The X 3872 Soo Kyung Choi Gyeongsang National University

The X(3872) Soo. Kyung Choi Gyeongsang National University Flavor Physics & CP Violation 2011 May 23 Kibbutz Maale Hachamisha, Israel

The X(3872) in B K + -J/ discovered by Belle (140/fb) ’ + -J/ X(3872) + -J/ M( J/ ) – M(J/ ) PRL 91, 262001 (2003)

Outline o X g y’ and g J/y (C=+1) o Updated mass and width in X(3872) p+p- J/y ; B XK o o o JP study from angular analysis M(p+p- ) spectrum studies X w J/y Charged partner for the X X in B X Kp (K*) X DD

X(3872) g J/ ( ’) Ba. Bar 2009: X 3872 g. J/ PRL 102, 132001 X 3872 g ’ 3. 6 s 3. 5 s bkg subtracted M(g ’) M(g. J/ ) B(B+ K+ X 3872)x. B(X 3872 g. J/ )=(2. 8± 0. 8)x 10 -6 B(B+ K+ X 3872)x. B(X 3872 g ‘)=(9. 5± 2. 8)x 10 -6 B(B+ K+ X 3872)x. B(X 3872 g ’) B(B+ K+ X 3872)x. B(X 3872 g. J/ ) = 3. 4 ± 1. 4 X 3872 g/ ’ > X 3872 g. J/ !! For molecular X, it should be very small !!

Belle (May 2010): B+ K+ g J/ calibration reaction 3. 6 s c 1 g. J/ B+ K+ c 2: 1 st evidence M(g. J/ ) Bf(B+ K+ c 1)=(49± 3)x 10 -5 Bf(B+ K+ c 2)=(1. 11± 0. 37)x 10 -5 B(B+ K+ cc 2) B(B+ K+ cc 1) = 0. 022 ± 0. 007 factorization suppression penalty Belle: ar. Xiv 1105. 0177 0 -+, 1++, 1 --

X(3872) g J/ Belle 2010: ar. Xiv 1105. 0177 B+ 4. 9 s M(g. J/ ) B(B+ K+ X 3872)x. B(X 3872 g. J/ ) = (1. 78 2. 4 s B 0 +0. 49 -0. 46 )x 10 -6 Ba. Bar: (2. 8± 0. 8)x 10 -6 Agreement between Belle and Ba. Bar

Belle 2010: X(3872) g y’ ? ? y’ l+l- B+ y’ J/yp+p- B+ bkg not subtracted!! no signals!! M(g ’) B 0 Ba. Bar: (9. 5± 2. 8) x 10 -6 B(B+ K+ X 3872)x. B(X 3872 g ’) B (B+ K+ X 3872)x. B(X 3872 g. J/ ) < 2. 1 (90%) Ba. Bar = 3. 4 ± 1. 4 B(B+ K+ X 3872)x. B(X 3872 g ’)<3. 45 x 10 -6 B(B 0 K 0 X 3872)x. B(X 3872 g ’)<6. 62 x 10 -6 disagreement

X(3872) + - J/ mass, width & product Bf PDG(2010) mass M(X 3872)avg = 3871. 56 ± 0. 22 Me. V M(D 0)+M(D*0) = 3871. 79 ± 0. 30 Me. V CDF(2009) PRL 103, 152001 Maiani et al PRD 71, 014028 MX = 3871. 61 ± 0. 16 ± 0. 19 Me. V Diquark-diantiquark (tetra-quark) model Xu = u c c u Xd = d c c d Predict : DM(Mx(B+)-Mx(B 0)) =8± 3 Me. V Braaten et al PRD 71, 074005 predict: R~1 for Charmonium R~0. 1 for molecule

X(3872) p+p- J/y in Ba. Bar BABAR: PRD 77, 111101 (2008) [413 fb-1] 413 fb-1 B+ X(3872)K+ 413 fb-1 B 0 X(3872)K 0 S 2. 3 8. 6 M(J/ψπ+π-) = (2. 7 ± 1. 6 ± 0. 4) Me. V = 0. 41 ± 0. 24 ± 0. 05

New +p- J/y X(3872) p -preliminary 3 -dim. Fit B+ XK+ B 0 XK 0 M(J/ψπ+π-) in Belle

- All preliminary - (Ba. Bar) 0. 41 ± 0. 24 ± 0. 05 (Ba. Bar) : (2. 7 ± 1. 6 ± 0. 4) Me. V New mass : XK± and XKS modes combined

X(3872) mass in + -J/ channel only prev_WA= 3871. 46 ± 0. 19 Me. V Experiment X mass CDF 2 3871. 61 ± 0. 16 ± 0. 19 Me. V Ba. Bar (B+) 3871. 4 ± 0. 6 ± 0. 1 Me. V Ba. Bar (B 0) 3868. 7 ± 1. 5 ± 0. 4 Me. V D 0 3871. 8 ± 3. 1 ± 3. 0 Me. V Belle (This result) 3871. 84 ± 0. 27 ± 0. 19 Me. V World Average 3871. 62 ± 0. 19 Me. V LHCb (new) 3871. 96 ± 0. 46 ± 0. 10 Me. V World Average again 3871. 67 ± 0. 17 Me. V M(D 0)+M(D*0) PDG 2010 3871. 79 ± 0. 30 Me. V “Binding Energy” getting smaller: Old: m = -0. 32 ± 0. 35 Me. V New: Dm = -0. 17 ± 0. 36 Me. V New: Dm = -0. 12 ± 0. 35 Me. V Dm(deuteron) = -2. 2 Me. V

New: upper limit on width G= ~ 0. 0 best fit below experimental resolution at G = 0. 95 Me. V 90 % inflate by +0. 23 Me. V for possible biases G<1. 2 Me. V @ 90% CL -preliminary- Belle prev: G<2. 3 Me. V

JPC of the X(3872) Angular distributions for B KX(3872) Kr. J/ Partial Wave basis: 775 Me. V X(3872) r J/ is right at threshold neglect higher partial waves 3872 Me. V 3097 Me. V 1++: L: S: 2 -+: S-Wave 1 D-wave 1, 2 L: S: P-Wave 1, 2 Only 1 amplitude: BLS=B 01 2 amplitudes: BLS=B 11 & B 12 1 free parameter: F-wave 1, 2 3 free parameters normalization complex Include relative phase f

CDF results 1++ fits well with no adjustable parameters 2 -+ looks like 1++ for some specific CDF: PRL 98 132002 , at least with current statistics All JPC values other than 1++ or 2 -+are ruled out with high confidence 1++ no adj. params 2 - + 2 adj. params 1 - O++

Angle variables that we use qm q. X X(3872) rest frame J. Rosner PRD 70, 092023 (2004)

Fits to the ++ 1 hypothesis No free parameters other than normalization 2/dof =1. 76/4 2/dof =0. 56/4 2/dof =3. 82/4 CL=0. 78 CL=0. 97 CL=0. 51

MC distributions cosc 1++ cosc 2 -+ a=0 different cosc 2 -+ a=0. 5 similar different cosc 2 -+ a=1 (f=0) different cosq. X similar cosqlep

Best “fit” to 2 -+ hypothesis 230 i a = 0. 69 e This is the only value in our grid that gives > 10% CL in all three plots 2/dof =4. 60/4 CL=0. 33 2/dof =5. 24/4 CL=0. 26 2/dof =4. 72/4 CL=0. 32 We can rigorously distinguish between 1++ and 2 -+ with current statistics

+ - system in X(3872) + - J/ comes from r + CDF: PRL 96 102002 Belle: hep-ex/0505038 r + - lineshape M( + - ) + r X 3872 J/ M( + - )

Fits to M(p+p-) r-w interference S-wave P-wave

Fits to M(p+p-) bkgd is subtracted & weighted by acceptance r-w interference S-wave P-wave M( + - ) S-wave fit 2/dof =17. 5/18 c CL=49% P-wave fit c 2/dof =32. 1/18 CL=2% For fw =950 M( + - ) c 2/dof =15. 8/17 CL=54% (S-wave) c 2/dof =14. 6/17 CL=62% (P-wave) r-w interference fit result

_ Possible 1++ cc assignment: cc 1 ‘ V • Mass is too low? e y: 30 M b set =39 ‘ 2 Mc c • 3872 vs 3905 Me. V • G(cc 1 g y’) ~180 ke. V ‘ ‘ • G(cc 1 g J/y) ~14 ke. V T. Barnes et al PRD 72, 054026 • G( c 1 g ’)/G( c 1 g J/ )>>1 • Gp+p- J/y =(3. 4± 1. 2) Gg. J/y ~45 ke. V huge for Isospin-violating decay c. f. : G(y’ p 0 J/y)≈0. 4 ke. V

_ Possible 2 -+ cc assignment: hc 2 V • Mass is too high? : e by: 770 M set ”=3 My • 3872 vs 3837 Me. V • G(hc 2 g y’) ~0. 4 ke. V • G(hc 2 g J/y) ~9 ke. V Y. Jia et al ar. Xiv: 0107. 4541 G(hc 2 g ’)/G(hc 2 g J/ )<<1 • Gp+p- J/y =(3. 4± 1. 2) Gg. J/y ~30 ke. V • huge for Isospin-violating decay c. f. : G(y’ p 0 J/y)≈0. 4 ke. V • B Khc 2 violates factorization • B Khc not seen • B Kcc 2 barely seen • hc 2 DD* expected to be tiny Y. Kalasnikova et al ar. Xiv: 1008. 2895 • Belle & Ba. Bar: : G(X DD*)/G(X J/ )=9. 5± 3. 1 hc 2 ghc s& pphc modes expected to dominate

New: Charged Partner of the X(3872) ? X+(3872) r+J/ ; r+ + 0 : in Isospin triplet 2 -dim. Fit B 0 X+K- Nevts =4. 2± 7. 8 B(B 0 K-X+)x. B(X+ r+J/y)<3. 9 x 10 -6 Rule out isospin triplet model B+ X+K 0 No signals B(B+ K 0 X+)x. B(X+ r+J/y)<4. 5 x 10 -6 Ba. Bar PRD 71, 031501 XBall fcn (for Mx), parameters are fixed at values returned from fit to MC B(B 0 K-X+)x. B(X+ r+J/y)<5. 4 x 10 -6 B(B+ K 0 X+)x. B(X+ r+J/y)<22 x 10 -6

B 0→X(3872)K+ - (B→X(3872) K*? ) 605 /fb Belle ar. Xiv: 0809. 1224(2008) 5σ X(3872)→J/ψπ+π– Nsig= 90 19 (Nsig=8. 2 10. 0) sideband bkgd non-resonant Kπ K*0→Kπ Mass(Kπ) +1. 1 B(B 0 →X(K+π–)non_res) x B(X→J/ψπ+π–) = (8. 1± 2. 0 - 1. 4 )x 10– 6 dominant ! B(B 0 →XK*0) x B(X→J/ψπ+π–) < 3. 4 x 10– 6 @90% CL small !!

B!K X(3872) is very different from other B!K Charmonium K X(3872) all K* comes from sideband Belle ar. Xiv: 0809. 0124 M(K ) / Ge. V K ′ Belle ar. Xiv: 0809. 0124 M(K ) K J/ Ba. Bar, Phys. Rev. D 71(2005)032005 M(K ) K* dominates K c 1 Belle, Phys. Lett. B 634(2006)155 M(K )

Strong decay X(3872) DD* 2 -dim. Fit B D 0 D*0 K 605 fb-1 D*0→D 0γ 6. 4σ D 0 D 00 0 0 *0 B+& B D K D +0. 7 M =3875. 1− 0. 5 ± 0. 5 Me. V 414 fb-1 B 0 D 0 0 KD 347 fb-1 D*0→D 0π0 Ba. Bar PRD 77, 011102(2008) Belle PRL 97, 162002(2006) Both groups saw a high mass value & a Bf(DD*) 10 x Bf(p+p-J/y) M = 3872. 9 + 0. 6 + 0. 4 − 0. 5 Me. V Agrees with Mass from J/ mode PRD 81, 031103(2010) + 2. 8 + 0. 2 − 1. 1 G(BW) = 3. 9 − 1. 4 Me. V B(B K X 3872)x. B(X 3872 D*0 D 0) = (0. 80± 0. 20± 0. 10)x 10 -4

Summary • New measurement from Belle (preliminary) : • MX 3872= 3871. 84± 0. 27± 0. 19 Me. V • GX 3872< 1. 2 Me. V, half of the previous value (2. 3 Me. V from Belle) • X 3872 g. J/ & X 3872 r. J/ decay establish C=+1 • Belle results contradict the Ba. Bar claim of a strong X 3872 g ’ decay width • More statistics needed before angular analyses can distinguish between 1++ & 2 -+ • Inclusion of r-w interference allows both 1++ & 2 -+ to fit M + - line-shape • Ba. Bar confirms Belle’s X 3872 w. J/ observation in B Kw. J/ • X 3872 ”w”J/ line shape favors 2 -+ (but only by ~1. 5 s) • No charged partner of the X(3872) found in Belle • B 0→X(3872)K+ - is dominant; X(3872) K* is small ; different from other charmonium states

Thank You

Backup

X(3872) w J/y in B XK Belle 2005(275 M BB): B(X 3872 w. J/ ) B(X 3872 + -J/ ) M(p+p-p 0 )= mw± 22 Me. V = 1. 0 ± 0. 5 X(3872) ”w” J/ 940)” “Y(3 PRL 94, 182002 not seen in DD*

2010: X 3872 w J/y by Ba. Bar (467 M BB) M(p+p-p 0 )= m +18 w -40 Me. V PRD 82, 011101 B+ K+ w J/ Nevts =26. 7± 7. 6 B 0 K 0 w J/ X(3872) ”w” J/ ? ? B(X 3872 w. J/ ) B(X 3872 + -J/ ) =0. 8 ± 0. 3 (weighted avg. ) S-wave fit prob: 7. 1% 1++ P-wave fit prob: 61. 9% 2 -+ X(3872) is more likely to have 2 -+ NB: this is equivalent to a ~1. 5 s effect than 1+ state & favored to hc 2(1 D)

++ -- SCORECARD -- 2 -+ 1 (Copied from Steve Olsen’s slide) ITEM 1++ 2 -+ COMMENT Angle dists 1++ fits with no free params r pp line shape r-w interf? w ppp line shape 7% vs 61% X(3872) gy’ If Ba. Bar is right If Belle is right B KX(3872) factorization Prospects: • Angular studies will ultimately work but only with LHCb- &/or Belle II – type statistics • In the meantime Belle is revisiting X 3 p. J/y & looking for X pphc & gghc with all the data

X(3872) mass in + -J/ channel only prev WA: = 3871. 46 ± 0. 19 Me. V (My) new WA: 3871. 62± 0. 19 Me. V New Belle 3871. 84 ± 0. 27 ± 0. 19 Me. V Prev World Avg CDF meas. PRL 103, 152001 MD 0 + MD*0 2010 3871. 79 ± 0. 30 Me. V/c 2 “Binding Energy” getting smaller: Dm(deuteron) = -2. 2 Me. V Old: m = -0. 32 ± 0. 35 Me. V New: Dm = -0. 17 ± 0. 36 Me. V

New y’ p+p- J/y in Belle -preliminary-