1: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
2: \documentclass[twocolumn,showpacs,preprintnumbers]{revtex4}
3: %\topmargin=0.5mm
4: %\documentclass[preprint,showpacs]{revtex4}
5: \usepackage{psfig}
6: \begin{document}
7:
8: \preprint{FZJ-IKP-TH-2006-13, HISKP-TH-06/13}
9:
10: \title{
11: Near threshold {\boldmath $p{\bar p}$} enhancement in
12: {\boldmath $B$} and {\boldmath$J/\Psi$} decay}
13:
14: \author{J. Haidenbauer$^1$, Ulf-G. Mei{\ss}ner$^{1,2}$, A. Sibirtsev$^{2}$}
15:
16: \affiliation{
17: $^1$Institut f\"ur Kernphysik (Theorie), Forschungszentrum J\"ulich,
18: D-52425 J\"ulich, Germany \\
19: $^2$Helmholtz-Institut f\"ur Strahlen- und Kernphysik (Theorie),
20: Universit\"at Bonn, Nu\ss allee 14-16, D-53115 Bonn, Germany
21: }
22:
23: \begin{abstract}
24: The near-threshold enhancement in the
25: $p{\bar p}$ invariant mass spectrum from the
26: $B^+{\to}K^+p{\bar p}$ decay reported recently by the BaBar Collaboration is
27: studied within the J\"ulich $N\bar N$ model. We illustrate that the
28: invariant mass dependence of the $p{\bar p}$ spectrum close to the threshold
29: can be reproduced by the final state interactions. This explanation is
30: in line with our previous analysis of the $p{\bar p}$ invariant mass
31: spectrum from the $J/\Psi{\to}\gamma p{\bar p}$ decay measured by the
32: BES Collaboration.
33: %
34: We also comment on a structure found recently in the $\pi^+\pi^-\eta'$
35: mass spectrum of the radiative $J/\Psi$ decay by the BES
36: Collaboration.
37: In particular we argue that one should be rather cautions in
38: bringing this structure in connection with the enhancement found
39: in the $p{\bar p}$ invariant mass spectrum or with the existence
40: of $N\bar N$ bound states.
41: \end{abstract}
42: %
43: \pacs{11.80.-m; 13.60.Le; 13.75.Jz; 14.65.Dw; 25.80.Nv}
44:
45:
46: \maketitle
47:
48: A first indication for a near-threshold enhancement in the
49: proton--antiproton $p{\bar p}$ invariant mass spectrum
50: from the $B^+{\to}K^+p{\bar p}$
51: and ${\bar B^0}{\to}D^0p{\bar p}$ decays were reported by the Belle
52: Collaboration~\cite{Abe1,Abe2}. Soon afterwards a much more
53: significant evidence of a $p{\bar p}$ enhancement,
54: i.e. with high statistics and high mass resolution,
55: was observed by the BES Collaboration~\cite{Bai} in the
56: reaction $J/\Psi{\to}\gamma p{\bar p}$.
57: More recently the Belle Collaboration~\cite{Wang}
58: found also a near-threshold $p{\bar p}$ enhancement in
59: the decays $B^+{\to}\pi^+p{\bar p}$,
60: $B^+{\to}K^+p{\bar p}$, $B^0{\to}K^0p{\bar p}$ and $B^+{\to}K^{\ast
61: +}p{\bar p}$, while the CLEO Collaboration detected such
62: an enhancement in (the unsubtracted) data for
63: $\Upsilon (1S) \to \gamma p{\bar p}$ \cite{Cleo}. However,
64: in all these cases the results are marred by low statistics.
65: %
66: Very recently the BaBar Collaboration presented
67: a new and high statistics measurement of the $B^+{\to}K^+p{\bar p}$
68: decay~\cite{Aubert} confirming the threshold peaking in
69: the $p{\bar p}$ invariant mass, see also~\cite{babarweb}.
70:
71: The high statistics data by the BES Collaboration triggered a number
72: of theoretical speculations where the observed enhancement in the
73: invariant $p{\bar p}$ mass spectrum was interpreted as evidence for a
74: $p{\bar p}$ bound state or baryonium~\cite{Dover,Shapiro},
75: or for exotic glueball states~\cite{Chua,Rosner}.
76: Alternatively, we \cite{Sibirtsev1} but also others
77: \cite{Kerbikov,Bugg,Zou,Loiseau} demonstrated that the
78: near-threshold enhancement in the $p{\bar p}$ invariant mass
79: spectrum from the $J/\Psi{\to}\gamma p{\bar p}$ decay
80: could be simply due to the final state interactions (FSI) between the
81: outgoing proton and antiproton. Specifically, our calculation based
82: on the realistic J\"ulich $N{\bar N}$ model~\cite{Hippchen,Mull} and
83: the one by Loiseau and Wycech \cite{Loiseau}, utilizing the Paris
84: $N{\bar N}$ model, explicitly confirmed the significance of FSI
85: effects estimated in the initial studies~\cite{Kerbikov,Bugg,Zou}
86: within the effective range approximation.
87:
88: In the present paper we want to investigate whether the near-threshold
89: enhancement in the $p{\bar p}$ invariant mass spectrum, visible in
90: the high statistics data on the reaction $B^+{\to}K^+p{\bar p}$,
91: can likewise be understood in terms of the $p\bar p$ FSI.
92: %
93: In our study of the $J/\Psi{\to}\gamma p{\bar p}$ decay
94: we considered the $p{\bar p}$ FSI interaction in the $^1S_0$ and
95: $^3P_0$ partial waves and the $I = 0$ and $I = 1$ isospin channels.
96: Other $p\bar p$ $S$- and $P$-waves are ruled out by conservation
97: laws for parity, charge-conjugation and total angular momentum
98: together with the measured photon angular distribution from the
99: $J/\Psi{\to}\gamma p{\bar p}$ decay, which agrees with that expected
100: from the $p{\bar p}$ state being in both $^1S_0$ and $^3P_0$ states.
101: We found that the mass dependence of the $p{\bar p}$ spectrum close
102: to the threshold can be reproduced by the $S$-wave $p{\bar p}$ FSI in
103: the isospin $I = 1$ state.
104: %
105: In case of the $B^+{\to}K^+p{\bar p}$,
106: the weak interaction is involved. As a consequence, the selection rules are less
107: rigid and now other $p\bar p$ $S$- and $P$-waves are
108: allowed too and could produce FSI effects in the near-threshold
109: region. Thus, besides the effects resulting from the
110: $^1S_0$ and $^3P_0$ partial waves we explore here also those of
111: the $^3S_1$ and $^3P_1$ states.
112:
113: Like in our earlier paper we utilize the total
114: spin-averaged (dimensionless) $B^+{\to}K^+p{\bar p}$ reaction amplitude
115: $A$ and not directly the measured $p\bar p$ invariant mass spectrum,
116: because that allows us to get rid of trivial kinematical factors.
117: %
118: The $B^+{\to}K^+p{\bar p}$ decay rate is given in terms of $A$
119: by~\cite{Byckling}
120: \begin{eqnarray}
121: d\Gamma = \frac{|A|^2}{2^9 \pi^5 m_{B^+}^2}\,
122: \lambda^{1/2}(m_{B^+}^2,M^2,m_{K^+}) \nonumber \\
123: \times\lambda^{1/2}(M^2,m_p^2,m_p^2)\, dM d\Omega_p\, d\Omega_K,
124: \label{spectr}
125: \end{eqnarray}
126: where the Kallen function $\lambda$ is defined by
127: $\lambda (x,y,z)={((x-y-z)^2-4yz})/{4x}\,$,
128: $M \equiv M(p\bar p)$ is the invariant mass of the $p{\bar p}$
129: system, $\Omega_p$ is the proton angle in that system,
130: while $\Omega_K$ is the $K^+$ angle in
131: the $B^+$ rest frame. After averaging over the spin states and
132: integrating over the angles, the differential decay rate is
133: \begin{eqnarray}
134: \frac{d\Gamma}{dM}=\frac{\lambda^{1/2}(m_{B^+}^2,M^2,m_{K^+})\sqrt{M^2-4m_p^2}}
135: {2^6 \pi^3 m_{B^+}^2}\,\, |A|^2 \ .
136: \label{trans}
137: \end{eqnarray}
138: We use Eq.~(\ref{trans}) for extracting $|A|^2$ from the data of the
139: BaBar Collaboration. The corresponding results are shown in
140: Fig.~\ref{babar4} by the filled circles.
141:
142: \begin{figure}[t]
143: \vspace*{-5mm}
144: \centerline{\hspace*{3mm}\psfig{file=babar4.ps,width=9.7cm,height=11.cm}}
145: \vspace*{-5mm}
146: \caption{
147: Invariant $B^+{\to}K^+p{\bar p}$ amplitude $|A|^2$ as a
148: function of the $p{\bar p}$ mass. The circles represent the experimental
149: values of $|A|^2$ extracted from the BaBar data \cite{Aubert} via Eq.~(\ref{trans}).
150: The curves are the scattering amplitude squared ($|T|^2$)
151: predicted by the $N\bar N$ model A(OBE) \cite{Hippchen}
152: for the $^1S_0$, $^3S_1$, $^3P_0$,
153: and $^3P_1$ partial waves and the $I{=}0$ (solid) and $I{=}1$ (dashed)
154: channels, respectively. Note that the latter results have been normalized
155: to $|A|^2$ at $M(p\bar p){-}2m_p{=}$50 MeV.
156: For comparison reasons we show also the corresponding results
157: extraced from the data on $J/\Psi{\to}\gamma p{\bar p}$ \cite{Bai}
158: (open circles).
159: }
160: \label{babar4}
161: \end{figure}
162:
163: We
164: assume again the validity of the Watson-Migdal approach for the
165: treatment of the FSI effect. It suggests that the reaction amplitude
166: for a production and/or decay reaction that is of short-ranged
167: nature can be factorized in terms of an elementary (basically
168: constant) production amplitude and the $p\bar p$ scattering
169: amplitude $T$ of the particles in the final state so that
170: \begin{eqnarray}
171: A (M(p \bar p)) \approx N \cdot T(M(p \bar p)),
172: \label{fsi}
173: \end{eqnarray}
174: (cf. Ref. \cite{Sibirtsev1} for further details).
175: Thus, we compare the extracted amplitude $|A|^2$ with the
176: suitably normalized scattering amplitudes $|T|^2$ that
177: result from the J\"ulich $N\bar N$ model.
178: The curves shown in Fig.~\ref{babar4} correspond to
179: the $p{\bar p}$ scattering amplitude squared calculated for
180: the $^1S_0$, $^3S_1$, $^3P_0$ and $^3P_1$ partial waves,
181: where the solid
182: lines are the results for the isospin $I = 0$ channel, while the
183: dashed lines are for the $I =1$ channel.
184:
185: As can be seen from Fig.~\ref{babar4}, the enhancement
186: of the near-threshold $p{\bar p}$ invariant mass spectrum from the
187: $B^+{\to}K^+p{\bar p}$ decay, as observed in the
188: new BaBar experiment~\cite{Aubert}, is fully in line with our
189: previous results~\cite{Sibirtsev1}. Fig.~\ref{babar4} contains
190: also the $J/\Psi{\to}\gamma p{\bar p}$ reaction amplitude,
191: evaluated via
192: \begin{eqnarray}
193: \frac{d\Gamma}{dM}=\frac{(m_{J/\Psi}^2-M^2)\sqrt{M^2-4m_p^2}}
194: {2^7 \pi^3 m_{J/\Psi}^3}\,\, |A_{J/\Psi}|^2 \ ,
195: \label{transJ}
196: \end{eqnarray}
197: again suitably normalized to
198: facilitate an easy comparison of the dependence on the $p\bar p$
199: invariant mass.
200: Obviously the data from both considered decay reactions are in
201: reasonable agreement as far as the dependence on $M(p\bar p)$ is
202: concerned.
203: As already mentioned, while for the $J/\Psi{\to}\gamma p{\bar p}$
204: data the final $p{\bar p}$ system is restricted to the $^1S_0$ and $^3P_0$
205: partial waves in the near-threshold region, due to selection rules
206: and the measured photon angular distribution~\cite{Bai},
207: the $B^+{\to}K^+p{\bar p}$ reaction allows also for other partial
208: waves. But also here a measurement of the $K^+$ angular distribution
209: could clarify whether the $^1S_0$ or $^3P_0$ partial waves
210: are responsible for the $p{\bar p}$ enhancement, as for the
211: $J/\Psi$, or rather the $^3S_1$, $^3P_1$ or $^1P_1$ states.
212: Conservation of the total angular
213: momentum requires the $K^+$ to be either in a relative $s$ wave
214: to the $p{\bar p}$ system (for the $^1S_0$ or $^3P_0$ partial waves)
215: or in a $p$ wave (for $^3S_1$, $^3P_1$ or $^1P_1$).
216: We note that the invariant amplitude for the $^1P_1$ wave looks very
217: similar to the one for $^3P_1$.
218:
219: Recently the CLEO Collaboration published results on the radiative
220: decays of the $\Upsilon (1S)$(9460) to the $p\bar p$ system \cite{Cleo}.
221: Interestingly, also in this reaction one can see an enhancement
222: in the $p\bar p$ invariant mass spectrum near threshold, cf. Fig. 6
223: in that paper. The authors
224: presented also results of a reference measurement for the reaction
225: $e^+e^-\to \gamma p\bar p$ at the energy $\sqrt{s}$ = 10.56 GeV where
226: a similar near-threshold enhancement in the $p\bar p$ mass spectrum
227: is detected. We do not show
228: corresponding results here because the accuracy and the mass resolution
229: of those data is too low for allowing a meaningful comparison.
230: However, we would like to comment on a conclusion drawn in Ref.~\cite{Cleo}.
231: In order to remove possible continuum background contributions the
232: CLEO Collaboration subtracted the (scaled) $e^+e^-\to \gamma p\bar p$
233: mass spectrum from the one measured for the $\Upsilon (1S)$ radiative decay.
234: The ``corrected'' $\Upsilon (1S) \to p\bar p$ data do not show an enhancement
235: in the $p\bar p$ spectrum anymore. We believe that this is not surprising
236: and, in fact, must be expected if the near-threshold enhancement comes indeed
237: from the FSI in the $p\bar p$ system. Then, the same or a similar FSI must be
238: present in $e^+e^-\to \gamma p\bar p$ as well as in $\Upsilon (1S){\to}\gamma p{\bar p}$
239: and it must cancel to a large degree in a subtraction like the one
240: performed in Ref.~\cite{Cleo}. Accordingly, from our point of view there
241: is no contradiction between the results of CLEO and those of the BES
242: Collaboration for $J/\Psi{\to}\gamma p{\bar p}$ as suggested in Ref.~\cite{Cleo}.
243: Rather the CLEO results even strengthen the conjecture that the
244: near-threshold enhancement in the $p\bar p$ spectrum seen in $J/\Psi$,
245: $B^+$, $\Upsilon (1S)$ etc. decays is due to the $p\bar p$ FSI.
246:
247: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
248:
249: Next, let us reflect on the present results in view of the earlier
250: consideration concering the $J/\Psi$ decays.
251: In our work on the $J/\Psi{\to}\gamma p{\bar p}$ spectrum we
252: admitted that, because of our poor knowledge of the $N\bar N$ interaction
253: near threshold and for some other reasons \cite{Sibirtsev1},
254: explanations for the enhancement other than
255: final state interactions cannot be ruled out at the present stage.
256: Specifically, we discussed~\cite{Sibirtsev1} that intermediate
257: pseudoscalar ($J^{PC}{=}0^{-+}$) meson resonances, for instance
258: the $\pi(1800)$ resonance but also the $\eta(1760)$~\cite{PDG},
259: could couple to the $p{\bar p}$ channel and thus could play a role.
260: In fact, we showed that the presence of these resonances in the
261: decay $J/\Psi{\to}\gamma p{\bar p}$ is, in principle, in line with
262: the BES data~\cite{Bai} once FSI effects are taken into account.
263:
264: In this context it is interesting to note that recently the BES
265: Collaboration reported~\cite{Ablikim} a resonance in the
266: $J/\Psi{\to}\gamma\pi^+\pi^-\eta^\prime$ mode with mass
267: 1833.7$\pm$6.1~MeV and width of 67.7$\pm$20.3~MeV obtained by fitting a
268: Breit-Wigner function to the $\pi^+\pi^-\eta^\prime$
269: invariant spectrum.
270: This resonance was denoted as a new $X(1835)$ state, arguing
271: that it is not compatible with any of the meson resonance listed in
272: Ref.~\cite{PDG}.
273:
274: \begin{figure}[b]
275: \vspace*{-7mm}
276: \centerline{\hspace*{8mm}\psfig{file=babar5.ps,width=9.2cm,height=9.cm}}
277: \vspace*{-5mm}
278: \caption{Invariant FSI corrected $J/\Psi{\to}\gamma p{\bar p}$
279: amplitude $|A_{J/\Psi}|^2$/$|T|^2$ as a
280: function of the $p{\bar p}$ mass. The squares show the
281: values of $|A_{J/\Psi}|^2$ extracted from the BES data~\cite{Bai} via
282: Eq.~(\ref{trans}) and divided by the $^1S_0$ scattering amplitude
283: squared for the $I = 0$ and $I = 1$ isospin states. The lines show the
284: squared Breit-Wigner amplitudes for the $X(1835)$ \cite{Ablikim},
285: $\eta(1800)$ \cite{Bisello} and $\pi(1800)$ and $\eta(1760)$ \cite{PDG}
286: states.}
287: \label{babar5}
288: \end{figure}
289:
290: Following our prescription~\cite{Sibirtsev1} the authors of
291: Ref.~\cite{Ablikim} re-fitted the $J/\Psi{\to}\gamma p{\bar p}$
292: spectrum including
293: a pseudoscalar resonance and the $I = 0$ $^1S_0$ $p{\bar p}$
294: FSI of the J\"ulich $N{\bar N}$ model A(OBE)~\cite{Hippchen}.
295: The fit yielded a mass of 1831$\pm$7~MeV and a $\Gamma$ $<$153~MeV
296: and led them to the conclusion that the $X(1835)$ properties
297: as found in $J/\Psi{\to}\gamma\pi^+\pi^-\eta^\prime$ are
298: consistent with expectations for the state that produces
299: the strong $p{\bar p}$ mass threshold enhancement observed in
300: the $J/\Psi{\to}\gamma p\bar p$ decay \cite{Ablikim}.
301:
302: Though the authors of Ref.~\cite{Ablikim} admitted in the
303: summary that other possible interpretations of the $X(1835)$
304: that have no relation to the observed near-threshold $p{\bar p}$
305: enhancement are not excluded, we think its worthwhile to
306: elaborate further on that issue.
307: %
308: Dividing the average total $J/\Psi{\to}\gamma p{\bar p}$
309: reaction amplitude $|A_{J/\Psi}|^2$, which is related to the
310: differential decay rate via Eq.~(\ref{transJ}),
311: by the $p{\bar p}$ scattering amplitude
312: $|T|^2$~\cite{Hippchen,Sibirtsev1} one can easily obtain the
313: FSI corrected data as a function of the $p{\bar p}$ invariant mass
314: $M(p{\bar p})$, cf. Fig.~\ref{babar5}.
315: Here we use the $^1S_0$ scattering amplitudes in the $I = 0$ and $I = 1$
316: isospin states.
317:
318: In our experience the data do not allow to fix uniquely the
319: resonance properties if the mass, width and the strength of the
320: resonant contribution are unknown.
321: In order to illustrate that we show the
322: squared Breit-Wigner amplitudes for the $X(1835)$, the $\eta(1760)$ and
323: $\pi(1800)$ with their properties given by the BES
324: Collaboration~\cite{Ablikim} and the PDG~\cite{PDG}, respectively. We
325: only vary the coupling strength of the $0^{-+}$ state to the $p{\bar p}$
326: channel in order to reproduce the BES data~\cite{Bai}.
327: %
328: Since the $X(1835)$ might be a $I^G(J^{PC}){=}0^+(0^{-+})$
329: resonance \cite{Ablikim} one can certainly speculate whether it is the
330: same object as the $\eta(1760)$ listed by the PDG~\cite{PDG}. In fact,
331: the $\eta(1760)$ was also established in radiative $J/\Psi$ decays,
332: namely in the reaction $J/\Psi\to \gamma \rho\rho$ \cite{Bisello}.
333: While the PDG cites only an averaged value, a glance into the original
334: paper \cite{Bisello} makes clear that the mass as well as the width
335: of the $\eta(1760)$ could not be reliably established from the data.
336: Indeed, one of the six solutions with comparable $\chi^2$ given in
337: Ref. \cite{Bisello} (in Table IV) yields a mass and width of
338: 1807$\pm$10 MeV and 94$\pm$12 MeV, which is not that far away from the
339: values obtained by the BES Collaboration. We show also results based
340: on the above resonance parameters in Fig.~\ref{babar5}. It is obvious
341: that there is practically no difference between the $X(1835)$ of
342: Ref.~\cite{Ablikim} and the $\eta(1800)$ of Ref.~\cite{Bisello} as
343: far as the description of the $p\bar p$ invariant mass spectrum
344: is concerned.
345:
346: Anyway, the properties of the $X(1835)$ are indeed consistent with the
347: measured near-threshold enhancement in the $p{\bar p}$ spectrum of
348: the reaction $J/\Psi{\to}\gamma p{\bar p}$. On the other hand, one
349: has to concede that this enhancement as such does not provide any
350: reliable additional support for the existence of the $X(1835)$
351: resonance, and likewise not for the existence of $p{\bar p}$ bound states
352: or baryonia. With regard to the latter we want to remind the reader
353: that our model calculations \cite{Sibirtsev1} as well as those of
354: Loiseau and Wycech \cite{Loiseau} are able to reproduce the $p{\bar p}$
355: spectrum. However, while the $N\bar N$ model used in \cite{Loiseau}
356: generates a near-threshold bound state (at $E \approx -5 -i50$~MeV) in
357: the relevant $^{11}S_0$ state no such state is present in our $^{31}S_0$
358: amplitude (which describes the data equally well) and the one in the
359: $^{11}S_0$ (at $E \approx -104 -i413$~MeV \cite{Mis}) is too wide to have
360: an influence in the physical region.
361:
362: We believe that it will be rather difficult to establish experimentally
363: a direct connection between the $X(1835)$ and the $p\bar p$ system.
364: On the other hand, it would be still interesting to investigate whether
365: this resonance is also visible in $p\bar p$ annihilation. The $X(1835)$
366: could be searched for in reactions like $p\bar p \to \pi^+\pi^-X$,
367: $X\to \pi^+\pi^-\eta'$, etc. \cite{Klempt}. Measurements to get
368: more information on these issues could be performed using the
369: PANDA detector at the future FAIR project.
370:
371: In this context let us also remind the reader that standard quark-model
372: calculations like those in Ref.~\cite{Stanley,Isgur,Metsch} do predict radial
373: excitations of the $\eta$, $\eta'$ around the $\eta$(1800) mass. Thus,
374: a very conventional interpretation of the structure found by the BES
375: Collaboration should be also taken into consideration before
376: speculating excessively on exotic explanations.
377:
378: In summary, we have analyzed the near-threshold enhancement in the
379: $p{\bar p}$ invariant mass spectrum from the $B{\to}Kp{\bar p}$
380: decay reported recently by the BaBar Collaboration within the
381: J\"ulich $N\bar N$ model. Our study shows that the mass
382: dependence of the $p{\bar p}$ spectrum close to the threshold
383: can be reproduced by the final state interaction. This explanation is
384: in line with our previous investigation of the $p{\bar p}$ invariant mass
385: spectrum from the $J/\Psi{\to}\gamma p{\bar p}$ decay measured by the
386: BES Collaboration.
387:
388:
389: \acknowledgments{
390: We thank Mathew Graham for providing us with the most recent BaBar data.
391: This work was partially supported by the
392: DFG (SFB/TR 16, ``Subnuclear Structure of Matter''), by
393: the EU Integrated Infrastructure Initiative Had{\-}ron Physics Project
394: (contract no. RII3-CT-2004-506078)
395: and by Department of Energy under contract no.
396: SURA-06-C0452.}
397:
398: \vfill
399:
400: \begin{thebibliography}{99}
401: \bibitem{Abe1}
402: K. Abe et al., Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf 88}, 181803 (2002)
403: [arXiv:hep-ex/0202017].
404: \bibitem{Abe2}
405: K. Abe et al., Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf 89}, 151802 (2002)
406: [arXiv:hep-ex/0205083].
407: \bibitem{Bai}
408: J.Z. Bai et al., Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf 91}, 022001 (2003)
409: [arXiv:hep-ex/0303006].
410: \bibitem{Wang}
411: M.Z. Wang et al., Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf 92}, 131801 (2004).
412: \bibitem{Cleo}
413: S.B. Athar et al., Phys. Rev. D {\bf 73}, 032001 (2006).
414: \bibitem{Aubert}
415: B. Aubert et al., Phys. Rev. D {\bf 72}, 051101 (R) (2005).
416: \bibitem{babarweb}
417: see https://oraweb.slac.stanford.edu:8080/pls/slacquery/
418: BABAR$\underline{\,\,\,}$DOCUMENTS.DetailedIndex?P$\underline{\,\,\,}$BP$\underline{\,\,\,}$ID=4092
419: \bibitem{Dover}
420: C.B. Dover and M. Goldhaber, Phys. Rev. D {\bf 15},
421: 1997 (1977).
422: \bibitem{Shapiro}
423: I.S. Shapiro, Phys. Rept. {\bf 35}, 129 (1978).
424: \bibitem{Chua}
425: C. K. Chua, W. S. Hou and S. Y. Tsai, Phys. Lett. B {\bf 544},
426: 139 (2002).
427: \bibitem{Rosner}
428: J.L. Rosner, Phys. Rev. D {\bf 68}, 014004 (2003).
429: \bibitem{Sibirtsev1}
430: A. Sibirtsev, J. Haidenbauer, S. Krewald, Ulf-G. Mei{\ss}ner
431: and A.W. Thomas, Phys. Rev. D {\bf 71}, 054010 (2005)
432: [arXiv:hep-ph/0411386].
433: \bibitem{Kerbikov}
434: B. Kerbikov, A. Stavinsky, and V. Fedotov, Phys. Rev. C
435: {\bf 69}, 055205 (2004) [arXiv:hep-ph/0402054].
436: \bibitem{Bugg}
437: D.V. Bugg, Phys. Lett. B {\bf 598}, 8 (2004)
438: [arXiv:hep-ph/0406293].
439: \bibitem{Zou}
440: B.S. Zou and H.C. Chiang, Phys. Rev. D {\bf 69},
441: 034004 (2004) [arXiv:hep-ph/0309273].
442: \bibitem{Loiseau}
443: B. Loiseau and S. Wycech, Phys. Rev. C {\bf 72},
444: 011001 (2005) [arXiv:hep-ph/0501112].
445: \bibitem{Hippchen}
446: T. Hippchen, J. Haidenbauer, K. Holinde, V. Mull,
447: Phys. Rev. C {\bf 44}, 1323 (1991);
448: V. Mull, J. Haidenbauer, T. Hippchen, K. Holinde,
449: Phys. Rev. C {\bf 44}, 1337 (1991).
450: \bibitem{Mull}
451: V. Mull, K. Holinde,
452: Phys. Rev. C {\bf 51}, 2360 (1995).
453: \bibitem{Byckling}
454: E. Byckling and K. Kajantie, Particle Kinematics, John
455: Willey and Sons (1973).
456: \bibitem{PDG}
457: Particle Data Group, Phys. Lett. B {\bf 592}, 1 (2004).
458: \bibitem{Ablikim}
459: M. Ablikim et al., Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf 95}, 262001 (2005)
460: [arXiv:hep-ex/0508025].
461: \bibitem{Bisello}
462: D. Bisello et al., Phys. Rev. D {\bf 39},
463: 701 (1989).
464: \bibitem{Mis} Note that there is a misprint in the binding energy
465: given in Ref. \cite{Sibirtsev1}.
466: \bibitem{Klempt}
467: E. Klempt, arXiv:hep-ex/0404270.
468: \bibitem{Stanley}
469: D.P. Stanley and D. Robson, Phys. Rev. D {\bf 21},
470: 3180 (1980).
471: \bibitem{Isgur}
472: S. Godfrey and N. Isgur, Phys. Rev. D {\bf 32},
473: 189 (1985).
474: \bibitem{Metsch}
475: M.~Koll, R.~Ricken, D.~Merten, B.~C.~Metsch and H.~R.~Petry,
476: Eur.\ Phys.\ J.\ A {\bf 9}, 73 (2000) [arXiv:hep-ph/0008220].
477: \end{thebibliography}
478: \end{document}
479:
480: