puzzle pieces: results on b and c spectroscopy and decay

Hanna Mahlke-KruegerCornell University

DAPHNE 2004

Puzzle Pieces:Results on b and c Spectroscopy and

Decay

DAPHNE'04 06/08/04

Hanna Mahlke-Krueger, Cornell

2

Heavy Quarkonia Puzzles

New /

precision

measurements

Key

unanswere

d

questions

Selected

experimental

results

HQ @ TeV (M.Paulini)

BES (2S) results

(XH. Mo)

DAPHNE'04 06/08/04


3

? Masses ? Widths ? Production and decay dynamics Partly discovery, partly precision measurements

Onia States

bb: 560MeV

cc: 589MeV

e+e-:510-

6MeV

L=0 L=1 L=2

Spin-spin interaction: 1S3S1, 1S0

Spin-Orbit splitting: 3PJ3P0,1,2

n=2 n

=3

Notation: n2S+1LJ J=L+S

– _

Q

,

hQ

Q

n=1

• Strongly bound qq states• Non-relativistic QM

applicable (Appelquist, Politzer)

– QCD analog to positronium– Provide insight into QCD

• Low Q2, non-perturbative

DAPHNE'04 06/08/04


4

Two Theoretical Approaches

• Potential Model: Cf. hydrogen; Coulomb, VH(r)= - em/r

VhQ(r)= – (4/3) s/r + k r

• Lattice QCD (the only complete definition of QCD): recent breakthrough allows predictions at the % level; needs experimental data to verify that match this precision!

positronium energy levels, spacing and decay rates fine-tune QED parameters quarkonium QCD

Short distance,1g exch long distance

DAPHNE'04 06/08/04


5

Why Investigate Heavy Quarkonia?

Excellent place to study an important region of the Standard Model

Simplest strongly interacting systems

Gain insight to underlying interaction, QCD

More convenient to handle experimentally than glueballs

Fairly non-relativistic

DAPHNE'04 06/08/04


6

Data samples

C’

X(3872)

Transitions

,,,0,

(3770) non-DD decays

(1,2,3S) B

J/,(2S)pp,

(1S)J/X

2body hadronic (2S) decays

Experimental Data

_

DAPHNE'04 06/08/04


7

Producing quarkonia

• e+e- colliders, e+e-*qq: can only directly produce states coupling to *, i.e. n3S1 (J/, ) with a tiny admixture of n3D1–

• two real photon collisions: J=0,2 ([b,c], [b,c][0,2])

• hadron colliders any energy, no quantum number restrictions, but not as clean

• transition from higher up, e.g. (2S)c0

n=1

n=2

n=3 n=4

DAPHNE'04 06/08/04


8

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

CleoIII/c

CleoII

CUSB/CBAL

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

CLEOIII/cCUSB/CBALBESIBESIIDM2MKIII

J/

’’’10

(1S)

(2S)(3S

)

Datasets as of

spring 2004

• Cross section falls as n increases

• Additional data samples for special purposes

106

106

Data Samples

DAPHNE'04 06/08/04


9

C’

X(3872)

Transitions

,,,0,

Spectroscopy

DAPHNE'04 06/08/04


10

Recently observed in 3 different ways:

B K (KSK+-) Belle e+e- J/(X) (Belle) KSK (CLEO, BaBar)

Old result (c’X, m=3594) directly ruled out by CLEO.

KSK

Current Experimental

Information on c

c

0

Belle e+e-J/(X)

c’

c’

c

CB

AL P

RL4

8(1

98

2)7

0, B

aB

ar h

ep-e

x/0

31

10

38

, B

elle

PR

L89

(20

02

)10

20

01

, PR

L 89

(20

02

)14

20

01

, C

LEO

PR

L 92

(20

04

)14

20

01

m(’)-m(c’) (MeV)New 2S splitting about half as

big, ˜48MeV m(2S)/ m(1S)0.5. Theory needs to accommodate this!

m(

c ’)

3638 MeV

Hyperfine splitting

DAPHNE'04 06/08/04


11

X(3872) – a cc state?

Peak in B± K±(+-J/), m = (3872.0 0.60.5) MeV, < 2.3 MeV (90%CL) Belle

Also in pp(+-J/)X: m = (3871.3 0.70.4) MeV CDF m = (3871.8 3.13.0) MeV D0

3872 MeV

Belle

Belle

PR

L91:2

620

01,2

00

3, h

ep-e

x/0

40501

4;

CD

F hep-e

x/0

31202

1;

D

0

hep-e

x/0

40500

4;

BaB

ar

hep-e

x/0

402

025

, B

ES

hep-p

h/0

31

0261

What is its nature? Study production and decay mechanisms!

Charmonium state?13D2,3=2--,3-- ? (Xc1,2)/(XJ/)>2

See <0.89/1.1 (Belle)1++ ? (XJ/)/(XJ/)>1

See 0.4 (Belle)1-- ? Look in ISR production (next slide) DD* molecule?

mD+mD* = 3871.5±0.5 MeV Look for X D(D)

D0D00 BR’s< ~510-5 (Belle)

not inconsistentLook for X 00J/

J/ component? Exotic state?

DAPHNE'04 06/08/04


12

ISR (JPC=1--)

CLEO prelim: ee B(X +-J/) < 6.8eV (or, <1/100(2S) production rate in ISR for same BJ/)

BES: ee B(X +-J/) < 10eV (22.3pb-1 at s=4.03GeV)

CLEO results on X(3872)CLEOIII, 15fb-1, s=9.46…11.30GeV, X(3872)+-J/, J/ℓ+ℓ-

2 (JPC=0±+, 2±+, …)

X(3872)

X(3

87

2)

CLEO prelim: (2J+1) B(X -+J/) <16.7eV (or, <1/10 the c production rate in )

DAPHNE'04 06/08/04


13

Transition Options

• Hadronic:0,,, +- - no

kaons; splitting too small

• Photonic:E1: L=1, S=0M1: L=0, L=1

Transitions

DAPHNE'04 06/08/04


14

Hadronic Transitions

No charge involved:• two charged pions

or• neutral particles

0 0 Single 0

transitions isospin suppressed

, are ‘‘rare’’

Soft process.

Q

Q

0

Q

Q

Q

Q

Q

Q

DAPHNE'04 06/08/04


15

bJ (1S): 1st non- hadronic

transition in bb(3S)(1S)+X:

– X is photon, (1S)ℓ+ℓ-

+-0 distribn peaks at

– Fit for (3S)bJ, bJ (1S), J=1,2

• B(b1(1S))=(1.63 )%

• B(b2(1S))=(1.10 )

% 1. substantial, 2. equal Voloshin hep-ph/0304165: r2/1=1.3±0.3

E

MC

’’

b2

’ MC ’’b1’

m(+-0)

+0.35 +0.16

- 0.31 - 0.15 +0.32 +0.11

- 0.28 - 0.10

CLEO

hep

-ex/0

31

10

43, a

cc by

PR

L

DAPHNE'04 06/08/04


16

(2S)J/B(’0J/

)=(1.430.140.13)10-3

14% relativeB(’J/) =(2.980.090.23)% 8% relative

• Predictions for B(’0J/)/B(’J/), B(’J/)/B((2S)), B(’J/)/B((3S)),

… see Prof. Mo’s talk• Neutral dipion transitions in

hep-ex/0404020…

(3S) 0/ℓ+ℓ-, 0/ ? Not seen, UL @ ‰ level

m(

)/

GeV

2

m(J/h)/GeV2

ee

m()/GeV2

1

0

2

hep-ex/0403023

BES

DAPHNE'04 06/08/04


17

Do we understand

(2S)J/ ?Charged dipion transitions often used as

normalizing mode; single most precise measurement: (32.31.4)% (BES ’02)

Expect B((2S)00J/)/B((2S)+-J/)=0.5 from isospin. Phase space correction: a few %. Others??

• Experiment: (PDG: B((2S)00J/) = (18.91.1)%) B((2S)00J/)/B((2S)+-J/)=0.5700.0090.026 4M (2S) BESI, hep-ex/0404020 B((2S)+-J/)=0.3610.0150.037 BaBar, radiative returns, 89fb-1 ~(4S) data, hep-ex/0312063

Neutral BR too high? Charged BR too low? Expectation off?

m(+-+-)/GeV

1 2 3 4

J/

(2S)

BaBar

DAPHNE'04 06/08/04


18

(3770) non-DD

(1,2,3S) B

J/,(2S)pp,

(1S)J/X

2body hadronic (2S) decays

Decay

DAPHNE'04 06/08/04


19

m((3770))>2m(D) (’’DD)=5.0±0.5nb <

(’’hadrons)= 7.9±0.6nb Can the deficit be confirmed?

• BES single tag Moriond 04: (’’DD)=5.78±0.11±0.38 nb • CLEO-c prelim double tag: (’’DD)=6.51±0.44±0.39 nb • Modern (’’hadrons) would be good…

Where would a 20% deficit of tot=24MeV show up? Rosner: rad decays at most 600 keV, J/ 100keV.

Does (2S)(3770) mixing happen? Do modes expected from J/ that are rare on (2S) mix away?

Understanding (2S) will help with (3770)! (Don’t expect BIG rates.)

MarkIII P

RL 6

0(1

98

8)8

9 C

BA

L CA

LT-6

8-1

15

0

(19

84

), MarkII S

LAC

-21

9 (1

97

9)

(3770) (2S)?D-

D+

80%

Are there (3770) non-DD

decays?_

__

DAPHNE'04 06/08/04


20

Total decay width: tot= had + ee + + ?

Total widths: 1S total widths keV, big portions not

accounted for by exclusive decays measured thus far

Relative precision on total width: [’,’’]: 3.4%, 16.9%, 13.3%, [’,’’]: 5.7%, 7.9%,

11.4% Leptonic decay widths:

confront LQCD percent level predictions test lepton universality

compare ℓℓ relative to ggg,gg, qq

narrow resonances: tot = ℓℓ / Bℓℓ, or ee/B

(2S) scan data published last year (BES)(1,2,3S): ee under study; B preliminary results (CLEO)

(1,2,3S) B

DAPHNE'04 06/08/04


21

Leptonic (1,2,3S) Width ee

Strategy: hadronsYeeσdEnergy

ΓΓ

6M

eeYΓhadrons

total2

2Y π

Hope to improve from 2/4/9% 2-3%.

External input

SLAC 11/25/03 Hanna Mahlke-Krueger, Cornell 41

ee(2S)

ee(1S)

• LQCD predictions

!

DAPHNE'04 06/08/04


22

B in % tot in keV

CLEO preliminary PDG CLEO preliminary

PDG

(1S) 2.46 0.02 0.05

2.48 0.06 53.4 1.5 52.5 1.8

(2S) 2.00 0.03 0.05

1.31 0.21 29.5 1.4 44 7

(3S) 2.34 0.07 0.05

1.81 0.17 20.7 2.1 26.3 3.5

B((1,2,3S)+-) Results

Desired precision reached (LQCD!)

B((2,3S)) larger than previous results lower tot

DAPHNE'04 06/08/04


23

J/XbXb, X=p,BESII, 58M J/:

B(J/pp)= (2.26 0.01 0.14)10-3

Angular distribution: dN/dcosX=1+cos2X

[1] Brodsky, Lepage, PRD24(1981)2848 [2] Claudson et al., PRD25(1982)1345 [3] Carimalo, IntJModPhysA2(1987)245 [4] hep-ex/0402034, PLB424(1998)213

Proton

1.0 1.0 Neglect mX and mq [1]

0.46 0.32 Include mX [2]

0.66 0.51 Include mX and mq [3]

0.676±0.55 0.52 ±0.35 Experiment [4]

J/,(2S)pp,

DAPHNE'04 06/08/04


24

• COM needed to describe P-wave quarkonium decays cpp

• Based on c[0,1,2]pp meas’t, generalized to , expect BR(cJ/cJpp) =1/2 J=1,2

c[0,1,2] see excess BESII:

c[0,1,2]pp, within 1 of previous measurement and pp cJJ/: confirm excess hep-ex/0401011 & hep-ex/0304012, BESII

c0

3415

c1

3511

c2

3556

c0

3414

c1

3513c2

3549

c[0,1,2]

c[0,1,2]pp

__

-

__ __

__

_

_

c[0,1,2]pp, from (2S) CJ

-

DAPHNE'04 06/08/04


25

CLEO preliminary

scaled J/ momentum x; qq and continuum subtracted (use (4S) as continuum)

CDF pp J/,(2S)X rates color octet mechanism: cc in CO, become CS by radiating off a soft gluon. Problems with other data…

More information needed to distinguish production mechanisms.

(1S)J/X is gluon rich envt; CO preferred

• Example: x spectrum.CO peaks near x=1;

modifications due to multiple soft g emission

(1S) J/X

_

_

b b

CSc c,c c

c c

b b

CO

_

DAPHNE'04 06/08/04


26

Charmonium production in (1S) decays

(e+e- qq J/+X)=… …(1.470.100.13) pb (Belle) …(2.520.210.21) pb (BaBar) …(1.90.2(stat)) pb (CLEO prelim)

B((1S)J/+X) = (6.40.40.6)10-4 CS: 5.9 10-4, CO: 6.2 10-4

90% is ggg, gg Includes feed-down from

(1S) (2S),c0,1,2+Y J/+X+Y. Identify through (2S) +-J/, CJ J/

CLEO preliminary

_

No clear conclusion on CS vs CO possible so far.

DAPHNE'04 06/08/04


27

e+

e-

Q

Q

Q

Q

Q

Q

q,l-

q,l+

QQ decays

into light hadrons

)3( SD

Dbackground q,l-

q,l+

Radiative decay:

Annihilation into 3g:

Annihilation into a photon: *

Dissociation:

Q*

2body hadronic decays

DAPHNE'04 06/08/04


28

“The 14% rule”If mechanism is cc annihilation

decay rate |(0)|2

Compare with e+e- production:

0.9)%12.3(

eeJ/ψB

eeψ(2S)B

HJ/ψB

Hψ(2S)BQh

J/ 3.1GeV

(2S) 3.7GeV

_

Complications (and there are more): Powers of S at mJ/, m(2S) 0.845 hep-ph/09910406 Form factor ECM dependence? 3.6862/3.0972=1.4 Non-relativistic corrections Interference with continuum Prof. Mo’s talk Only for cc*, not ccggg? (Gerard/Weyers)

Compliance within a factor of two: “agreement”

12%

DAPHNE'04 06/08/04


29

Two-body hadronic (2S) decays

(2S) BR’s: Not many are precisely measured

(2S), 12% rule: Nail down systematic deviation of certain channels?

Experimentally, situation is

unclearTheoretically,

even more than unclear: Add’l effects in J/? (2S)? Expectation?

Good understanding of continuum background and impact of interference is crucial!

12%1/2 2

DAPHNE'04 06/08/04


30

Branching Fraction Ratio:

(2S)/J/

, K*K measured• IV channels ~obey 12%

rule

• b1 and +-, too; f2 almost

IVIV

VP final states + some othersCLEO data, 3M (2S),

20pb-1 @ s=3.67GeVMeasure branching fractions

relative to B((2S)+-J/, J/+-)

BF’s range from 10-5 to 10-3

Background subtracted, not corrected for interference

Good statistical power of continuum sample is key!

Biggest violators: +-0, , K*+K-,

VP

DAPHNE'04 06/08/04


31

Hadronic (2S) BR’s +-0 ~6 136 +12

-13 21

4.2 24 +7 -8 2

00 3.0 9 4 1

+- 3.0 15 +6 -7 2 b1

+- ~6 205 +38 -45 30

0 3.1 23 +9 -11 2 b1

00 ~6 369 +40 -41 76

0 <1 <7 f2 (1270) 5.7 101 +21 -25 12

0 4.5 31 +11 -7 2 +- ~6 762

40

76

<1<10

f0 (980) 3.3 22 +8 -9 3

2.1 19 +10 -154 f2’ (1525) 2.0 38 +23

-32 10

K*0K0 5.2 87 +21 -259 K*+K*- 5.0 106 +23

-25 33

K*+K- 2.6 17 +8 -10 4 K*0K*0 4.9 196 +48

-54 32

Channel

stat signif in

B((2S)X) in 10-6 stat syst

CLE

O p

relim

inary

5.5pb-1(3M) (2S), [email protected] GeV BRs not corrected for interference

B(f0+-)

DAPHNE'04 06/08/04


32

hep-ex/0402013J/+-0

BES

m

CLEO preliminary

m(+-)

m(+0

)

m(-

0)

m

(2S)+-0

production (??)

DAPHNE'04 06/08/04


33

Transitions ,

, ,0,

C’

X(3872) (1,2,3S) B

J/,(2S)pp,

(1S)J/X2body hadronic (2S) decays

Summary

hc, hb, b() ? 12% rule?

00 /

+-

tran

s

….Interfe

rence

….

(3770) non-DD?

BACKUP

DAPHNE'04 06/08/04


35

J/

ee→ 2S2S→ J ?

232 events

Ecm -Mass recoiling

• 5.2±0.2 pb-1, (4.5±0.4)104 ’’decays

• efficiency: 37% < 4.75 events @ 90%CL

BR3770J(1S)) <0.26% @ 90% CL

• 28 pb-1 (3.783-3.885GeV),

1.85105 ’’decays• efficiency: 16% 17.8±4.8 events incl

6.0±0.8 bgd (0 from cont) BR3770→J)

= (0.34±0.14±0.08) % = (80 ±32±21) keV

BESII CLEO-c

T. Skwarnicki, QWG03

ee→ 2S2S→ J

M(ℓ+ℓ) GeVhep-ex/0307028

DAPHNE'04 06/08/04


36

B((1,2,3S)+-)

• Goal: 3-4% precision on B

– Gives tot ee

• 1.0/1.2/1.2 fb-1 on-resonance + 0.2/0.4/0.2 fb-1 off-resonance

• Backgrounds: continuum, cascade decays such as (3S)b0(2S) , cosmic ray events

• Good understanding of data

MC: e+e-+- data

MC:

(1S)+- w/o FSR data

off- res.

on- res.

DAPHNE'04 06/08/04


37

CLEO-c 1,21S0 lines

c(1S) seen @ 8.2 c(2S) in the CBAL

preferred region ruled out

CLEO-c preliminary

CBAL

CLEO-c preliminary

500 600 700 800 E (MeV)

cc’

80 85 90 95 E (MeV)

BR((2S)C(2S)):

1.5%

1.0%

0.5%

0.0%

DAPHNE'04 06/08/04


38

(2S) Branching FractionsCLEO data, 3M (2S),

20pb-1 @ s=3.67GeVMeasure branching

fractions relative to B((2S)+-J/, J/+-)

Convert using B((2S)+-J/) =(32.31.4)% and B(J/+-)

=(5.880.10)%Background subtracted,

not corrected for interference

• A plotVP

puzzle pieces: results on b and c spectroscopy and decay

Documents

mohanna mahlkekrueger

meve e

2sc0 n

mev cdf

s decaysexperimental

babar hepex0311038

s splitting

n3s1 j