Hadron Spectroscopy from B FactoriesGalina Pakhlova ITEP&Belle CollaborationThe 5-th International Conference on Quarks and Nuclear Physics Beijing, September 21-26, 2009

B-factoriese+e(4S) and nearby continuum:Ecms ~ 10.6 GeV

L ~ 1034/cm2/s 950 + 530 fb-1 in totalCharm hadrons from B-meson decays, initial state radiation (ISR),double cc production, continuum production and fusion

Charm meson spectroscopy

Charmed mesonsL = 0 S-wave ground statesD&D* Mark1 L = 1 P-wave exitations, jq= 1/2 or 3/2 jq= 3/2 are narrow and easy to findD1(2420) & D2(2460) ARGUS&CLEO jq= 1/2 are broad D0(2400) & D1(2430) Belle in BD (Dalitz plot analysis)masses and widths are in good agreement with expectationsn(2S+1)LJn radial quantum numberSc spin of c-quarkSq spin of q light quarkL relative orbital ang. mom.L = 0, 1, 2 ... correspond to S, P, Djq= Sq + LJ = Sc + Sq + LP = (1)L+1 parity Heavy-light system QqQ = c quarkq = u, d, s light quarkscu = D(*)+, cd = D(*)0 charmed mesons cs=Ds(*) charmed strange mesons

L = 0 S-wave ground statesDs+ Cleo 83, Ds* Slac 84L = 1 P-wave excitations, jq= 1/2 or 3/2 jq= 3/2 are narrow Ds1(2536)& Ds2(2573) ARGUS 89&Cleo94 jq= 1/2 presented real surpriseD*s0(2317)+, Ds1(2460)+ BaBar 03, Cleo 03 extremely narrow ~100 MeV lighter than expected , below D(*)K threshold conventional decay modes are forbidden only electromagnetic isospin violated decays are allowedNow the theory can explain this mass shiftHigher mass excitationsD*sJ(2700)+ DK, in e+e DKX BaBar 06D*s1(2700)+ DK, in B DDK Belle 08DsJ(2860)+ DK, in e+e DKX BaBar 06Charmed strange mesonsare they the same state? Mass and width agree wellBelle measured J=1

New study of inclusive D(*)K from e+eD(*)KXDs1(2700) and DsJ(2860) have natural JP = 1, 2+, 3 ...DsJ(3040) not seen in DK: unnatural JP = 0, 1+, 2 ...Interpretations: n = 2 radial excitations? L = 2 orbital excitations?

Charmonium spectroscopy

Conventional Charmonium in Quark Modeln(2S+1)LJn radial quantum numberS total spin of q-antiqL relative orbital ang. mom.L = 0, 1, 2 ... correspond to S, P, DJ = S + LP = (1)L+1 parityC = (1)L+S charge conj.Below open charm threshold all expected charmonium states are observed most are narrow Above open charm thresholdfive conventional states are measured broad states are expected

Exotic charmoniumlike statesMultiquark states Molecular statetwo loosely bound charm mesonsquark/color exchange at short distancespion exchange at large distance Tetraquark tightly bound four-quark state

Charmonium hybridsStates with excited gluonic degrees of freedom

Hadro-charmonium Specific charmonium state coated by excited light-hadron matter

Threshold effectsVirtual states at thresholdsCharmonium states with masses shifted by nearby D(*)D(*) thresholds

6th anniversary!

X(3872) observation X(3872) first seen in B K J/+ MX close to D0D*0 threshold(not clear below or above)M = 3871.40.6 MeVPDG07MX MDD* = (0.40.7) MeV/c2

surprisingly narrow:tot < 2.3 MeV at 90% CL

M() tends to kinematic limit=? Isospin violation!

X(3872)J/ observation fixes CX= +1confirms that in the XJ/ decay ()= (XJ ) / (XJ/ +) = 0.14 0.05 small

X J/ observation Br (X J/ ) / Br (XJ/ +) = 1.0 0.4 0.3 large isospin violation Unlike conventional charmoniumCDF 790fb-1: PRL98, 132002(2007)X J/ angular analysis JPC = 1++ or 2+ JPC of the X(3872) JPC = 2+ disfavored by X(3872) decay to both J/ and (2S)

The most likely JPC = 1++ Relatively large Br(X (2S) ) is inconsistent with a pure D0D*0 molecular interpretation for X(3872) Favors cc - D0D*0 mixing models Swanson PLB 598, 192 (2004)Br(BXK) Br(XJ/) = (2.8 0.8 0.2) 106Br(BXK) Br(X(2S)) = (9.9 2.9 0.6) 106

Charged and neutral partners of X(3872)?PRD71,031501,2005NO evidence of X(3872) J/0 excludes isovector hypothesisX(3872)J/+

Compare the expected width of one/two state hypotheses to the measured width in the data Mass difference between two possible states m < 3.6 MeV/c2 at 95% CLOne state or two states?X(3872)J/+

X(3872) X(3875)?E.Braaten et al. arXiv: 0907.3167 in a narrow decaying DD* molecular system the width of D* distorts the decay line shape. Fitting DD or DD* by BW does not give reliable values for either the mass or width

B0 X(3872)K+ Br(B0 XK*0)Br(XJ/+) < 3.4106 90% CLBr(B0 X(K+)non res) Br(XJ/+) = (8.12.0+1.11.4)106 non-resonant K dominates! unlike B0 K+charmonium

Conventional charmonium JPC=1++ corresponds to c1(23P1) expected (c1J/) / (c1J/ ) ~ 30, measured ratio < 0.2 ~ 100MeV/c2 lighter than expected D0D*0 molecular state: (the most popular option)N.A. Tornqvist, E.S .Swanson, F.E. Close and P.R. Page, M.B. Voloshin, E. Braaten et al.MX ~ MD0 + MD*0 is not accidentalJPC=1++ (D0D*0 in S-wave)DD* decay Small X(3872) J/ is expectedProblems: too large X(3872) (2S) too small binding energy: D0 and D*0 too far in space to be produced in high energy pp collisions Possible solution: Mixture of DD* molecule and 23P1 charmonium state?Tetraquark (cq)(cq): L. Maiani, A.D. Polosa, V. Riquer, F. Piccini; D. Ebert, R.N. Faustov, V.O. Galkin3 states (cu)(cu), (cd)(cu), (cd)(cd) with a few MeV mass splitting no evidence of neither neutral doublet nor charged partner Hybrid (ccg) F.E. Close and P.R. PageThreshold cusp D.V. BuggInterpretations of X(3872)

e+e 1 final states via ISR

e+eJ/+ ISR Y(4260) ... Y(4008)?Absence of open charm production is inconsistent with conventional charmonium

e+e(2S) + ISR Y(4360), Y(4660) ...Absence of open charm production is inconsistent with conventional charmonium Combined fit to BaBar&Belle data on e+e(2S) + ISR Assume all the cross sections are due to Y(4360) and Y(4660) added coherentlyBest measurements of Y(4360) and Y(4660)

No room for Y states among conventional 1 charmonium

33S1 = (4040)23D1 = (4160) 43S1 = (4415) masses of predicted 33D1 (4520) 53S1 (4760) 43D1(4810) are higher (lower) Potential models & Y states

X(4630) = Y(4660) D.V.Bugg X(4630) = Y(4660) = charmonium state 53S1 or 43D1 J.Segovia, A.M.Yasser, D.R.Entem, F.Fernandez charmonium state 63S1 B.Q.Li and K.T.Chao Threshold effect E.Beveren, G.Rupp Point-like baryons R.B.Baldini, S.Pacetti, A.Zallo X(4630) = Y(4660) = tetraquark D.Ebert, R.N.Fausov, V.O. Galkine+ec+c ISR &X(4630)

Peak positions for M(J/) &M((2S)) significantly differentY(4260) mass corresponds to dip in inclusive and D*D* cross sectionsY(4008) mass coincides with DD* peak Around Y(4360) mass all measured cross sections are smoothY(4660) mass is close to c+c peakSignigicant peak-like enhancement near 3.9 GeV in eeDD coupled channel effect? or something else?Y states vs inclusive & exclusive cross sections e+ehadrons

Interpretations of Y states

Y(4360) &Y(4660) are conventional charmonium with shifted massesY(4360) = 33D1 , Y(4660) = 53S1 G.J Ding, J.J.Zhu, M.L.Yan, Phys.Rev.D77:014033 (2008) A.M.Badalyan, B.L.G.Bakker, I.V.Danilkin, Phys.Atom.Nucl.72:638-646,(2009)43S1 (4415) = 43D1(4661); Y(4360)=43S1(4389) , Y(4660)=53S1 (4614) or 43D1(4661)J.Segovia, A.M.Yasser, D.R.Entem, F.Fernandez Phys.Rev.D78:114033,(2008). Charmonium hybrids Zhu S.L.; Close F.E.; Kou E. and Pene O.The lightest hybrid is expected by LQCD around 4.2 GeVThe dominant decays Y(4260)D(*)D(*), via virtual D**

Hadro-charmonium Specific charmonium state coated by excited light-hadron matter S.Dubinskiy, M.B.Voloshin, A.GorskyMultiquark states[cq][cq] tetraquark Maiani L., Riquer V., Piccinini F., Polosa A.D. DD1 or D*D0 molecules Swanson E.; Rosner J.L., Close F.E.

S-wave charm meson thresholds Lui X.

Exclusive e+e D0D*+ cross-sectionNo evident structures: only ULs !!!Baseline fit:RBW for (4415) & threshold function for non-resonant contribution without interference between amplitudesTo obtain limits on XD0D*+, X=Y(4260), Y(4360), Y(4660), X(4630) perform four fits each with one of the X states, (4415) and non-resonant contribution Fix masses and total widths from PDG(e+e(4415))Br((4415)D0D*+)< 0.76 nb at 90% CLBr((4415) D0D*+) < 10.6 % at 90% CLInterference could increase these ULs by factors of 24 depending on the final state (for destructive solutions)

Sum of all exclusive contributionsOnly small room for unaccounted contributions Charm strange final states Limited inclusive data above 4.5 GeV Charm baryons final states

Z(3940) in DDonly 0++, 2++M = (3929 5 2) MeV/c2 tot = (29 10 2) MeVfor J = 2 B(ZDD) = (0.18 0.05 0.03) keV Production mechanism, helicity distribution,measured indicate Z(3940) to be c2 = 23P2 conventional charmonium state!

X(3940) and X(4160) in e+e J/ D*D(*)Possible assignments are JPC=0+X(3940) = 31S0 = c(3S) X(4160) = 41S0 = hc(4S) decay to open charm final states like conventional charmonium production mechanism fix C=+1 known states produced in e+e J/ cc have J=0 not seen in DD decay, exclude JPC=0++

For both X(3940) and X(4160) the masses predicted by the potential models are ~100250 MeV higherPRL100, 20200 (2008) M = 3942 6 MeVtot =37 12 MeV+76+26 15M= 4156 15 MeVtot = 139 21 MeV+2520+111 61X(3940) DD*X(4160) D*D*6.0 5.5 670 fb-1

Y(3940) J/Mass above DD threshold but J/ partial width is too large for conventional charmonium X(3940) Y(3940) @ 90% CL

NB0/NB+ = 0.27+0.280.23+0.040.01~3 below isospin expectations

M, MeV/c2, MeVB(BYK)B(YJ/)39431113872226(7.11.33.1) 10-53914.621.934+1286(4.91.00.5) 10-5 B+ (1.31.10.2) 10-5 B0

X(3915) J/M = 3914 3 2 MeV/c2 = 23 10+28 MeV 2 difference with Z(3930) mass good agreement with BaBars Y(3940) mass seen in J/for JP = 0+ B(X(3915)J/) = (69 16+718) eV J/ partial width ~ 1 MeV is quite large for conventional charmonium J = 0, 2 only

Hidden strange & hidden charm

BJ/K, Y(4140) J/ M~2M(D*s) : D*sD*s molecule? [cscs] tetraquark?M(J/) fit with Y(4140) parameters fixed Y(4140) is not confirmed M = 4143.0 2.9 1.2 MeV/c2 = 11.7+8.35.0 3.7 MeV Br(B+YK+) Br(YJ/) = (9.0 3.4 2.9) 106Br(B+YK+) Br(YJ/) < 6 106 @ 90% CL

M = (4150.6 5.1 0.7) MeV/c2 = (13.3+17.9 9.1 4.1) MeV for JP=0+ B(Y(4350) J/) = (6.49+3.22,3 1.1) eV for JP=2+ B(Y(4350) J/) = (1.5+0.70.5 0.3) eV J/ J = 0, 2 onlyNo Y(4140)J/ signal in fusionNew Y(4350)? excited P-wave charmonim? D*sD*s0 molecule?

Z(4430)

Z1...Z2

M = (4433 4 2) MeV = (45+18-13+30-13) MeV Br(BKZ) Br(Z(2S)) = (4.1 1.0 1.3) 10-5 Br/Br0=1.0 0.4 Fit: S-wave BW + phase space like funcafter K* vetoZ(4430)+ first charged charmoniumlike state Cannot be conventional charmonium or hybridShows up in all data subsamplesB KZ, Z(4430)+ +(2S) K=K,K0s ; (2S) +, +J/ Could the Z(4430) be due to a reflection from the K channel? S- P- & D-waves cannot make a peak (+ nothing else)

Fit to J/ and (2S) distributions: background + BW (free mass & width). Observe ~2 fluctuations below/above background in J/ and (2S) modes At M = 4430 MeV/c2 & = 45 MeV Br(B0ZK+, Z(2S)) < 3.1 x 10-5 @ 95% CL Detailed study of K reflections into the J/ and (2S) masses (S, P, D waves) to describe background for both J/ and (2S) modesB0 J/K0+ ; B0 (2S)K0+ BaBar search for the Z(4430) For the fit equivalent to the Belle analysiswe obtain mass & width values that are consistent with theirs, but only ~1.9 from zero; fixing mass and width increases this to only ~3.1

Fit B0(2S)+K amplitude by coherent sum of RBW contributions all known K resonances all known K resonances + (2S) resonanceReanalysis of B K(2S) data using Dalitz Plot techniques

Z+1,2c1+B0c1+K; c1 J/ Dalitz analysis: fit B0c1+K amplitude by coherent sum of RBW contributions known K resonances K*s + one (c1 ) resonance K*s + two (c1 ) resonances Hypothesis of two Zs resonances is favored over one Z resonance at 5.7 Spin of Z1,2 is not determined: J=0 and J=1 result in comparable fit qualitiesCannot be conventional charmonium or hybridM1= (405114+2041) MeV/c2 1= (82+2117+4722) MeVM2= (4248+4429+18035) MeV/c2 1= (177+5439+31661) MeV

Bottomonia

Bottomonium (nS) confirmed, bJ(1, 2P) observed b(nS), hb(nP) are not observed yet Among them the ground state b(1S) expected 35-100 MeV below (1S)

Discovery of bM(b) = (9390.4 3.1) MeV/c2

M((1S)) - M(b) = 69.9 3.1 MeV/c2Theory ~ 60 MeV/c2Decay modes of b are not known Search for Y(3S), Y(2S)b with e+e (3S), (2S) Monochromatic line in photon energy spectrumProblem: peaking backgrounds (nS) bJsoft, bJ (nS) hard e+e ISR(1S)

Y(5S) & Y(6S)Both inclusive and exclusive dipion cross-sections are inconsistent with PDG Y(5S) &Y(6S) parameters Energy scan above (4S) to search for counterpart of Y(4260) in bottomonium sector: study cross section ofe+e (nS)+, (n=1, 2, 3)New bottomoniumlike state or anoumalous large (5S) (nS) decay

Conclusion X(3872)Z(3930)Y(3940)X(3940)Y(4350)Y(4660)Y(4260)X(4360)X(4160)Y(3915)Y(4140)Y(4350)Z(4430)Z1Z2

Hard work have been done by BaBar&Belle teams Dozens new states have been observed Not all of them can be presented in a 30 talkcharmed baryons, light mesons are missed here PDG almost double its volume after 10 years of BaBar&Belle running Theorists work also hard, but many states remain unexplained New Super B-factories could help to resolve most of XYZ puzzles but likely (hopefully) add more

Thank You

****psi(2D) in Y(3S)psi by Cleo how peaking background modeled, peak at 680MeV in Y(2S), Belle: 46M Y(2S), 11M Y(3S), 100M Y(1S)