New Particles X(3872) Y(4260) X(3940) University of Hawai’i Future of Heavy Flavors ИТЗФ 7/23-24/06 Z(3930) Y(3940) Ѕтефан Олавич ????

B-factories are Charmonium factories cc production a B factory: B meson decays e + e - annihilation  collisions e + e - radiative return (isr)

cc production in B decays j=½ J = 0 or 1 Spectator model says J cc = 0 or 1 should dominate exclusive B  K(cc) decays.

Allowed decays all have Bf~10 -3 from PDG2004  c K 0.9 x10 -3 J  K 1.0 x10 -3 J/  K* 1.4 x10 -3  ’ K 0.7 x10 -3  ’ K* 0.9 x10 -3  c0 K 0.6 x10 -3  c1 K 0.7 x10 -3 J/  K x10 -3 B  K cc(J=2) still not seen

e + e -  J/  + (cc) J/  X X (almost) always contains (cc) C(X) = +1 consistent with bkg c c  c0 c’c’ M(X)

  DD J PC = 0 ++, 2 ++ J PC = 1 -- c e + e -   (cc)

XYZ particles in Belle X(3872) –     J/  in B  K     J/  Z(3930) –DD in   DD Y(3940) –  J/  in B  K  J/  X(3940) – e + e -  J/  X & e + e -  J/  DD* Y(4260) –     J/  in e + e -      J/  NEW

  Z(3931)  DD at Belle 41  11 evts (5.5  ) M=3931  4  2 MeV  20  8  3 MeV sin 4  (J=2) Matches well to  c2 ’ expectations M(DD) GeV Belle PRL 96, (2006)

Z(3930): candidate for the  c2 ’ 3931 M= 3931 MeV is ~45 MeV low  =20MeV too narrow? Masses from Barnes, Godfrey & Swanson PRD 72, (2005)

e + e -  J/  X(3940) e + e -  J/  + X hep-ex submitted to PRL

X(3940)  D*D seen (  DD &   J/  not seen) D B(D*D)>45% B(DD)<41% From X(3940) → D * D: M = (3943 ± 6 ± 6) MeV  < 52 MeV at 90%CL

Is the X(3940) the  c ”? 3940 M= 3943 MeV is ~150 MeV low  <52MeV too narrow?

X(3872) in B  K     J/  M(  J  )  ’      J/  X(3872)      J/  PRL 91,

Also seen in pp X(3872) CDF hep-ex/  Production properties similar to those of the  ’ X(3872) D0 PRL 93, (2004) PRL 93, (2004)

C=+1 is established X(3872)   J/  seen in: & Belle PRL M(  looks like a  X(3872)  ”  ”J/  seen CDF Belle hep-ex/

ll |cos  l  |  2 /dof = 34/9  |cos  | |cos  |  2 /dof=34/ rule out 0 ++ & 0 -+     J  k    x  J   Ruled out by Belle

Angular analysis from CDF Ilya Kravchenko: FPCP or 2 -+

Belle: Threshold peak in B  KD 0 D 0  0 M=  0.7  0.8 MeV Br(B  KX)Bf(X  D 0 D 0  0 ) = (1.27  0.31 )x10 -4 Br(X  D 0 D 0  0 ) Br(X      J/  ) ~ M(DD  ) EE Belle hep-ex/  today!

Comments on the D 0 D 0  0 mass peak Fitted M:  0.7  0.8 MeV M–(m D0 + m D*0 ) =  0.7 MeV PDG05 2xPDG error on m D0 (could be  2.0 MeV) PDG M X3872 :  0.5 MeV Here error on m D0 drops out Nominally ~2.3   above D 0 D* 0 threshold (but errors are non-Gaussian)  ~2  discrepancy DD* “Binding Energy?”:

X(3872) has no satisfactory cc assignment 3872  r  J/  too small &  r (  J/  ) too big  c1 ’  c    J/  ispin forbidden D 0 D 0  thresh. suppressed B  Kcc(J=2) suppressed  c2

Y(3940) in B  K  J/  M≈3940 ± 11 MeV  ≈ 92 ± 24 MeV PRL94, (2005) M(  J/  ) MeV  (Y 3940   J/  > 7 MeV (an SU F (3) violating decay) ~ this is 10 3 x  (  ’   J/  (another SU F (3) violating decay) if the Z(3930) is the  c2 ’ the Y(3940) mass is too high for it to be the  c1 ’

Is there a cc slot for Y(3940) ? Can M(  c1 ’)>M(  c2 ’)?  c1 ’ Mass is low c”c” “ “  c0 ’

e + e -   isr Y(4260) at BaBar 233 fb -1  e  e    +   J/    pb  (Y4260      J/  ) > 90% CL Y(4260) X.H. Mo et al, hep-ex/ BaBar PRL95, (2005) Not seen in e + e -  hadrons BES data

Y(4260) at CLEO-III Consistent results 13.3 fb -1 ISR  (1S)-  (4S) 13.3 fb  588  Width (MeV) 4283  +17   8 +2 Mass (MeV) (4.9  )125  23 (~8  ) N CLEO IIIBaBar Charm 2006

Y(4260) at Belle MXMX Select e+e-      ℓ + ℓ - +X; N chg =4 M ℓ + ℓ - =M J/   30MeV; p J/y >2 GeV; M  >0.4GeV | data  4.2<M  J/  <4.4 MC M=4295  MeV  = 133  MeV Preliminary For  ’      J/  in the same data: M(  ’) =  0.1 MeV (PDG: M(  ’)=  0.04)

BaBar vs CLEO vs Belle BaBarCLEO IIIBelle (Preliminary) N 125  23 (~8  ) (4.9  ) 165  24(stat) (>7  ) Mass(MeV) 4259   +17   Width 88     different “Full” report from Belle at ICHEP in Moscow -5-5

No 1 -- cc slot for the Y(4260) 4280 X.H. Mo et al, hep-ex/

DD** threshold in relation to the “Y(4260)” 4.28-m D D** spectrum M(     J/  ) GeV No obvious distortions

Another one from BaBar?  (4352)       ’ (produced via radiative return)

summary Z(3931) (   DD) –Probably the  c2 ’ X(3940) (e + e -  J/  X) –C=+1 –Could be the  c ” (albeit with some stretching) X(3872): –J PC = 1 ++ –Br(X      J/  ) large –Br(X  D 0 D 0  0 ) seen; ~ 10xBr(X      J/y) D*D

summary cont’d Y(3940) –  ( Y 3940   J/  ) >7 MeV  too large for charmonium – Mass too low for a hybrid “Y(4260)” –Confirmed by Belle but at a higher mass –  (y 4260      J/  )>1.6 MeV  also very large – J PC =1 --, but not seen in e + e -  hadrons - Straddles the D**D threshold, but with no obvious distortions to the  J/  line-shape 233 fb -1

conclusions There is a new hadron spectroscopy in the 3.5~4.5 GeV mass region –Maybe more than one The new states are characterized by large partial widths (Bfs) to hadrons+J/   – Br(X(3872)   J/  ) > 4.3% (Isospin=1) –  (Y(3940)   J/  ) > 7 MeV (SU(3) octet) –  (Y(4260)      J/  ) > 1.6 MeV There is no apparent transition at the D**D mass threshold (mine, not Belle’s)

Thank You

Back-up slides

Look at e + e -  J/  D(D ( * ) ) Reconstruct a J/  & a D use D 0  K -  + & D +  K -  +  + Determine recoil mass

Inclusive B  Kx from BaBar ? Fully reconstructed B - tags

M 