Double cc production in e + e annihilations at high energy

Transcription

1 1 History Baseline results Cutting edge Sidelines in e + e annihilations at high energy Belle collaboration / University of Sydney Charm 27 Workshop, Cornell University, 5th August 27

2 1 History Baseline results Cutting edge Sidelines Outline History Continuum e + e ψ X production Two-body e + e ψ (cc) res production Baseline results The new cutting edge: states above open-charm threshold Published results on X (394) Updated method Updated results: ψ DD, ψ DD, ψ D D Cross-checks Sidelines The inclusive ψ cc/ψ X fraction The e + e ψ g process Summary

3 1 History Baseline results Cutting edge Sidelines e + e ψ X e + e ψ (cc) res e + e ψ X production: How we came to study it Belle: K. Abe et al., Phys. Rev. Lett. 88, 521 (22) search for direct Υ(4S) J/ψ X production (cf. old CLEO result) Events /.1 (GeV/c 2 ) N J/! = 651 ± 41 (a) N J/! = 88 ± 39 (b) N J/! = 12 ± M e+e- (GeV/c 2 ) (c) N J/! = 124 ± 16 (d) M µ+µ- (GeV/c 2 ) > 2. GeV cut: veto Υ(4S) BB[ ψ X ] p ψ ψ yield on-resonance [top] ψ yield off-resonance [bottom] on/off scale factor = ψ yield from Υ(4S) B(Υ(4S) J/ψ X ) < % C.L. i.e. all of these J/ψ are from continuum production

4 1 History Baseline results Cutting edge Sidelines e + e ψ X e + e ψ (cc) res e + e ψ X production: What was expected contributions from various processes (according to NRQCD): e + e ψ gg ψ g ψ cc ψ qq! * c g g c!! * c [octet] c!! * g c c! c! c! * q! q [octet] c c! DOMINANT for dominant at O(1%) small s 1.6 GeV p endpoint so we expect the p ψ spectrum to have two components...

5 1 History Baseline results Cutting edge Sidelines e + e ψ X e + e ψ (cc) res e + e ψ X production: What was expected e + e ψ gg e + e ψ g! * c g c!! * c c! g continuous component [maybe some ψ cc modification] g peak/spike at endpoint across a range p ψ [, p max], p max = s m2 ψ 2 s = 4.84 GeV/c

6 1 History Baseline results Cutting edge Sidelines e + e ψ X e + e ψ (cc) res e + e ψ X production: What we saw Belle: K. Abe et al., Phys. Rev. Lett. 88, 521 (22) Events /.3 (GeV/c) Events /.5 (GeV/c) J /!!(2S) p* (GeV/c)

7 1 History Baseline results Cutting edge Sidelines e + e ψ X e + e ψ (cc) res e + e ψ X production: What we saw Belle: K. Abe et al., Phys. Rev. Lett. 88, 521 (22) Events /.3 (GeV/c) Events /.5 (GeV/c) J /!!(2S) p* (GeV/c) OK, so there is a continuous component

8 1 History Baseline results Cutting edge Sidelines e + e ψ X e + e ψ (cc) res e + e ψ X production: What we saw Belle: K. Abe et al., Phys. Rev. Lett. 88, 521 (22) Events /.3 (GeV/c) J /! OK, so there is a continuous component but there is no spike at the p ψ endpoint [we ll return to this later] Events /.5 (GeV/c) !(2S) p* (GeV/c)

9 1 History Baseline results Cutting edge Sidelines e + e ψ X e + e ψ (cc) res e + e ψ X production: What we saw Belle: K. Abe et al., Phys. Rev. Lett. 88, 521 (22) Events /.5 (GeV/c) Events /.3 (GeV/c) J /!!(2S) OK, so there is a continuous component but there is no spike at the p ψ endpoint [we ll return to this later] more striking: σ before endpoint p* (GeV/c)

10 1 History Baseline results Cutting edge Sidelines e + e ψ X e + e ψ (cc) res e + e ψ X production: What we saw Belle: K. Abe et al., Phys. Rev. Lett. 88, 521 (22) Events /.3 (GeV/c) Events /.5 (GeV/c) J /!!(2S) p* (GeV/c) OK, so there is a continuous component but there is no spike at the p ψ endpoint [we ll return to this later] more striking: σ before endpoint idea: pψ may not be the most natural representation of the data

11 1 History Baseline results Cutting edge Sidelines e + e ψ X e + e ψ (cc) res e + e ψ (cc) res : The method study the recoil mass M recoil (ψ) = ( s E ψ )2 (p ψ )2

12 1 History Baseline results Cutting edge Sidelines e + e ψ X e + e ψ (cc) res e + e ψ (cc) res : The method study the recoil mass M recoil (ψ) = ( s E ψ )2 (p ψ )2 production at fixed s = 1.58 (and 1.52) GeV 1 1 mapping between p ψ and M recoil (ψ) nontrivial upper bound on p ψ lower bound on M recoil (ψ)

13 1 History Baseline results Cutting edge Sidelines e + e ψ X e + e ψ (cc) res e + e ψ (cc) res : The method study the recoil mass M recoil (ψ) = ( s E ψ )2 (p ψ )2 production at fixed s = 1.58 (and 1.52) GeV 1 1 mapping between p ψ and M recoil (ψ) nontrivial upper bound on p ψ lower bound on M recoil (ψ) key limitation: non-reconstruction of remainder X identification of this system is indirect

14 1 History Baseline results Cutting edge Sidelines e + e ψ X e + e ψ (cc) res e + e ψ (cc) res : The method study the recoil mass M recoil (ψ) = ( s E ψ )2 (p ψ )2 production at fixed s = 1.58 (and 1.52) GeV 1 1 mapping between p ψ and M recoil (ψ) nontrivial upper bound on p ψ lower bound on M recoil (ψ) key limitation: non-reconstruction of remainder X identification of this system is indirect alternative interpretations spring from this limitation

15 1 History Baseline results Cutting edge Sidelines e + e ψ X e + e ψ (cc) res e + e ψ (cc) res : The method study the recoil mass M recoil (ψ) = ( s E ψ )2 (p ψ )2 production at fixed s = 1.58 (and 1.52) GeV 1 1 mapping between p ψ and M recoil (ψ) nontrivial upper bound on p ψ lower bound on M recoil (ψ) key limitation: non-reconstruction of remainder X identification of this system is indirect alternative interpretations spring from this limitation improvements to the method rely on ameliorating it

16 1 History Baseline results Cutting edge Sidelines e + e ψ X e + e ψ (cc) res e + e ψ (cc) res : The method study the recoil mass M recoil (ψ) = ( s E ψ )2 (p ψ )2 production at fixed s = 1.58 (and 1.52) GeV 1 1 mapping between p ψ and M recoil (ψ) nontrivial upper bound on p ψ lower bound on M recoil (ψ) key limitation: non-reconstruction of remainder X identification of this system is indirect alternative interpretations spring from this limitation improvements to the method rely on ameliorating it ψ mass-vertex constraint improved σ p ; σ Mrecoil (factor 2)

17 1 History Baseline results Cutting edge Sidelines e + e ψ X e + e ψ (cc) res e + e ψ (cc) res : The method study the recoil mass M recoil (ψ) = ( s E ψ )2 (p ψ )2 production at fixed s = 1.58 (and 1.52) GeV 1 1 mapping between p ψ and M recoil (ψ) nontrivial upper bound on p ψ lower bound on M recoil (ψ) key limitation: non-reconstruction of remainder X identification of this system is indirect alternative interpretations spring from this limitation improvements to the method rely on ameliorating it ψ mass-vertex constraint improved σ p ; σ Mrecoil (factor 2) QED processes: Ntrack > 4 cut to suppress low-multiplicity backgrounds

18 1 History Baseline results Cutting edge Sidelines e + e ψ X e + e ψ (cc) res e + e ψ (cc) res : The method study the recoil mass M recoil (ψ) = ( s E ψ )2 (p ψ )2 production at fixed s = 1.58 (and 1.52) GeV 1 1 mapping between p ψ and M recoil (ψ) nontrivial upper bound on p ψ lower bound on M recoil (ψ) key limitation: non-reconstruction of remainder X identification of this system is indirect alternative interpretations spring from this limitation improvements to the method rely on ameliorating it ψ mass-vertex constraint improved σ p ; σ Mrecoil (factor 2) QED processes: Ntrack > 4 cut to suppress low-multiplicity backgrounds ISR high-mrecoil tail on any structure

19 1 History Baseline results Cutting edge Sidelines e + e ψ X e + e ψ (cc) res e + e ψ (cc) res : The (unexpected) results Belle: K. Abe et al., Phys. Rev. Lett. 89, 1421 (22) N/2 MeV/c M recoil GeV/c 2 below cc threshold: nothing above cc threshold: charmonia

20 1 History Baseline results Cutting edge Sidelines e + e ψ X e + e ψ (cc) res e + e ψ (cc) res vs alternative interpretations (1) Bodwin, Lee, And Braaten, Phys. Rev. D 67, 5423 (23)!"!!!" # # # # #!" straightforward diagrams # neglected in interpretation of data in previous theoretical # work e + e annihilation # γ ψ X requires ξc X = +1!! γ γ ψ X allows # ξc X = ±1 only ψ η c significant in 22 PRL!" idea:... there are probably # J/ψ + J/ψ!! # # #!! events that contribute to the J/ψ + η c # signal... if these were taken into account, they would increase the compatibility # between the NRQCD prediction and the Belle measurement #

21 1 History Baseline results Cutting edge Sidelines e + e ψ X e + e ψ (cc) res e + e ψ (cc) res vs alternative interpretations (1) Bodwin, Lee, And Braaten, Phys. Rev. D 67, 5423 (23) e +! * J/" c c- c e - c- # c J/" distributions in x = cos θ prod : e +! * J/" e -! * J/"(# c ) e +! * J/" e -! * J/" # c ψ η c ψ ψ close to 1 + cos 2 θ prod [γ case] distinctive forward peak

22 1 History Baseline results Cutting edge Sidelines e + e ψ X e + e ψ (cc) res e + e ψ (cc) res vs alternative interpretations (2) Brodsky, Goldhaber, and Lee, Phys. Rev. Lett. 91, 1121 (23) mirror-image of the previous proposal...! * H G J e + e ψ gg process really does dominate heretofore unknown glueball state it s sitting at the η c mass the gg are coupling to it and that s our signal

23 1 History Baseline results Cutting edge Sidelines e + e ψ X e + e ψ (cc) res e + e ψ (cc) res vs alternative interpretations (nemesis) Belle: K. Abe et al., Phys. Rev. D 7, 7112(R) (24) 1. full reconstruction of 3 ψ η c events (cf. 2.6 ±.8 expectation) 2. full reconstruction of ψ ψ events (limit is weak) 3. M recoil bias 3 MeV 4. angular analysis of ψ production (θ prod ) & helicity (θ hel ): N/ ! c! c (2S) cos(# prod )! c " c " c! c (2S) cos(# hel ) α prod α hel η c χ c 1.7 ± η c (2S) no cos θ hel 1 feature; consistent with α prod = α hel (per e + e γ )

24 1 History Baseline results Cutting edge Sidelines e + e ψ X e + e ψ (cc) res e + e ψ (cc) res vs alternative interpretations (nemesis) Belle: K. Abe et al., Phys. Rev. D 7, 7112(R) (24) 1. full reconstruction of 3 ψ η c events (cf. 2.6 ±.8 expectation) 2. full reconstruction of ψ ψ events (limit is weak) 3. M recoil bias 3 MeV 4. angular analysis of ψ production (θ prod ) & helicity (θ hel ): N/ ! c! c " c " c α hel α prod expect n η c (P) χ c (S) 2! c (2S)! c (2S) η c (2S) (P) cos(# prod ) cos(# hel ) cf. α.87 for glueball G cf. α +.25 for χ c in NRQCD

25 1 History Baseline results Cutting edge Sidelines Results: e + e ψ (cc) res production Belle: K. Abe et al., Phys. Rev. D 7, 7112(R) (24) N/2 MeV/c systematics fits M recoil (J/!) (GeV/c 2 ) { with the J/ψ, ψ(2s), χ c1,c2 without ξ C = 1 or χ c1,c2 states (dashed: UL) (solid)

26 1 History Baseline results Cutting edge Sidelines Results: e + e ψ (cc) res production BaBar: B. Aubert et al., Phys. Rev. D 72, 3111(R) (25) N / 2 MeV/c ISR!(2S) +!(2S) feeddown J/! sidebands (GeV/c ) M rec J/ψ, χ c1,c2, ψ(2s) added to the fit in turn: none is significant

27 1 History Baseline results Cutting edge Sidelines Results: e + e ψ (cc) res production [Belle and BaBar] (cc) res N (fit yield) M (MeV/c 2 ) Belle BaBar Belle BaBar η c (1S) 235 ± ± ± ± 4 χ c 89 ± ± ± ± 5 η c (2S) 164 ± ± ± ± 6 J/ψ 14 ± 2 26 ± 13 fixed χ c1 5 ± 16 fixed 1±27 χ c2 12 ± 16 fixed ψ(2s) 26 ± 29 3 ± 27 fixed

28 1 History Baseline results Cutting edge Sidelines Results: e + e ψ (cc) res production [Belle and BaBar] J/ψ (cc) res η c(1s) χ c η c(2s) Belle σ B >2 [fb] 25.6 ± 2.8 ± ± 1.7 ± ± 3. ± 2.4 BaBar σ B >2 [fb] 17.6 ± ± ± NRQCD: σ [fb] Braaten&Lee ± ± ± with relativistic corr ns : Liu,He,&Chao Zhang,Gao,&Chao Bondar&Chernyak 4 light cone 33 h i 1 PRD 67, 547 & 72, 9991(E); 2 hep-ph/48141; 3 PRL 96, 921; 4 PLB 612, (25) low-order perturbative calculations still don t reproduce the data theoretical postdiction is actively pursued with varying approaches; no longer easy to characterise the issues at stake (e.g. see discussion Bodwin, Kang, & Lee, PRD 74, (26) re NRQCD vs light cone) data is still in the driving seat...

29 1 History Baseline results Cutting edge Sidelines Results: e + e ψ(2s) (cc) res production Belle: K. Abe et al., Phys. Rev. D 7, 7112(R) (24) N/2 MeV/c M recoil (!(2S)) (GeV/c 2 ) η c(1s) χ c η c(2s) significance σ(ψ(2s) (cc) res) B > [fb] 16.3 ± 4.6 ± ± 3.8 ± ± 5.1 ± 3.8

30 1 History Baseline results Cutting edge Sidelines Results: e + e ψ(2s) (cc) res production Belle: K. Abe et al., Phys. Rev. D 7, 7112(R) (24) N/2 MeV/c M recoil (!(2S)) (GeV/c 2 ) η c(1s) χ c η c(2s) significance σ(ψ(2s) (cc) res) B > [fb] 16.3 ± 4.6 ± ± 3.8 ± ± 5.1 ± 3.8 cf. σ(ψ(1s) (cc) res) B >2 [fb] 25.6 ± 2.8 ± ± 1.7 ± ± 3. ± 2.4

31 1 History Baseline results Cutting edge Sidelines Results: e + e ψ(2s) (cc) res production Belle: K. Abe et al., Phys. Rev. D 7, 7112(R) (24) N/2 MeV/c M recoil (!(2S)) (GeV/c 2 ) η c(1s) χ c η c(2s) significance σ(ψ(2s) (cc) res) B > [fb] 16.3 ± 4.6 ± ± 3.8 ± ± 5.1 ± 3.8 cf. σ(ψ(1s) (cc) res) B >2 [fb] 25.6 ± 2.8 ± ± 1.7 ± ± 3. ± 2.4! no suppression of radially-excited states!

32 1 History Baseline results Cutting edge Sidelines X(394) Method Results Cross-checks Published: new X(394) state [Belle: K. Abe et al., Phys. Rev. Lett. 98, 821 (27)] standard analysis: extra tag & constraint: inclusive M recoil (ψ) spectrum M recoil (ψ D) m D ( ) N/2 MeV/c ! c (2S) X(394)! c " c N/1 MeV/c a) b) M recoil (J/#) GeV/c M recoil (J/!) GeV/c 2 5.σ peak at (3936 ± 14) MeV X (394) D D; D D

33 1 History Baseline results Cutting edge Sidelines X(394) Method Results Cross-checks Updated: Systematic use of D ( ) tagging [BELLE CONF 75: PRELIMINARY] N/2 MeV/c 2 6 (J/! D) (J/! D * ) M recoil (J/! D (*) ) GeV/c 2 DATA: ψ recon, constraint D, D + recon D refit m D select ψ D or ψ D form M recoil (ψ D ( ) ) simultaneous fit with D-sidebands > 5σ peaks: ψ DD, ψ D D, and ψ D D

34 1 History Baseline results Cutting edge Sidelines X(394) Method Results Cross-checks Updated: Systematic use of D ( ) tagging [BELLE CONF 75: PRELIMINARY] N/2 MeV/c (J/! D) (J/! D * ) Recoil Mass(J/! D (*) ) GeV/c 2 MONTE CARLO: e + e ψdd e + e ψd D e + e ψd D σ 3 MeV < (m D m D)

35 1 History Baseline results Cutting edge Sidelines X(394) Method Results Cross-checks Updated: Systematic use of D ( ) tagging [BELLE CONF 75: PRELIMINARY] N/2 MeV/c (J/! D) (J/! D * ) Recoil Mass(J/! D (*) ) GeV/c 2 MONTE CARLO: e + e ψdd e + e ψd D e + e ψd D σ 3 MeV < (m D m D) tag processes requiring Mrecoil (ψ D ( ) ) m tag < 7 MeV

36 1 History Baseline results Cutting edge Sidelines X(394) Method Results Cross-checks Updated: Systematic use of D ( ) tagging [BELLE CONF 75: PRELIMINARY] N/2 MeV/c (J/! D) (J/! D * ) Recoil Mass(J/! D (*) ) GeV/c 2 MONTE CARLO: e + e ψdd e + e ψd D e + e ψd D σ 3 MeV < (m D m D) tag processes requiring Mrecoil (ψ D ( ) ) m tag < 7 MeV ISR produces (e.g.) 1% ψdd ψdd cross-feed

37 1 History Baseline results Cutting edge Sidelines X(394) Method Results Cross-checks Updated: Systematic use of D ( ) tagging [BELLE CONF 75: PRELIMINARY] N/2 MeV/c (J/! D) (J/! D * ) Recoil Mass(J/! D (*) ) GeV/c 2 MONTE CARLO: e + e ψdd e + e ψd D e + e ψd D σ 3 MeV < (m D m D) tag processes requiring Mrecoil (ψ D ( ) ) m tag < 7 MeV ISR produces (e.g.) 1% ψdd ψdd cross-feed constrain M recoil (ψ D ( ) ) m tag...

38 1 History Baseline results Cutting edge Sidelines X(394) Method Results Cross-checks Updated: Systematic use of D ( ) tagging [BELLE CONF 75: PRELIMINARY] N/2 MeV/c (J/! D) (J/! D * ) Recoil Mass(J/! D (*) ) GeV/c 2 MONTE CARLO: e + e ψdd e + e ψd D e + e ψd D σ 3 MeV < (m D m D) tag processes requiring Mrecoil (ψ D ( ) ) m tag < 7 MeV ISR produces (e.g.) 1% ψdd ψdd cross-feed constrain M recoil (ψ D ( ) ) m tag... resolution on M(D ( ) D ( ) ) improves by a factor of 3 1

39 1 History Baseline results Cutting edge Sidelines X(394) Method Results Cross-checks Updated: X DD [BELLE CONF 75: PRELIMINARY] N/5 MeV/c yellow: D rec sidebands dashed: rel. B-W fit points: data (D rec signal) solid: simultaneous fit to background (sideband) + threshold function + rel. S-wave B-W M(DD) GeV/c 2

40 1 History Baseline results Cutting edge Sidelines X(394) Method Results Cross-checks Updated: X DD [BELLE CONF 75: PRELIMINARY] N/5 MeV/c M(DD) GeV/c 2 yellow: D rec sidebands dashed: rel. B-W fit points: data (D rec signal) solid: simultaneous fit to background (sideband) + threshold function + rel. S-wave B-W insignificant threshold term 4.4σ resonant term M = (3878 ± 48) MeV Γ = ( ) MeV unstable under: bkgd param n changes bin-width changes extra B-W term

41 1 History Baseline results Cutting edge Sidelines X(394) Method Results Cross-checks Updated: X DD (D recon.; D constraint) [BELLE CONF 75: PRELIMINARY] N/25 MeV/c yellow: D rec sidebands green: DD reflection dashed: A M 2m D e BM + reflection fit points: data (D rec signal) solid: simultaneous fit to background (sideband) + reflection + threshold function + rel. S-wave B-W resolution function (MC) M(DD * ) GeV/c 2

42 1 History Baseline results Cutting edge Sidelines X(394) Method Results Cross-checks Updated: X DD (D recon.; D constraint) [BELLE CONF 75: PRELIMINARY] N/25 MeV/c M(DD * ) GeV/c 2 yellow: D rec sidebands green: DD reflection dashed: A M 2m D e BM + reflection fit points: data (D rec signal) solid: simultaneous fit to background (sideband) + reflection + threshold function + rel. S-wave B-W resolution function (MC) threshold term < fix to zero and refit:

43 1 History Baseline results Cutting edge Sidelines X(394) Method Results Cross-checks Updated: X DD (D recon.; D constraint) [BELLE CONF 75: PRELIMINARY] N/25 MeV/c solid: simultaneous fit to background (sideband) + reflection + rel. S-wave B-W resolution function (MC) σ resonant term M = ( ) MeV Γ = ( ) MeV < 76 9% C.L M(DD * ) GeV/c 2 consistent PRL mass & yield cf. published width: 15.1±1.1 (< 9%) MeV (non-parabolic L function)

44 1 History Baseline results Cutting edge Sidelines X(394) Method Results Cross-checks Updated: X D D [BELLE CONF 75: PRELIMINARY] N/5 MeV/c M(D * D * ) GeV/c 2 yellow: D rec sidebands green: X (394) reflection points: data (D rec signal) similar fit performed Born cross-section calculations per published analysis: 5.5σ NEW resonant term M = ( ) MeV Γ = ( ) MeV σ(e + e ψ X (394)) B(X (394) DD ) = ( ) fb σ(e + e ψ X (416)) B(X (416) D D ) = ( ) fb Again: comparable to ψ η c and other 2(cc) res cross-sections

45 1 History Baseline results Cutting edge Sidelines X(394) Method Results Cross-checks /c 2 ious reed is ally the paf the ple heck lear dethe tion Updated: systematics TABLE III: Summary of the systematic errors in the masses [BELLE CONF 75: and widths (MPRELIMINARY] and Γ in MeV/c 2 ) and production cross sections (σ in %) for X(394) [X(416)] resonances. X(394) X(416) Source M Γ σ M Γ σ Fitting procedure ±4 ±6 ±5 ±12 ±18 ±2 Selection ±4 ±5 ±4 ±8 ±11 ±5 Momentum scale ±3 ±3 Angular distributions ±12 ±16 Reconstruction ±6 ±8 Identification ±4 ±4 B(D ( ) ) ±3 ±4 Total ±6 ±8 ±16 ±15 ±21 ±2 dure n efing not allow to fix the resonant structure in this pro-

46 1 History Baseline results Cutting edge Sidelines X(394) Method Results Cross-checks Updated: cross-checks [BELLE CONF 75: PRELIMINARY] 1. D-sidebands represent D-window backgrounds well: in MC: for backgrounds due to non-signal ψ D ( ) D ( ) in data: under various subsample tests 2. charged and neutral D-subsamples agree 3. for X (394) DD : the D recon, D constraint analysis for X (394) DD : gives consistent results (ɛ is low)

47 1 History Baseline results Cutting edge Sidelines ψ cc fraction e + e ψ g Sideline (1): the inclusive ψ cc/ψ X fraction Belle: K. Abe et al., Phys. Rev. Lett. 89, 421 (22) model-dependent σ(e + e ψ cc)/σ(e + e ψ X ) = ±.12 M(l + l - ) GeV/c 2 M(l + l - ) GeV/c a) N/1 MeV/c 2 7 b) M(D! + ) GeV/c 2 M(D! + ) GeV/c 2 c) N/4 MeV/c M(K -! + ) GeV/c 2 1 d) M(K -! + ) GeV/c 2 method: recon+constrain ψ recon+constrain D ( ) veto B-daughters: pd or p l > 2.6 gev 2D fit to obtain ψ D ( ) X yields fragment n per PYTHIA deduce σ

48 1 History Baseline results Cutting edge Sidelines ψ cc fraction e + e ψ g Sideline (1): the inclusive ψ cc/ψ X fraction Belle: unpublished BELLE PRL conference 89, 1421 results (22) 23ff established model-independent e + e ψ D ( ) X... use instead minimal cuts p ψ > 2. GeV && M recoil > 3.7 GeV/c 2, fit backgrounds: 31'!-(/12 " D (K!) #! #! 31'!-(/12 " "! "!! "$% & &$" &$# ()* + *!,----./12 " D (K3!)! "$% & &$" &$# ()* + *!,----./12 " 31'!-(/12 " &! "! '! D + (K2!) 31'!-(/12 "! "$% & &$" &$# ()* + *!,----./12 " '4 '! 4! D s (KK!) "$% & &$" &$# ()* + *!,----./12 " associated state D Kπ D K3π D + D + s Λ + c Ndata obs 49.6 ± ± ± ± ± 4.2 Ndata (3.1 ±.83) 1 3 (3.31 ± 1.32) 1 3 (2.8 ±.57) 1 3 (1.83 ±.72) 1 3 (.17 ±.23) 1 3 LUND rate in cc N(J/ψ cc)/n(j/ψ X)).59 ± ± ± ± ±.41 AVERAGE.67 ±.12 Determine double-charm fraction independent of cc fragmentation: σ(e + e J/ψ cc) σ(e + e J/ψ X).5 Ni (724 ± 124) 13 =.5 N J/ψ (4438 ± 88) 1 3 =.82 ±.15 ±.14 >.48 at 95% CL cf. perturbative QCD (esp. NRQCD): hard to move the prediction above.1 [expectation: dominance of e + e γ ψ gg (bulk) and ψ g (endpoint)] PHENO 25 2 May 25 Unexplained results from Belle

49 1 History Baseline results Cutting edge Sidelines ψ cc fraction e + e ψ g Sideline (2): the e + e ψ g process N/2 MeV/c unresolved puzzle of J/! X DD threshold X(394) Recoil Mass(J/!) GeV/c 2 residual component which seems not to be ψ (cc) res it is only above cc threshold is this e + e ψ g? if so, why the coincidence?

50 1 History Baseline results Cutting edge Sidelines Summary What s over What s established What s new What s needed from theory

51 1 History Baseline results Cutting edge Sidelines Summary What s over fundamental questions re method [Belle PRD 7, 7112(R)] What s established What s new What s needed from theory

52 1 History Baseline results Cutting edge Sidelines Summary What s over fundamental questions re method [Belle PRD 7, 7112(R)] fear that some mistake was made [BaBar PRD 72, 3111(R)] What s established What s new What s needed from theory

53 1 History Baseline results Cutting edge Sidelines Summary What s over fundamental questions re method [Belle PRD 7, 7112(R)] fear that some mistake was made [BaBar PRD 72, 3111(R)] the idea of large e + e γ γ X or other confusing things What s established What s new What s needed from theory

54 1 History Baseline results Cutting edge Sidelines Summary What s over fundamental questions re method [Belle PRD 7, 7112(R)] fear that some mistake was made [BaBar PRD 72, 3111(R)] the idea of large e + e γ γ X or other confusing things What s established large e + e ψ cc ( 5%) and ψ(ns) (cc) res (O(2 fb)) What s new What s needed from theory

55 1 History Baseline results Cutting edge Sidelines Summary What s over fundamental questions re method [Belle PRD 7, 7112(R)] fear that some mistake was made [BaBar PRD 72, 3111(R)] the idea of large e + e γ γ X or other confusing things What s established large e + e ψ cc ( 5%) and ψ(ns) (cc) res (O(2 fb)) there is no suppression of radially excited states What s new What s needed from theory

56 1 History Baseline results Cutting edge Sidelines Summary What s over fundamental questions re method [Belle PRD 7, 7112(R)] fear that some mistake was made [BaBar PRD 72, 3111(R)] the idea of large e + e γ γ X or other confusing things What s established large e + e ψ cc ( 5%) and ψ(ns) (cc) res (O(2 fb)) there is no suppression of radially excited states What s new prominent resonant contributions continue above threshold: DD amplitude broad MeV structure X (394) DD ( ± 6) Γ = ( ± 8) MeV X (416) D D ( ± 15) Γ = ( ± 21) MeV What s needed from theory

57 1 History Baseline results Cutting edge Sidelines Summary What s over fundamental questions re method [Belle PRD 7, 7112(R)] fear that some mistake was made [BaBar PRD 72, 3111(R)] the idea of large e + e γ γ X or other confusing things What s established large e + e ψ cc ( 5%) and ψ(ns) (cc) res (O(2 fb)) there is no suppression of radially excited states What s new prominent resonant contributions continue above threshold: DD amplitude broad MeV structure X (394) DD ( ± 6) Γ = ( ± 8) MeV X (416) D D ( ± 15) Γ = ( ± 21) MeV What s needed from theory interpretation & tests of the new states (already underway)

58 1 History Baseline results Cutting edge Sidelines Summary What s over fundamental questions re method [Belle PRD 7, 7112(R)] fear that some mistake was made [BaBar PRD 72, 3111(R)] the idea of large e + e γ γ X or other confusing things What s established large e + e ψ cc ( 5%) and ψ(ns) (cc) res (O(2 fb)) there is no suppression of radially excited states What s new prominent resonant contributions continue above threshold: DD amplitude broad MeV structure X (394) DD ( ± 6) Γ = ( ± 8) MeV X (416) D D ( ± 15) Γ = ( ± 21) MeV What s needed from theory interpretation & tests of the new states (already underway) predictive account of e + e ψ(ns) X amplitudes

59 1 History Baseline results Cutting edge Sidelines Summary What s over fundamental questions re method [Belle PRD 7, 7112(R)] fear that some mistake was made [BaBar PRD 72, 3111(R)] the idea of large e + e γ γ X or other confusing things What s established large e + e ψ cc ( 5%) and ψ(ns) (cc) res (O(2 fb)) there is no suppression of radially excited states What s new prominent resonant contributions continue above threshold: DD amplitude broad MeV structure X (394) DD ( ± 6) Γ = ( ± 8) MeV X (416) D D ( ± 15) Γ = ( ± 21) MeV What s needed from theory interpretation & tests of the new states (already underway) predictive account of e + e ψ(ns) X amplitudes implications for prod n of quarkonium-like states at the LHC?

60 BACKUP Supporting results: e + e 2γ V V [BaBar]