1: %%
2: %% This is file `template-6s.tex',
3: %% generated with the docstrip utility.
4: %%
5: %% The original source files were:
6: %%
7: %% template.raw (with options: `6s')
8: %%
9: %% Template for the LaTeX class aipproc.
10: %%
11: %% (C) 1998,2000,2001 American Institute of Physics and Frank Mittelbach
12: %% All rights reserved
13: %%
14: %%
15: %% $Id: template.raw,v 1.11 2004/10/31 08:06:14 frank Exp $
16: %%
17:
18: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
19: %% Please remove the next line of code if you
20: %% are satisfied that your installation is
21: %% complete and working.
22: %%
23: %% It is only there to help you in detecting
24: %% potential problems.
25: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
26:
27: %\input{aipcheck}
28:
29: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
30: %% SELECT THE LAYOUT
31: %%
32: %% The class supports further options.
33: %% See aipguide.pdf for details.
34: %%
35: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
36:
37: \documentclass[
38: ,final % use final for the camera ready runs
39: %% ,draft % use draft while you are working on the paper
40: %% ,numberedheadings % uncomment this option for numbered sections
41: %% , % add further options here if necessary
42: ]
43: {aipproc}
44:
45: \layoutstyle{6x9}
46: %\usepackage[utf8]{inputenc}
47: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
48: %% FRONTMATTER
49: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
50:
51: \begin{document}
52:
53: \title{X\&Y}
54:
55: \classification{12.39.-x, 12.38.-t}
56: \keywords{Multiquark Hadrons}
57: \author{L.~Maiani}{
58: address={Universit\`{a} di Roma `La Sapienza' and INFN Sezione di Roma, Italy}
59: }
60: \author{F.~Piccinini}{
61: address={INFN Sezione di Pavia and Dipartimento di Fisica Nucleare e Teorica, Pavia, Italy}
62: }
63: \author{A.D.~Polosa\footnote{Speaker}}{
64: address={Dip. Interateneo di Fisica, Universit\`{a} di Bari, Italy}
65: }
66: \author{V.~Riquer}{
67: address={INFN Sezione di Roma, Italy}
68: }
69:
70:
71: %\author{<author2>}{
72: % address={<common address for author2 and author3>}
73: %}
74: %
75: %\author{<author3>}{
76: % address={<common address for author2 and author3>}
77: % ,altaddress={<author1 address>} % additional visiting address
78: %}
79:
80:
81: \begin{abstract}
82: The 4-quark interpretation of the recently discovered
83: $X(3872)$ and $Y(4260)$ resonances is briefly discussed.
84: \end{abstract}
85:
86: \maketitle
87:
88: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
89: %% MAINMATTER
90: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
91:
92: \section{ $X(3872)$}
93:
94: Quite recently BELLE and BaBar (also CDF and D0) have reported evidence of a new narrow resonance in $B^+\to K^+ J/\psi \pi\pi(\pi)$, the $X(3872)$~\cite{xx}, which most likely decays to $X\to J/\psi\rho(\omega)$
95: with almost equal rate, therefore maximally violating isospin. Even if its mass is right at the $D\bar{D}$ threshold, the X(3872) is not observed to decay in this channel. It turns out that it can't because $J^P(X)=1^+$. The decay $X\to J/\psi \gamma$, with a rate almost ten times smaller than the $J/\psi\rho$, is observed, suggesting $C=+1$, i.e., $J^{PC}(X)=1^{++}$.
96:
97: \paragraph{Charmonium and Hybrid}
98: Such a state is a natural candidate for being classified as a new $c\bar c$ resonance. Anyway, the experimental assessment of $X$ is in sharp contrast with charmonium assignments~\cite{barnes}.
99: What is this narrow $X$ then? The hypothesis next to the charmonium one is the hybrid, i.e., a
100: $c\bar c+$constituent$(g)$.
101: Anyway the gluon is flavor blind, it couples to $u$ and $d$ quarks in the same way thus making the hybrid state an isospin pure state. Isospin violating decays forbid this scheme.
102:
103: \paragraph{Molecule}
104: There are at least two other possibilities for the $X$: being a $D\bar{D}^*$ molecule (a $4\div 5$~fm extended object)~\cite{torn} or a multiquark state (a compact 4-quark state with a size of$\sim$1~fm)~\cite{noi}. The molecule is a $50\%$ mixture of $I=0$ and $I=1$, allowing isospin violating transitions. The $D^*$ has a width of about $70$~KeV. The width of such a molecule is expected to be due to the $D^*$ width. A quite natural decay is then $DD\pi$, which is currently searched for at BELLE and BaBar~\cite{pak}. Preliminary results agree that this channel is at least ${\cal O}(1)$ with respect to the $J/\psi\rho$ one. On the other hand $D$ and $D^*$ might as well interact via hadron exchange forces giving $J/\psi \rho$ in the final state. In more sophisticated models the $X$ spends part of its time in a molecular-like state and part in a compact multiquark-like state; once the $c$ quarks are closer to each other, the transition to a final state containing a $J/\psi$ is favored.
105:
106: \paragraph{4-quark}
107: In the four-quark option the $X$ is depicted as a bound state of two colored diquarks $[cq]$ and
108: $[\bar{c}\bar{q}]$. The heavy-light diquarks are supposed to be bound in the $\bar 3_c$ attractive channel~\cite{noi, jw}.
109: There is some lattice evidence of the formation of $S=0$ light-light diquarks, while $S=1$
110: seems to be disfavored~\cite{lucini}. In the heavy-light system, spin-spin interactions are suppressed by the mass of the heavy constituent, therefore we expect that, {\it if} the heavy-light diquark
111: is formed, $S=1$ or $S=0$ will be equally probable. This opens the way to 4-quark mesons with $J=0,1,2$ and natural and unnatural parities.
112: Depending upon the flavor of the two light constituents, one can build a full nonet of $X$ states where the observed $X(3872)$ is just the neutral one (charged states are expected to occur!).
113:
114: Diquarks are colored objects. If one tries to pull them apart, at some point will excite the production of a couple of light quarks from the vacuum. This means that the natural decay of such a four quark system is into two charmed baryons. But this is impossible kinematically. Thus some other mechanism must be at work to allow the $X$ decay.
115: If the two heavy $c$ quarks escape from their diquark shells and bind to form a $J/\psi$, then a $X\to J/\psi \rho(\omega)$ decay is easily explained. Also the two diquark structures could be broken by the tunneling of a light anti-quark from the anti-diquark to meet a $c$ quark in the diquark (and viceversa) then forming a $D \bar D^*\to DD\pi$ final state.
116:
117: Isospin forbidden decays are possible if $X$ is not a pure isospin state. A pure $I=0,1$ state would be:
118: \begin{equation}
119: X(I=0)=\frac{X_u+X_d}{\sqrt{2}} \;\;\;{\rm or}\;\;\; X(I=1)=\frac{X_u-X_d}{\sqrt{2}}\nonumber,
120: \end{equation}
121: where $X_{u,d}=[cu][\bar c \bar u], [c d][\bar c\bar d]$. On the contrary if the physical eigenstates are
122: just $X_u$ and $X_d$, i.e., pure mass eigenstates, maximal isospin violations are possible.
123: Mixtures of $X_u$ and $X_d$ are induced by annihilation diagrams where $u$ quarks transform in $d$ through vacuum. At the scale of the charm quark mass $m_c$, we expect that annihilation diagrams
124: are suppressed enough to be close to the situation in which $X$ mass eigenstates tend to align to quark masses. We can introduce a $\theta$ mixing angle and write~\cite{noi}:
125: \begin{eqnarray}
126: X_{l}&=&X_u\cos \theta +X_d\sin \theta \nonumber\\
127: X_{h}&=&-X_u\sin \theta +X_d\cos \theta, \nonumber
128: \end{eqnarray}
129: expecting $\theta$ to be small.
130: We find that the mass of $X_h$ and $X_l$ must be different by:
131: \begin{equation}
132: M(X_h)-M(X_l)\simeq \frac{2(m_d-m_u)}{\cos (2\theta)}\nonumber
133: \end{equation}
134: and our estimate is $\Delta M\simeq 7$~MeV.
135:
136: Taking Belle data at face value, we conclude that only one of the two neutral states, $X_{u,d}$ or, more generally $X_{l,h}$, is produced appreciably in $B^+$ decays: the peak observed is indeed too narrow to describe two resonances about 7~MeV apart. Only one should be produced; our analysis is consistent with the production of $X_l$. $X_h$ should then be produced in $B^0$ decays.
137: The present BaBar measure of this mass difference is $\Delta M=2.7\pm1.3\pm 0.2$~MeV, extracted from $B^0\to X K^0$ and $B^+\to X K^+$~\cite{babdiff}. We have to wait for higher statistics analyses to clarify if there are indeed two neutral states separated in mass.
138: \begin{figure}
139: \includegraphics[height=.3\textheight]{fig2.ps}
140: \caption{The shaded area represents the experimentally allowed region by the decays $X\to J/\psi+ \gamma,\rho,\omega$. The solid curve is the 4-quark prediction for $X_l$ at different values of $\theta$. The insert shows the variation of the mass difference $M_{X_h}-M_{X_l}$ versus $\theta$ including the theoretical error band. }
141: \end{figure}
142:
143: \paragraph{Differences}
144: In Fig.~1 the $X_l$ widths as a function of $\theta$ in the 4-quark model. Data seem to favor a $\theta\sim 20^\circ$.
145: Let's summarize some of the more striking differences between 4-quark models and molecules.
146: The four quark model predicts the existence of a full nonet of $X$ states. Charged $X$ particles are predicted. Two neutral $X$ particles are predicted with a separation in mass. In this framework the $X(3940)$, seen in $J/\psi \omega$ by BELLE~\cite{abe}, could be interpreted as a $2^{++}$ 4-quark state. Does it decay also to $J/\psi \rho$?
147:
148: On the other hand the molecule approach to $X$ does not call for charged $X$'s, $X_s$'s or for two distinct neutral $X$'s. The 4-quark model for $X$ allows
149: a $X\to D\bar D^*$ decay width up to two times larger than $J/\psi \rho$. The molecule cannot,
150: the $D\bar D^*$ being quite smaller than $J/\psi \rho$ (see e.g.~\cite{swa}).
151: Experiment will shortly decide between (or beyond) these two schemes.
152:
153: \section{$Y(4260)$}
154:
155: Colored objects such as diquarks in a rising confining potential should exhibit
156: a series of orbital angular momentum excitations while in the
157: molecular picture two colorless objects bound by a short range potential
158: should have a very limited spectrum, possibly restricted to S-wave states only.
159:
160: The $Y(4260)$ has been observed by BaBar as a $1^{--}$ resonance in $e^+e^-\to\gamma J/\psi \pi\pi$, $\gamma$ being an initial state radiation photon. The two pion invariant mass spectrum seems to be peaked at the $f_0(980)$ (this awaits experimental confirmation). $Y(4260)$ is not observed to decay into $D\bar D$. Is it the first excited state of the $X$ family?~\cite{noi2}
161:
162:
163: \paragraph{4-quark}
164: We reconstruct the process as $e^+e^-\to \gamma Y\to \gamma J/\psi f_0 $. Negative parity of the state calls for one unit of orbital angular momentum in the diquark pair. The final state $f_0+J/\psi$ suggests, in the 4-quark model of $f_0$~\cite{scal4q}, the quark content $Y\sim \{ [cs][\bar c \bar s]\}_{\rm (P-wave)}$.
165: The most striking prediction of the 4-quark approach is that the observed decay $J/\psi f_0$ should not be the favored one. The most natural decay should be $D_s \bar D_s$, as shown in Fig.~2.
166:
167: \begin{figure}
168: \includegraphics[height=.15\textheight]{fig3.ps}
169: \caption{Diagram (a) is favored with respect to (b).}
170: \end{figure}
171:
172: The 4-quark model predicts a series of states in addition to the observed one.
173: Among them, a state with both diquark and anti-diquark with $S=1$ can give rise to a $S_{\rm tot}=2$ state. The latter projects only on spin one $\bar c s$ and $\bar s c$ states. In the limit in which the spin of the $s$ quark is a good quantum number such state could decay only into $D^*_s\bar D^*_s$ with substantial reduction of its decay width. One could then expect another state with higher mass, by a factor typical of spin-spin interactions, decaying predominantly to $D^*_s\bar D^*_s$.
174:
175: \paragraph{Hybrid}
176: A serious competitor here is the hybrid state $c\bar c g$. This is predicted to be subject to selection rules constraining it to decay to $D^{**}\bar D$, all other modes being suppressed~\cite{kou}.
177: Also in this case, like in the case of X, a quite stringent experimental test to
178: select among models (or disprove them all) is available.
179:
180: \section{$B\to J/\psi+{\rm all}$}
181: The inclusive $J/\psi$ spectrum in $B$ decays has been studied very carefully on the experimental and theoretical side. The Non-Relativistic-QCD predictions agree quite well with the data over most of the range. However for slow $J/\psi$, i.e., with momenta below 1~GeV, the data show a marked excess over expectations, see Fig~3. No definitive explanation has been furnished yet to justify this excess.
182:
183: We propose that these soft $J/\psi$'s are the footprints of the production of hidden charm four-quark states in $b\to c\bar c q$ decays and their subsequent decay into $J/\psi$ plus light-flavor hadrons~\cite{noi3}. Whatever $X$ and $Y$ are made of, they could be present in a number of $B$ decays.
184:
185:
186: \begin{figure}
187: \includegraphics[height=.3\textheight]{fig4.ps}
188: \caption{The process $B\to J/\psi+{\rm all}$ could be dominated by a resonant channel in which the $J/\psi$ comes from an $X$ produced in association to a Kaon, P-wave, or to a $K^*$ or $K_1$, S-wave. Pure kinematics considerations immediately show that the $J/\psi$ decay momenta should be most likely in the low region, especially when a $K^*$ or $K_1$ is produced (see the inserted plot). This would justify the $J/\psi$ momentum spectrum (main plot) where a clear discrepancy with non-relativistic QCD is appreciable at low $p_{J/\psi}$ (the region around 500~MeV).}
189: \end{figure}
190:
191:
192: \section{Summary}
193:
194: $X$ and $Y$ particles, and their (coming...) partners, could be the first pieces of a new series of mesons with new multiquark body plans (or hybrids?) or could be the first examples of loosely bound states of charmed mesons in the form of molecules.
195: There are several crucial experimental tests which will allow to probe the nature of this states and distinguish among models.
196:
197:
198: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
199: %% Sample figure:
200: %%
201: %% The option [height=...] scales the picture to the given height,
202: %% without it it would be printed at its nominal size
203: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
204:
205: %\begin{figure}
206: % \includegraphics[height=.3\textheight]{golfer}
207: % \caption{Picture to fixed height}
208: % \caption{Picture to fixed height}
209: %\end{figure}
210:
211: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
212: %% SAMPLE TABLE
213: %%
214: %% Shows the use of \tablehead and \tablenote
215: %% macros
216: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
217:
218: %\begin{table}
219: %\begin{tabular}{lrrrr}
220: %\hline
221: % & \tablehead{1}{r}{b}{Single\\outlet}
222: % & \tablehead{1}{r}{b}{Small\tablenote{2-9 retail outlets}\\multiple}
223: % & \tablehead{1}{r}{b}{Large\\multiple}
224: % & \tablehead{1}{r}{b}{Total} \\
225: %\hline
226: %1982 & 98 & 129 & 620 & 847\\
227: %1987 & 138 & 176 & 1000 & 1314\\
228: %1991 & 173 & 248 & 1230 & 1651\\
229: %1998\tablenote{predicted} & 200 & 300 & 1500 & 2000\\
230: %\hline
231: %\end{tabular}
232: %\caption{Average turnover per shop: by type
233: % of retail organisation}
234: %\label{tab:a}
235: %\end{table}
236:
237:
238: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
239: %% BACKMATTER
240: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
241: \begin{theacknowledgments}
242: ADP thanks R.~Faccini and E.~Robutti for many informative discussions.
243: \end{theacknowledgments}
244:
245: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
246: %% The bibliography can be prepared using the BibTeX program or
247: %% manually.
248: %%
249: %% The code below assumes that BibTeX is used. If the bibliography is
250: %% produced without BibTeX comment out the following lines and see the
251: %% aipguide.pdf for further information.
252: %%
253: %% For your convenience a manually coded example is appended
254: %% after the \end{document}
255: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
256:
257: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
258: %% You may have to change the BibTeX style below, depending on your
259: %% setup or preferences.
260: %%
261: %%
262: %% For The AIP proceedings layouts use either
263: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
264:
265: \bibliographystyle{aipproc} % if natbib is available
266: %\bibliographystyle{aipprocl} % if natbib is missing
267:
268: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
269: %% You probably want to use your own bibtex database here
270: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
271: \bibliography{sample}
272:
273: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
274: %% Just a reminder that you may have to run bibtex
275: %% All of it up to \end{document} can be removed
276: %% if you don't like the warning.
277: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
278: %\IfFileExists{\jobname.bbl}{}
279: %{\typeout{}
280: % \typeout{******************************************}
281: % \typeout{** Please run "bibtex \jobname" to optain}
282: % \typeout{** the bibliography and then re-run LaTeX}
283: % \typeout{** twice to fix the references!%}
284: % \typeout{******************************************}
285: % \typeout{}
286: % }
287:
288: %\end{document}
289:
290: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
291: %% The following lines show an example how to produce a bibliography
292: %% without the help of the BibTeX program. This could be used instead
293: %% of the above.
294: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
295:
296: \begin{thebibliography}{9}
297:
298: \bibitem{xx}
299: S.~K. Choi {\it et al.} [BELLE Collaboration], Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf 91}, 262001 (2003); D. Acosta {\it et al.} [CDF Collaboration] Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf 93}, 072001 (2004); V.~M. Abazov {\it et al.} [D0 Collaboration] Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf 93}, 162002 (2004); B. Aubert {\it et al.} Phys. Rev.
300: {\bf D71}, 071103 (2005).
301:
302: \bibitem{barnes}
303: T.~Barnes, S.~Godfrey, E.S.~Swanson, Phys. Rev. {\bf D72}, 054026 (2005).
304:
305: \bibitem{torn}
306: N.A.~T\"{o}rnqvist, Phys. Lett. {\bf B590}, 209 (2004); E.~Braaten, M.~Kusunoki, Phys. Rev. {\bf D69}, 074005 (2004); E.S.~Swanson, Phys. Lett. {\bf B588}, 189 (2004); M.~Voloshin, Phys. Lett. {\bf B604}, 69 (2004).
307:
308: \bibitem{noi}
309: L.~Maiani, F.~Piccinini, A.D.~Polosa, V.~Riquer, Phys. Rev. {\bf D71}, 014028 (2005).
310:
311: \bibitem{pak}
312: See P. Pakhlov on behalf of BELLE collaboration, EPS-Lisbon-2005
313:
314: \bibitem{jw}
315: R.L.~Jaffe, F. Wilczek, Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf 91}, 232003 (2003).
316:
317: \bibitem{lucini}
318: C.~Alexandrou, Ph.~de~Forcrand, B.~Lucini, [arXiv:hep-lat/0509113]
319:
320: \bibitem{babdiff}
321: B. Aubert {\it et al.} [BaBar Collaboration], [arXiv:hep-ex/0507090]
322:
323: \bibitem{abe}
324: K.~Abe {\it et al.}, Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf 94}, 182002 (2005)
325:
326: \bibitem{swa}
327: E.S.~Swanson, Phys. Lett. {\bf B588}, 189 (2004)
328:
329: \bibitem{noi2}
330: L.~Maiani, F.~Piccinini, A.D.~Polosa, V.~Riquer, Phys. Rev. {\bf D72}, 031502 (2005).
331:
332: \bibitem{scal4q}
333: L.~Maiani, F.~Piccinini, A.D.~Polosa, V.~Riquer, Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf 93}, 212002 (2004).
334:
335: \bibitem{kou}
336: E.~Kou, O.~Pene, [arXiv:hep-ph/0507119]; F.E.~Close, P.R.~Page, [arXiv:hep-ph/0507199].
337:
338: \bibitem{noi3}
339: I.~Bigi, L.~Maiani, F.~Piccinini, A.D.~Polosa, V.~Riquer, [arXiv:hep-ph/0510307]
340:
341: \end{thebibliography}
342: \end{document}
343: \endinput
344: %%
345: %% End of file `template-6s.tex'.
346: