/y line shape favors 2-+ (but only by ~1.5s) • Peak at wJ/y in two photon process • Strong evidence for a Y4260-like state in the b-quark sector • huge decay width to p+p-(nS) Thank you
Y(4140) not significant at Belle Preliminary B→J/ψK with 772M BB Fit M(J/ψ) with Y(4140) parameters (from CDF’s 1st measurements) But lower effciency at J/ threshold B(B+K+ Y4140) B(YfJ/y) Belle < 6(7) x 10-6 at 90%CL CDF (1st ) (9.0±3.4±2.9)x10-6 No big Contradiction ! M(J/y)
Charged resonancelike states Z+(4430) Z1+(4050) & Z2+ (4250)p+cc1
M(p±y’ ) from BZ±(p± y’)K Veto Veto -13 -13 M2(py’) GeV2 K*(890)K+p- K2(0)*(1430)K+p- M2(Kp) GeV2 M(py’) GeV PRL 100, 142001(2008) BF(B0→K-Z+)xBF(Z+→y(2S)p+) = (4.1±1.0±1.4) x10-5
Dalitz analysis confirms the existence of Z(4430)+ K* veto applied PRD 80, 031104(2009) Signif: 6.4s With Z(4430) Published results Without Z(4430) Mass & significance similar, width & errors are larger BaBar : Belle : BF(B0K- Z+) x BF(Z+y(2S)p+) Statistically No Big contradictions btn Belle & BaBar
BaBar : no significant (4430)+ signal m = 4439 ± 8 MeV/c2Γ = 41 ± 33 MeV/c2 significance = 1.9 s PRL 79, 112001(2009) BaBar :
M(p±cc1) from BK p±cc1 • No-Z resonance + known K*’s hypotheses in fit model give very poor fits • Two Z+ known K*’s structure is distinctive Z1 Z2 M(cc1p+) GeV/c2 for 1.0GeV2 < M2(K-p+) < 1.75GeV2 The Dalitz plot slice with most discrimination PRD 78, 072004(2008)