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
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
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 ) 4 2 4 N J/! = 651 ± 41 (a) N J/! = 88 ± 39 (b) N J/! = 12 ± 16 2.6 3. M e+e- (GeV/c 2 ) (c) N J/! = 124 ± 16 (d) 2.6 3. 3.4 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 ) < 1.9 1 4 @ 95% C.L. i.e. all of these J/ψ are from continuum production
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...
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
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) 6 4 2 15 1 5 J /!!(2S).5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5 5 p* (GeV/c)
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) 6 4 2 15 1 5 J /!!(2S).5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5 5 p* (GeV/c) OK, so there is a continuous component
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) 6 4 2 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) 15 1 5!(2S).5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5 5 p* (GeV/c)
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) 6 4 2 15 1 5 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.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5 5 p* (GeV/c)
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) 6 4 2 15 1 5 J /!!(2S).5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5 5 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
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
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)
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
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
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
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)
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
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
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 2 18 16 14 12 1 8 6 4 2 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 M recoil GeV/c 2 below cc threshold: nothing above cc threshold: charmonia
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 #
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
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
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/.2 2 1 4 2 1! c! c (2S).2.4.6.8 cos(# prod )! c " c " c! c (2S).2.4.6.8 1 cos(# hel ) α prod α hel η c 1.4 +1.1.8.5 +.7.5 χ c 1.7 ±.5.7 +.7.5 η c (2S) 1.9 +2. 1.2.3 +1..7 no cos θ hel 1 feature; consistent with α prod = α hel (per e + e γ )
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/.2 2 1 4! c! c " c " c α hel α prod expect n η c.93 +.57.47 +1 (P) χ c 1.1 +.38.33 1 (S) 2! c (2S)! c (2S) η c (2S).87 +.86.63 +1 (P) 1.2.4.6.8 cos(# prod ).2.4.6.8 1 cos(# hel ) cf. α.87 for glueball G cf. α +.25 for χ c in NRQCD
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 2 5 4 3 2 1 systematics fits 2.2 2.6 3 3.4 3.8 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)
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 2 3 2 + ISR!(2S) +!(2S) feeddown J/! sidebands 1 2 2.5 3 3.5 2 (GeV/c ) M rec J/ψ, χ c1,c2, ψ(2s) added to the fit in turn: none is significant
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 ± 26 126 ± 2 2972 ± 7 2985 ± 4 χ c 89 ± 24 81 ± 2 347 ± 11 3421 ± 5 η c (2S) 164 ± 3 121 ± 27 363 ± 8 3645 ± 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
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 ± 3.4 6.4 ± 1.7 ± 1. 16.5 ± 3. ± 2.4 BaBar σ B >2 [fb] 17.6 ± 2.8 +1.5 2.1 1.3 ± 2.5 +1.4 1.8 16.4 ± 3.7 +2.4 3. NRQCD: σ [fb] Braaten&Lee 1 3.78 ± 1.26 2.4 ± 1.2 1.57 ±.52... with relativistic corr ns : 7.4 +1.9 4.1 7.6 +11.8 4.1 Liu,He,&Chao 2 5.5 6.9 3.7 Zhang,Gao,&Chao 3 14.1 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, 215 222 (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, 11428 (26) re NRQCD vs light cone) data is still in the driving seat...
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 2 1 5 2.2 2.6 3 3.4 3.8 M recoil (!(2S)) (GeV/c 2 ) η c(1s) χ c η c(2s) significance 4.2 3.5 3.4 σ(ψ(2s) (cc) res) B > [fb] 16.3 ± 4.6 ± 3.9 12.5 ± 3.8 ± 3.1 16. ± 5.1 ± 3.8
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 2 1 5 2.2 2.6 3 3.4 3.8 M recoil (!(2S)) (GeV/c 2 ) η c(1s) χ c η c(2s) significance 4.2 3.5 3.4 σ(ψ(2s) (cc) res) B > [fb] 16.3 ± 4.6 ± 3.9 12.5 ± 3.8 ± 3.1 16. ± 5.1 ± 3.8 cf. σ(ψ(1s) (cc) res) B >2 [fb] 25.6 ± 2.8 ± 3.4 6.4 ± 1.7 ± 1. 16.5 ± 3. ± 2.4
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 2 1 5 2.2 2.6 3 3.4 3.8 M recoil (!(2S)) (GeV/c 2 ) η c(1s) χ c η c(2s) significance 4.2 3.5 3.4 σ(ψ(2s) (cc) res) B > [fb] 16.3 ± 4.6 ± 3.9 12.5 ± 3.8 ± 3.1 16. ± 5.1 ± 3.8 cf. σ(ψ(1s) (cc) res) B >2 [fb] 25.6 ± 2.8 ± 3.4 6.4 ± 1.7 ± 1. 16.5 ± 3. ± 2.4! no suppression of radially-excited states!
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 2 15 1 5! c (2S) X(394)! c " c N/1 MeV/c 2 6 4 2 8 6 a) b) 4 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5 M recoil (J/#) GeV/c 2 2 3.8 4 4.2 M recoil (J/!) GeV/c 2 5.σ peak at (3936 ± 14) MeV X (394) D D; D D
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) 4 2 15 1 5 (J/! D * ) 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 2 2.2 2.4 2.6 2.8 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
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 1 5 4 2 (J/! D) (J/! D * ) 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 2 2.2 2.4 2.6 2.8 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)
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 1 5 4 2 (J/! D) (J/! D * ) 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 2 2.2 2.4 2.6 2.8 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
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 1 5 4 2 (J/! D) (J/! D * ) 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 2 2.2 2.4 2.6 2.8 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
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 1 5 4 2 (J/! D) (J/! D * ) 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 2 2.2 2.4 2.6 2.8 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...
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 1 5 4 2 (J/! D) (J/! D * ) 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 2 2.2 2.4 2.6 2.8 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
1 History Baseline results Cutting edge Sidelines X(394) Method Results Cross-checks Updated: X DD [BELLE CONF 75: PRELIMINARY] N/5 MeV/c 2 2 15 1 5 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 1 5 4 4.5 5 M(DD) GeV/c 2
1 History Baseline results Cutting edge Sidelines X(394) Method Results Cross-checks Updated: X DD [BELLE CONF 75: PRELIMINARY] N/5 MeV/c 2 2 15 1 5 1 5 4 4.5 5 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 = (347 +316 143) MeV unstable under: bkgd param n changes bin-width changes extra B-W term
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 2 2 1 2 1 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) 4. 4.5 5. M(DD * ) GeV/c 2
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 2 2 1 2 1 4. 4.5 5. 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:
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 2 2 1 solid: simultaneous fit to background (sideband) + reflection + rel. S-wave B-W resolution function (MC) 2 1 6.σ resonant term M = (3942 +7 6) MeV Γ = (37 +26 15) MeV < 76 MeV @ 9% C.L. 4. 4.5 5. M(DD * ) GeV/c 2 consistent PRL mass & yield cf. published width: 15.1±1.1 (< 52 @ 9%) MeV (non-parabolic L function)
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 2 8 6 4 2 4 4.5 5 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 = (4156 +25 2) MeV Γ = (139 +111 61 ) MeV σ(e + e ψ X (394)) B(X (394) DD ) = (13.9 +6.4 4.1 ) fb σ(e + e ψ X (416)) B(X (416) D D ) = (24.7 +12.8 8.3 ) fb Again: comparable to ψ η c and other 2(cc) res cross-sections
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-
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)
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 ) =.59 +.15.13 ±.12 M(l + l - ) GeV/c 2 M(l + l - ) GeV/c 2 3.4 3.3 3.2 3.1 3 2.9 2.8 3.4 3.3 3.2 3.1 3 2.9 a) N/1 MeV/c 2 7 b) 6 5 4 3 2 1 2.1 2.2 2.3 2.1 2.2 2.3 M(D! + ) GeV/c 2 M(D! + ) GeV/c 2 c) N/4 MeV/c 2 2.8 1.81 1.86 1.91 M(K -! + ) GeV/c 2 1 d) 8 6 4 2 1.81 1.86 1.91 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
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 ± 13.3 53. ± 21.2 56.2 ± 15.4 23.8 ± 9.4 3. ± 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 1.19 1.19.43.22.13 N(J/ψ cc)/n(j/ψ X)).59 ±.16.62 ±.25 1.9 ±.3 1.87 ±.74.29 ±.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
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 2 8 6 unresolved puzzle of J/! X DD threshold X(394) 4 2 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5 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?
1 History Baseline results Cutting edge Sidelines Summary What s over What s established What s new What s needed from theory
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
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
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
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
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
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 388 42 MeV structure X (394) DD (3942 +7 6 ± 6) Γ = (37+26 15 ± 8) MeV X (416) D D (4156 +25 2 ± 15) Γ = (139+111 61 ± 21) MeV What s needed from theory
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 388 42 MeV structure X (394) DD (3942 +7 6 ± 6) Γ = (37+26 15 ± 8) MeV X (416) D D (4156 +25 2 ± 15) Γ = (139+111 61 ± 21) MeV What s needed from theory interpretation & tests of the new states (already underway)
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 388 42 MeV structure X (394) DD (3942 +7 6 ± 6) Γ = (37+26 15 ± 8) MeV X (416) D D (4156 +25 2 ± 15) Γ = (139+111 61 ± 21) MeV What s needed from theory interpretation & tests of the new states (already underway) predictive account of e + e ψ(ns) X amplitudes
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 388 42 MeV structure X (394) DD (3942 +7 6 ± 6) Γ = (37+26 15 ± 8) MeV X (416) D D (4156 +25 2 ± 15) Γ = (139+111 61 ± 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?
BACKUP Supporting results: e + e 2γ V V [BaBar]