1: % Article on threshold effects
2: % J. Rosner
3: % Draft as of October 6, 2006
4: \documentclass[12pt]{article}
5: \usepackage{graphicx}
6: \textheight 9in
7: \voffset -0.4in
8: \textwidth 6in
9: \hoffset -0.2in
10: \def \b{{\cal B}}
11: \def \bea{\begin{eqnarray}}
12: \def \beq{\begin{equation}}
13: \def \bra#1{\langle #1 |}
14: \def \eea{\end{eqnarray}}
15: \def \eeq{\end{equation}}
16: \def \ite{{\it et al.}}
17: \def \ket#1{| #1 \rangle}
18: \def \pp{\psi'}
19: \def \ppp{\psi''}
20: \def \s{\sqrt{2}}
21: \def \st{\sqrt{3}}
22: \def \sx{\sqrt{6}}
23: \def \vc{\vec{C}}
24: \def \vp{\vec{P}}
25: \def \vt{\vec{T}}
26: \begin{document}
27: \renewcommand{\thetable}{\Roman{table}}
28: \begin{flushright}
29: EFI-06-14 \\
30: hep-ph/0608102 \\
31: August 2006 \\
32: \end{flushright}
33:
34: \centerline{\bf EFFECTS OF S-WAVE THRESHOLDS}
35: \bigskip
36: \centerline{Jonathan L. Rosner}
37: \medskip
38: \centerline{\it Enrico Fermi Institute and Department of Physics,
39: University of Chicago}
40: \centerline{\it 5640 South Ellis Avenue, Chicago, IL 60637}
41: \bigskip
42: \centerline{\large Abstract}
43: \bigskip
44: The opening of a new S-wave threshold is frequently accompanied by an
45: abrupt dip in the magnitude of an amplitude for an already-open channel.
46: One familiar example is the behavior of the $I=0$ S-wave $\pi \pi$ scattering
47: amplitude at $K \bar K$ threshold. Numerous other examples of this
48: phenomenon in recent data are noted, and a unified description of the
49: underlying dynamics is sought.
50: \bigskip
51:
52: \leftline{PACS numbers: 11.55.-m, 11.80.-m, 11.80.Gw, 13.75.-n}
53: \bigskip
54:
55: \section{INTRODUCTION}
56: \bigskip
57:
58: The rapid drop in the magnitude of the $I=0$ S-wave $\pi \pi$ scattering
59: amplitude near a center-of-mass energy $E_{\rm cm} \simeq 1$ GeV has been
60: known for many years. It appears to be associated with the rapid passage
61: of the elastic phase shift through $180^\circ$ near the center-of-mass
62: energy at which the amplitude
63: becomes highly inelastic as a result of the opening of the $K \bar K$
64: threshold \cite{Flatte:1972rz}. A resonance with $J^{PC} = 0^{++}$
65: ($J=$ total angular momentum, $P=$ parity, $C=$ charge-conjugation
66: eigenvalue) now known as $f_0(980)$ \cite{PDG}, coupling both to
67: $\pi \pi$ and $K \bar K$, appears to be responsible for the rapid variation of
68: the $I=J=0$ elastic phase shift $\delta_0^0$. For detailed discussions of
69: the amplitude and phase shift, see Refs.\ \cite{Au:1986vs} and
70: \cite{Bugg:2005nt}.
71:
72: A wide variety of reactions in particle physics, many of which have been
73: observed only recently, display a similar rapid drop in the magnitude of an
74: S-wave amplitude in one channel when another channel opens up. The present
75: article is devoted to a discussion of this phenomenon and its possible
76: dynamical implications, with suggestions for further experimental study.
77:
78: The vanishing or rapid decrease of cross sections is familiar from fields
79: outside particle physics. For example:
80:
81: \begin{itemize}
82:
83: \item The {\it Ramsauer-Townsend effect} \cite{rte} corresponds to a minimum
84: of the elastic cross section at which a phase shift for S-wave scattering
85: goes through $180^\circ$. Writing the $S$-matrix as $S = \eta e^{2 i \delta}$,
86: where $\eta$ is the inelasticity parameter and $\delta$ is the phase shift,
87: one sees that for $\eta = 1$ and $\delta = \pi$, the scattering amplitude
88: $f = (S - 1)/(2 i k)$ vanishes. (Here $k$ is the c.m.\ three-momentum.)
89:
90: \item Cusps in S-wave scattering cross sections occur at thresholds for
91: {\it any} new channels \cite{Wigner:1948}. This behavior has recently been
92: discussed in Ref.\ \cite{Bugg:2004rk} in the context of several processes to be
93: mentioned here.
94:
95: \item {\it Monochromatic neutrons} may be produced by utilizing the vanishing
96: absorption cross sections of neutrons of certain energies on specific nuclei
97: \cite{monon}.
98:
99: \end{itemize}
100:
101: Within particle physics, a number of recently observed dips appear to be
102: correlated with S-wave thresholds:
103:
104: \begin{enumerate}
105:
106: \item The value of $R \equiv \sigma(e^+ e^- \to {\rm hadrons})/\sigma(e^+ e^-
107: \to \mu^+ \mu^-)$ drops sharply around $\sqrt{s} = 4.26$ GeV\cite{Bai:2001ct},
108: which happens to be just below the threshold for production of $D \bar D_1 + $
109: charge conjugate (c.c.), where $D$ and $D_1$ are charmed mesons with $J^{PC} =
110: 0^-$ and $1^+$, respectively \cite{Bai:2001ct}.
111:
112: \item With the advent of high-statistics Dalitz plots for heavy meson decays
113: one often sees dips and edges correlated with thresholds \cite{Rosner:2006ag}.
114: The $\pi \pi$ spectrum in $D^0 \to K_S \pi^+ \pi^-$ \cite{Aubert:2005iz,%
115: BeKspipi,Asner:2003uz} shows discontinuities both at $M(\omega)$
116: (a rapid fall-off in $M(\pi \pi)$ due to $\rho$--$\omega$ interference) and
117: around 1 GeV/$c^2$ (a sharp rise due to rescattering from $K \bar K$).
118: A recent $D^0 \to K^+ K^- \pi^0$ Dalitz plot based on CLEO data \cite{Paras06}
119: contains depopulated regions near $m(K^\pm \pi^0) \simeq$ 1 GeV/$c^2$ which
120: may be due to the opening of the $K \pi^0 \to K \eta$ S-wave threshold
121: or to a vanishing S-wave $K \pi$ amplitude between a low-energy $K \pi$
122: resonance (``$\kappa$'') and a higher resonance. A candidate for such
123: a resonance exists around 1430 MeV/$c^2$ \cite{PDG}.
124:
125: \item Diffractive photoproduction of $3 \pi^+ 3 \pi^-$ exhibits a dip near
126: $p \bar p$ threshold \cite{Frabetti:2001ah,Frabetti:2003pw}. This dip also
127: occurs in the $3 \pi^+ 3 \pi^-$ spectrum produced in radiative return in
128: higher-energy $e^+ e^-$ collisions, i.e., in $e^+ e^- \to \gamma 3 \pi^+
129: 3 \pi^-$, observed by the BaBar Collaboration at SLAC \cite{Coleman:2006}.
130:
131: \item The $p \bar p$ spectrum produced in radiative return \cite{Coleman:2006}
132: exhibits dips at $\sim 2.15$ GeV/$c^2$ and $\sim 3.0$ GeV/$c^2$, which lie just
133: below the respective thresholds for $p \bar \Delta(1232)$ and $N(1520) \bar
134: N(1520)$, respectively.
135:
136: \end{enumerate}
137:
138: We shall discuss these and others in Section II. A possible dynamical origin
139: of these effects is posed in Section III. Implications for further experiments
140: are noted in Section IV, while Section V summarizes.
141:
142: \section{ILLUSTRATIONS OF S-WAVE THRESHOLDS}
143:
144: \subsection{Cusp in $\pi^0 \pi^0$ spectrum at $\pi^+ \pi^-$ threshold}
145:
146: The $\pi^0 \pi^0$ S-wave scattering amplitude is expected to have a cusp
147: at $\pi^+ \pi^-$ threshold \cite{Meissner:1997fa,Meissner:1997gf}.
148: This behavior can be studied in the decay $K^+ \to \pi^+ \pi^0 \pi^0$, where
149: the contribution from the $\pi^+ \pi^+ \pi^-$ intermediate state allows one
150: to study the charge-exchange reaction $\pi^+ \pi^- \to \pi^0 \pi^0$ and thus
151: to measure the $\pi \pi$ S-wave scattering length difference $a_0-a_2$
152: \cite{Cabibbo:2005ez}. The CERN NA48 Collaboration has performed such a
153: measurement, finding $(a_0-a_2)m_{\pi^+} = 0.264\pm 0.006~({\rm stat})
154: \pm 0.004~({\rm sys}) \pm 0.013~({\rm ext})$ \cite{Batley:2005ax} in
155: remarkable agreement with the prediction \cite{Cabibbo:2005ez}
156: $0.265\pm0.004$. One can also study this effect in $\pi^+ \pi^-$ atoms.
157: In this manner the DIRAC Collaboration measured $|a_0-a_2| =
158: (0.264^{+0.033}_{-0.020})/m_{\pi^+}$ \cite{Adeva:2005pg}.
159:
160: \subsection{Cusp in $\pi^0 p$ spectrum at $\pi^+ n$ threshold}
161:
162: In the photoproduction reaction $\gamma p \to \pi^0 p$ the $\pi^+ n$ threshold
163: lies a few MeV above the $\pi^0 p$ threshold as a result of the
164: $\pi^+$--$\pi^0$ and $n$--$p$ mass differences. The real part of the
165: $\pi^0$ photoproduction electric dipole amplitude $E_{0+}$ shows a pronounced
166: cusp at $\pi^+ n$ threshold \cite{Schmidt:2001vg}, in accord with predictions
167: of chiral pertubation theory \cite{Meissner:1997gf,MeissnerPC}.
168:
169: \subsection{Behavior of $R$ in $e^+ e^-$ annihilations}
170:
171: The parameter $R$ describing the cross section for $e^+ e^- \to {\rm hadrons}$
172: normalized by $\sigma(e^+ e^- \to \mu^+ \mu^-)$ describes, {\it on the
173: average}, the sum of squares of charges $Q_i$ of those quarks which can be
174: produced at a given energy:
175: \beq
176: R = \sum_i Q_i^2 \left( 1 + \frac{\alpha_S}{\pi} + \ldots \right)~~~,
177: \eeq
178: where the $\alpha_S/\pi$ term is the leading QCD correction. Thus, below charm
179: threshold one expects the average value of $R$ to be slightly more than 2, as
180: verified by a recent measurement \cite{Ablikim:2006aj} averaged between
181: $E_{\rm cm} = 3.650$ and 3.6648 GeV: $\bar R_{uds} = 2.224 \pm 0.019 \pm
182: 0.089$.
183:
184: The change in $R$ due to the opening of the charmed quark threshold should be
185: \beq
186: \Delta R_c = 3 (2/3)^2 \left( 1 + \frac{\alpha_S}{\pi} + \ldots \right)~~~,
187: \eeq
188: or slightly more than 4/3. As one sees from Fig.\ \ref{fig:R}, this may be
189: true on the average, but there are strong fluctuations which are usually
190: ascribed to resonances around $E_{\rm cm} \simeq 4040$, 4160, and 4415 MeV
191: \cite{PDG}. However, equally striking is the sharp dip in $R$,
192: which drops from $4.01 \pm 0.14 \pm 0.14$ at 4190 MeV to $2.71 \pm 0.12 \pm
193: 0.13$ at 4250 MeV. This decrease is just about the amount that would
194: correspond to total suppression of charm production.
195:
196: The reaction $e^+ e^- \to c \bar c$ produces a $c \bar c$ system with $J^{PC} =
197: 1^{--}$ which one expects corresponds mainly to a $^3S_1$ state. Production of
198: the $^3D_1$ state, while allowed by $J$, $P$, and $C$ conservation, is
199: expected to be suppressed because the D-wave quarkonium wave function vanishes
200: at the origin \cite{Novikov:1977dq}. The $c \bar c$ system now must fragment
201: into hadronic final states.
202:
203: The lowest available channels are $D \bar D$ (threshold 3.73 GeV), $D \bar D^*
204: + {\rm c.c.}$ (threshold 3.87 GeV), and $D^* \bar D^*$ (threshold 4.02 GeV).
205: Each of these corresponds to production of a charmed meson-antimeson pair in
206: a P-wave. (In principle an F-wave is also possible, but highly suppressed, for
207: $D^* \bar D^*$.) The cross section for production in a state of orbital
208: angular momentum $\ell$ grows as $(p^*)^{2 \ell + 1}$, where $p^*$ is the
209: magnitude of either particle's three-momentum in the center of mass. Thus
210: unless a resonance is present [as is the case for $\psi(4040)$], one does
211: not expect abrupt effects at any of these thresholds.
212:
213: The lowest-lying meson-antimeson channel with $J^{PC} = 1^{--}$ into which $c
214: \bar c$ can fragment with zero relative orbital angular momentum $\ell$ of the
215: meson-antimeson pair is $D \bar D_1 - {\rm c.c.}$ \cite{Close:2005iz}.
216: Here $D_1$ is a P-wave bound
217: state of a charmed quark and a light ($\bar u$ or $\bar d$) antiquark with $J^P
218: = 1^+$. The minus sign corresponds to the negative $C$ eigenvalue. The
219: lightest established candidate for $D_1$ has a mass of about 2.42 GeV/$c^2$,
220: corresponding to a threshold of 4.285 GeV. It is this threshold that we
221: associate with the dip in $R$ between 4.19 and 4.25 GeV.
222:
223: % This is Figure 1
224: \begin{figure}
225: \begin{center}
226: \includegraphics[height=4.9in]{besrnew.eps}
227: \end{center}
228: \caption{(a) Compilation of $R$ values from $E_{\rm cm} = 1.4$ to 5 GeV.
229: (b) BES results from 3.7 to 4.6 GeV. From Ref.\ \cite{Bai:2001ct}.
230: \label{fig:R}}
231: \end{figure}
232:
233: In principle there can be a lighter $J^P = 1^+$ non-strange $D$ meson $D^*_1$,
234: as two are expected as mixtures of $^3P_1$ and $^1P_1$ states. If so, the
235: relevant threshold would lie below 4.285 GeV. It might be smeared out, as
236: the $D^*_1$ is expected to be broader than the (observed) $D_1$ \cite{HQS}.
237: Moreover, a $^3P_0$ state $D_0$ could be sufficiently light that the lowest
238: S-wave meson pair with $J^{PC} = 1^{--}$ is $D^* \bar D_0 - {\rm c.c.}$ Then
239: its mass would have to be lower than about 2.28 GeV/$c^2$. Again, since
240: a $^3P_0$ state is expected to be relatively broad, the threshold might be
241: broadened correspondingly.
242:
243: Just above the dip in $R$ there is a newly discovered state, the $Y(4260)$,
244: with $J^{PC} = 1^{--}$ identified by its production in radiative return
245: \cite{Aubert:2005rm} and in a direct $e^+ e^-$ scan \cite{Coan:2006rv}. We
246: shall discuss its possible interpretation in the next Section, but its mass
247: and quantum numbers suggest some relation to the dip mentioned here.
248:
249: \subsection{Dip in $3 \pi^+ 3 \pi^-$ spectra at $p \bar p$ threshold}
250:
251: % This is Figure 2
252: \begin{figure}
253: \begin{center}
254: \includegraphics[height=5in]{6pic.eps}
255: \end{center}
256: \caption{Spectrum of diffractively produced $3 \pi^+ 3 \pi^-$
257: \cite{Frabetti:2003pw}, together with results of a fit with two resonances and
258: continuum. The inset shows the relative fraction of each amplitude without
259: interference.
260: \label{fig:6pidip}}
261: \end{figure}
262:
263: The diffractive photoproduction of $3 \pi^+ 3 \pi^-$ leads to a spectrum with a
264: pronounced dip near 1.9 GeV/$c^2$ \cite{Frabetti:2001ah,Frabetti:2003pw},
265: as shown in Fig.\ \ref{fig:6pidip}. This
266: feature can be reproduced by a $1^{--}$ resonance with $M = 1.91 \pm 0.01$
267: GeV/$c^2$ and width $\Gamma = 37 \pm 13$ MeV interfering destructively with a
268: broader $1^{--}$ resonance at lower mass. In Ref.\ \cite{Frabetti:2003pw} this
269: resonance is considered unlikely to be a nucleon-antinucleon bound state
270: because it is not seen in the reaction $\bar n p \to 3 \pi^+ 2 \pi^- \pi^0$
271: studied by the OBELIX Collaboration \cite{Agnello:2002kp}. However, this
272: interpretation needs to be re-examined if, as noted here, the dip is really
273: due to the opening of a new channel, in which case a resonance pole, if
274: present at all, may not be located in the expected place. This aspect will
275: be examined in the next Section.
276:
277: The $3 \pi^+ 3 \pi^-$ spectrum also has been studied in the radiative
278: return reaction $e^+ e^- \to \gamma 3 \pi^+ 3 \pi^-$ by the BaBar
279: Collaboration \cite{Coleman:2006} in the course of a systematic examination
280: of all final states contributing to $R$ below about 3 GeV. In contrast to
281: the photoproduction reaction, where the diffractive nature of $3 \pi^+ 3 \pi^-$
282: production suggests but does not firmly imply that the multi-pion system has
283: $J^{PC} = 1^{--}$, here the identification is unambiguous. A dip is again
284: seen at 1.9 GeV/$c^2$.
285:
286: \subsection{Dips in $p \bar p$ spectra at higher thresholds}
287:
288: The $p \bar p$ spectrum studied in radiative return \cite{Coleman:2006} shows
289: two dips: an appreciable one at 2.15 GeV/$c^2$ and a less-significant one
290: at 3 GeV/$c^2$. These both can be correlated with important S-wave thresholds.
291:
292: The first S-wave quasi-two-body threshold in the $J^{PC} = 1^{--}$ channel
293: consisting of a nucleon-antinucleon state corresponds to $N \bar \Delta -
294: {\rm c.c.}$, and occurs around 2.17 GeV/$c^2$. By necessity it occurs in
295: the isovector channel, since $I_N = 1/2$ while $I_\Delta = 3/2$. This
296: implies that the threshold effect should be equally strong in the $p \bar p$
297: and $n \bar n$ channels, a prediction which will be difficult to check.
298: However, it also implies that the production ratios for $p \bar \Delta^-$
299: and $n \bar \Delta^0$ should be equal, which may be verifiable using
300: missing-mass techniques.
301:
302: The next-highest nucleon resonance above the $\Delta$ is the Roper resonance,
303: with a mass around $M_R \simeq 1.44$ GeV/$c^2$. There does not seem to be
304: a prominent dip around $M_R + M_N \simeq 2.38$ GeV/$c^2$. The first
305: {\it negative}-parity nucleon resonance is $N(1520)$, with $J^P = 3/2^-$.
306: If produced in a relative S-wave with another resonance in a state with
307: $J^{PC} = 1^{--}$, that resonance must also have negative parity, so the
308: corresponding threshold is 2(1.52) = 3.04 GeV/$c^2$. Here there does seem
309: to be a slight dip in the $p \bar p$ spectrum. In principle both the
310: isovector and isoscalar channels can be affected. The production of
311: $N^0(1520) \bar N^0(1520)$ is easily detected through the $p \pi^- \bar p
312: \pi^+$ final state, but detection of $N^+(1520) \bar N^-(1520)$ requires
313: observation of $p \pi^0 \bar p \pi^0$, somewhat more challenging.
314:
315: \section{MOLECULES AND BOUND STATES}
316:
317: \subsection{Non-elementary nature of light scalar mesons}
318:
319: The lightest scalar mesons may be denoted $f_0(600) = \sigma$, $K_0^*(800) =
320: \kappa$, $f_0(980)$, and $a_0(980)$ \cite{PDG}. Although they have been
321: variously assigned to $q \bar q$, $qq \bar q \bar q$, and meson-meson
322: dynamical resonances, it seems difficult to avoid the conclusion that mesonic
323: (not just quark) degrees of freedom play a key role in their properties. (See,
324: e.g., \cite{Bugg:2005nt,Tornqvist:1995kr,Baru:2003qq,Oller:1998zr,%
325: vanBeveren:2006ua}, and references therein.) The $\sigma$ and $\kappa$ may be
326: dynamically generated using just current algebra, unitarity, and crossing
327: symmetry \cite{Oller:1998zr,BG71,Lehmann:1972kv,VB85}, as discussed in Ref.\
328: \cite{Rosner:2006ag}. The $K \bar K$ thresholds play a key role in the
329: properties of the $f_0(980)$ and $a_0(980)$, whose masses may be strongly
330: affected by coupling to the $K \bar K$ channels \cite{BuggPC}. The resonance
331: $f_0(980)$ below $K \bar K$ threshold has a pole not far from the real axis;
332: its width is 40--100 MeV \cite{PDG}. The $f_0(980)$ drives the elastic $\pi
333: \pi$ phase rapidly through $180^\circ$ when its effects are combined with the
334: more-slowly-varying $\pi \pi$ S-wave behavior of the $\sigma$
335: \cite{Caprini:2005zr,Pennington:2006qi,Bugg:2006gc}.
336:
337: \subsection{The $Y(4260)$ as a $D \bar D_1 - {\rm c.c.}$ bound state}
338:
339: The observation of the $Y(4260)$ has sparked many interpretations. It has
340: variously been identified as a conventional 4S quarkonium level
341: \cite{Llanes-Estrada:2005vf}, displacing the $\psi(4415)$ \cite{Barnes:2005pb}
342: in this role; a two-quark-two-antiquark state \cite{Maiani:2005pe}; or a hybrid
343: \cite{Close:2005iz,Zhu:2005hp}, corresponding to excitation of gluonic degrees
344: of freedom. The favored decay in this last scenario is precisely to one
345: S-wave and one P-wave meson, for example $D \bar D_1 - {\rm c.c.}$ If
346: this channel is closed, one may still be able to observe its effects through
347: the off-shell decay of $D_1$ to $D^* \pi$.
348:
349: If the closed $D \bar D_1 - {\rm c.c.}$ channel is responsible for the
350: $Y(4260)$, one might expect a closed $D_s \bar D_{s1} - {\rm c.c.}$ channel to
351: generate similar behavior at higher energy \cite{ClosePC}. The threshold
352: for this channel is about 4430 MeV$/c^2$, so the $\psi(4415)$ might have
353: enhanced coupling to it or to $D_s^* \bar D_{s0}$, which has a similar
354: threshold \cite{Barnes:2005pb}.
355:
356: \subsection{Effect of a $^3S_1$ $p \bar p$ bound state on $\gamma^{(*)} \to
357: 3 \pi^+ 3 \pi^-$}
358:
359: The six-pion channel with isospin $I = I_3 = 1$ does not display resonant
360: activity above $\bar n p$ threshold \cite{Agnello:2002kp}. However, if there
361: is a state with strong coupling to $3 \pi^+ 3 \pi^-$ and $p \bar p$
362: below $p \bar p$ threshold, one may expect behavior similar to what is
363: observed in the $\pi \pi$ S-wave channel as described above. [Note added:
364: a satisfactory fit to the behavior illustrated in Fig.\ 2 was obtained in
365: Ref.\ \cite{Bugg:2004rk} from a cusp effect alone, without recourse to a
366: resonance. One objection to a $\bar p p$ resonance is the absence of
367: a peak near threshold in the cross section for $\bar p p \to \bar n n$.]
368:
369: The $^1S_0$ $p \bar p$ system exhibits behavior
370: characteristic of a shallowly-bound state with mass around 1835 MeV/$c^2$.
371: Such a state is consistent with what is observed in the radiative decays
372: $J/\psi \to \gamma p \bar p$ \cite{Bai:2003sw} and $J/\psi \to \gamma \eta'
373: \pi^+ \pi^-$ \cite{Ablikim:2005um}. Here, if the state is produced in the
374: expected way via conversion of two gluons emitted in the decay $J/\psi \to
375: \gamma g g$, it is likely to be isoscalar.
376:
377: \subsection{A state near $\omega \phi$ and $K^* \bar K^*$ threshold}
378:
379: The BES II Collaboration has observed an enhancement in $M(\omega \phi)$
380: near threshold in the decay $J/\psi \to \gamma \omega \phi$
381: \cite{Ablikim:2006dw}. The state emerges from a partial wave analysis as a
382: candidate for $J^P = 0^+$ with mass $M = 1812^{+19}_{-26} \pm 18$ MeV/$c^2$
383: and width $\Gamma = 105 \pm 20 \pm 28$ MeV/$c^2$. The spin and parity are
384: consistent with being an S-wave state of $\omega \phi$ just about 10 MeV/$c^2$
385: above threshold. It is interesting that the $K^* \bar K^*$ and $\omega \phi$
386: thresholds are only about 10--20 MeV/$c^2$ apart depending on the $K^*$
387: charges. We suspect the reaction $\omega \phi \leftrightarrow K^* \bar K^*$
388: plays an important part in stabilizing this resonance. One interpretation
389: of this state \cite{Li:2006ru} implies a larger partial width to $K^* \bar
390: K^*$ than to $\omega \phi$.
391:
392: \subsection{$p \bar \Delta - {\rm c.c.}$ and $N(1520) \bar N(1520)$ bound
393: states}
394:
395: The relative parities of a $p$ and a $\bar \Delta$ are negative. The S-wave
396: bound states of a suitably antisymmetrized state will have $P=C=-$. The allowed
397: $J$ values for $p \bar \Delta$ are 1 and 2, but only $J=1$ couples
398: to the virtual photon.
399:
400: The relative parities of $N(1520)$ and $\bar N(1520)$ also are negative, so all
401: their S-wave bound states have negative parity. The total spins $S$ can
402: take on all values between 0 and 3, but one expects (as for spin-1/2 particles)
403: that the charge-conjugation eigenvalue of the pair is $C=(-1)^{L+S}$. The $J=1$
404: state thus is permitted by $C$ to couple to the virtual photon.
405:
406: The dynamics which would give rise to bound states in the $J=1$ channels are
407: unclear. By analogy with the $p \bar p$ system mentioned
408: above one might expect bound states with more than one $J$ value.
409:
410: \subsection{The $\Lambda(1405)$ as a $\bar K N$ bound state}
411:
412: Another system which has been known for nearly 50 years to have features in
413: common with the bound states mentioned above is the $I=0$ S-wave kaon-nucleon
414: system, which has a $J^P = 1/2^-$ resonance at 1405 MeV/$c^2$, about $26 \pm 4$
415: MeV/$c^2$ below $K^- p$ threshold \cite{Dalitz:1959dn}. This state, the
416: $\Lambda(1405)$, decays essentially 100\% of the time to $\Sigma \pi$. Although
417: it may be viewed in the quark model as a $uds$ state with orbital
418: angular momentum $\ell = 1$, the detailed properties of the $\Lambda(1405)$
419: can be viewed equally successfully in terms of the final-state channels to
420: which it couples \cite{Petersen:1972qk,Faiman:1976gg,Isgur:1978xi}. This
421: is true of a number of other members of the negative-parity baryon
422: 70-dimensional multiplet of SU(6). For example, the $N(1535)$, also with
423: $J^P = 1/2^-$, can be viewed both as an $L = 1$ three-quark state and as
424: a dynamical effect with large coupling to $\eta N$ \cite{Tuan}.
425:
426: \subsection{Excited $\Xi$ as a $\Sigma \bar K$ threshold effect}
427:
428: The BaBar Collaboration has recently analyzed the mass, width, and spin of a
429: baryon with strangeness $-2$ near 1685 MeV/$c^2$ \cite{Aubert:2006ux},
430: observed in the decay $\Lambda_c \to \Lambda \bar K^0 K^+$. The existence
431: of this state, and its correlation with $\Sigma \bar K$ threshold, has been
432: known for a number of years (see the references in \cite{PDG}), but the
433: BaBar analysis finds its spin to be consistent with 1/2, which would
434: correspond to an S-wave $\bar K \Sigma$ state. The mass, found in Ref.\
435: \cite{Aubert:2006ux} to be $1684.7 \pm 1.3^{+2.2}_{-1.6}$ MeV/$c^2$, probably
436: lies above the $K^- \Sigma^+$ threshold of 1683.0 MeV/$c^2$ but below the
437: $\bar K^0 \Sigma^0$ threshold of 1690.3 MeV/$c^2$. Thus in some sense
438: one could regard it as a $\bar K^0 \Sigma^0$ S-wave bound state.
439:
440: \subsection{Peak in $M(\Lambda p)$ at $\Sigma N$ threshold}
441:
442: For a number of years, it has been known that the $\Lambda p$ mass spectrum
443: in $K^- d \to \Lambda p \pi^-$ exhibits a sharp peak around $\Sigma N$
444: threshold \cite{Jaffe}. Early references with the largest data samples include
445: Refs.\ \cite{Tan:1969jq} ($p_K \simeq 0$) and \cite{Braun:1977ma} ($p_K = 0.7$
446: GeV/$c$);~% and \cite{Eastwood:1971wj} ($p_K = 1.45,~1.65$ GeV/$c$);
447: others may be found in \cite{PDG84}. The mass of this state is consistent
448: with being equal to $M(\Sigma^+ n) = 2128.93$ MeV/$c^2$; the $\Sigma^0
449: p$ threshold at 2130.91 MeV/$c^2$ is 2 MeV/$c^2$ higher. This state has been
450: interpreted as the $^3S_1$ $S=-1,~I=1/2$ partner of the deuteron in the
451: $\overline{10}$-dimensional representation of SU(3)
452: \cite{Oakes:1963,Dalitz:1980zc}. A recent discussion \cite{Bugg:2004rk},
453: however, finds that it is difficult to determine whether the data demand an
454: actual pole in addition to a threshold cusp. This ambiguity is common to a
455: number of examples we have discussed here.
456:
457: \subsection{The $X(3872)$ as a $D^0 \bar D^{*0} + {\rm c.c.}$ bound state}
458:
459: The suggestion that charmed mesons might form molecules or bound states with
460: one another was made shortly after their discovery \cite{Voloshin:1976ap}.
461: It now appears that one has a good candidate for such a state.
462: The $X(3872)$, discovered by Belle in $B$ decays \cite{Choi:2003ue}
463: and confirmed by BaBar \cite{Aubert:2004ns} and in hadronic production
464: \cite{Acosta:2003zx}, decays predominantly into $J/\psi \pi^+ \pi^-$.
465: It has many features in common with an S-wave bound state of $(D^0 \bar D^{*0}
466: + \bar D^0 D^{*0})/ \sqrt{2} \sim c \bar c u \bar u$ with $J^{PC} = 1^{++}$
467: \cite{Close:2003sg}. Its $J^{PC} = 1^{++}$ assignment is supported by its
468: recently reported observation in the $D^0 \bar D^0 \pi^0$ channel
469: \cite{Gokhroo:2006bt}. It has recently been described more generally as being
470: associated with a large scattering length in $D^0$--$\bar D^{*0}$ scattering
471: \cite{Bugg:2004rk,Braaten:2005jj}.
472:
473: \subsection{The $D_{s0}(2317)$ and $D^*_{s1}(2460)$ as
474: $D^{(*)}K$ bound states}
475:
476: The lowest-lying $J^P = 0^+$ and $1^+$ $c \bar s$ mesons \cite{Aubert:2003fg}
477: have turned out to be lighter than predicted in most \cite{Godfrey:1985xj,%
478: Cahn:2003cw} (but not all \cite{Matsuki:1997da}) quarkonium calculations.
479: In fact, they lie below their respective $D K$ and $D^* K$ thresholds, and thus
480: must decay via emission of a photon or an isospin-violating $\pi^0$ to a lower
481: $c \bar s$ state. While low masses are predicted \cite{Bardeen:2003kt} by
482: viewing these states as parity-doublets of the $D_s(0^-)$ and $D^*_s(1^-)$
483: $c \bar s$ ground states, one can also view them as bound states of $D^{(*)}K$
484: \cite{Barnes:2003dj,vanBeveren:2003kd,Guo:2006fu} (the binding energy in each
485: case would be 41 MeV), or as $c \bar s$ states with masses lowered by coupling
486: to $D^{(*)}K$ channels \cite{Close:2004ip}.
487:
488: \subsection{Is there a rule for bound state formation?}
489:
490: The feature which the above examples have in common is the coexistence of at
491: least two channels, one closed and one open, near the energy at which either a
492: dip or a peak is observed. This is a necessary but probably not sufficient
493: condition for what is termed a {\it Feshbach resonance} \cite{Feshbach:1958nx},
494: which has been used to great advantage in the study of Bose-Einstein
495: condensates \cite{BE}. Such a resonance is characterized by a phase shift
496: increasing rapidly by $180^\circ$ as the energy rises through the resonance.
497: This is how the $I=0$ S-wave $\pi \pi$ phase shift behaves \cite{Au:1986vs},
498: but it is not known whether the phase shifts in the other channels we have
499: mentioned behave similarly. However, all of these channels are dominated by a
500: single partial wave (e.g., $^3S_1$ for the $c \bar c$ pair produced directly or
501: via radiative return in $e^+ e^-$ collisions), so the possibility of a
502: rapidly decreasing or vanishing amplitude exists. The importance of
503: hadronic as well as quark degrees of freedom in processes such as those we have
504: discussed has been stressed in Refs.\ \cite{Bugg:2005nt,Bugg:2004rk,%
505: Tornqvist:1995kr,Baru:2003qq,Oller:1998zr,vanBeveren:2006ua,Close:2004ip,%
506: Close:2003tv,vanBeveren:2002zt}.
507:
508: A regularity governing resonance formation was noted some time ago
509: \cite{Rosner:1973fq}. If two mesons are allowed by the quark model to
510: resonate, they do so for $p^*< p_0^{MM} = 350$ MeV/$c$, where $p^*$ is the
511: c.m. momentum. The corresponding value for meson-baryon systems is
512: $p_0^{MB} = 250$ MeV/$c$. In order to form non-exotic resonances, an
513: antiquark in a meson must annihilate with the corresponding quark in the other
514: meson or baryon.
515:
516: The $\omega \phi$ threshold of Ref.\ \cite{Ablikim:2006dw} is one possible
517: counterexample, because the quark flavors in the two decay products are
518: distinct from one another: $(u \bar u + d \bar d)/\s$ for the $\omega$ and
519: $s \bar s$ for the $\phi$. However, if this resonance couples strongly
520: not only to $\omega \phi$ but also to $K^* \bar K^*$, the latter component
521: may be chiefly responsible through the proposed quark-antiquark annihilation
522: mechanism for the resonant behavior.
523:
524: It is possible that a stronger form of the above rule holds when neither
525: resonating particle is a pion. The pion may be considered as anomalously light
526: in view of its role as a Nambu-Goldstone boson of spontaneously broken chiral
527: SU(2) $\times$ SU(2). Thus, $\pi^+$ and $\pi^-$ form a $\rho$ meson (or
528: possibly a $\sigma$) well above threshold, but $K$ and $\bar K$ seem to exhibit
529: their first resonances in the $I=0$ state $f_0(980)$ and $I=1$ state
530: $a_0(980)$, both of which lie below threshold. The $K^-$ and $p$ form the
531: $\Lambda(1405)$, also below threshold. This behavior is frequent enough that a
532: more general dynamical principle may be at work.
533:
534: \section{IMPLICATIONS FOR EXPERIMENTS}
535:
536: \subsection{Dip in $R$: hadronic makeup of final states}
537:
538: If the dip in $R$ is due to a new threshold in the hadronization of $c \bar c$,
539: it should be confined to final states consisting of charmed mesons and
540: charmed antimesons (with possible additional pions). The cross section for
541: $e^+ e^-$ production of non-charmed final states should not be affected.
542:
543: \subsection{Isovector states produced via $B \to \bar D^{(*)} W^{*+}$ decay}
544:
545: The dip in the $p \bar p$ spectrum at $p \bar \Delta^-$ threshold, if indeed
546: due to this threshold, must be occurring in the isovector channel. Then
547: production of $p \bar n$ by the charged weak current should exhibit a
548: similar dip at $p \bar \Delta^0$ threshold. One should be able to observe this
549: effect in the decay (e.g.) $B^0 \to D^{*-} p \bar n$, where the $\bar n$ is
550: reconstructed via missing mass. Similarly, the decay $B^0 \to D^{*-}
551: (6 \pi)^+$ should show a dip in the six-pion effective mass spectrum at
552: $p \bar n$ threshold, or around 1.9 GeV/$c^2$.
553:
554: \subsection{Elastic $\Sigma \pi$ scattering at $\Lambda(1405)$}
555:
556: The SELEX Collaboration has completed a program of studies with a $\Sigma^-$
557: beam \cite{Russ:2000bs}. Although the main focus of this experiment was
558: charm production, it was capable of studying $\Sigma^- \pi^+$ scattering
559: through the peripheral process $\Sigma^- p \to X n$ with a cut on small
560: momentum transfer to isolate pion exchange. If the $K^- p$ threshold plays
561: a role similar to that noted in the above examples, one would expect a sharp
562: dip in the cross sections for $\Sigma^- \pi^+ \to \Sigma^\mp \pi^\pm$ in
563: the vicinity of $\Lambda(1405)$.
564:
565: \subsection{Threshold $K \eta$ or sub-threshold $K \eta'$ resonance}
566:
567: The depletion of the $K \pi$ spectrum just above 1 GeV/$c^2$ in the Dalitz
568: plot for $D^0 \to K^+ K^- \pi^0$ \cite{Paras06} occurs just around the $K \eta$
569: threshold. This depletion should be confirmed by the analysis of a larger
570: $D^0 \to K^+ K^- \pi^0$ data sample \cite{Aubert:2006xn} and the $D^0 \to K^+
571: K^- \eta$ Dalitz plot studied to determine if there is an enhancement at
572: $K \eta$ threshold. However, the coupling of a $0^+$ resonance to $K \eta$ is
573: expected to be suppressed \cite{Lipkin:1980tk}; coupling to $K \eta'$ is
574: favored. An alternative interpretation is that the dip above 1 GeV/$c^2$
575: is due to the vanishing of the S-wave amplitude between a low-energy
576: $J^P = 0^+$ $K \pi$ resonance known as the $\kappa$ (for a discussion, see
577: Refs.\ \cite{Bugg:2005nt,Bugg:2005xx}) and a higher $0^+$ $K \pi$ resonance
578: (e.g., the $K_0^*(1430)$ \cite{PDG}), presumably with large $K \eta'$
579: coupling \cite{Lipkin:1980tk}.
580:
581: \subsection{Bound states of $\bar B^{(*)} K$}
582:
583: If the $D_{s0}(2317)$ and $D^*_{s1}(2460)$ are, respectively, states of
584: $D K$ and $D^* K$ each bound by 41 MeV, perhaps by annihilation of a $u$ or $d$
585: quark in the $K$ with the corresponding antiquark in the $D^{(*)}$, one might
586: expect a $J^P = 0^+$ $b \bar s$ state with a mass of about $M(B) + M(K) - 41
587: \simeq 5733$ MeV/$c^2$ and a $J^P = 1^+$ $b \bar s$ state with a mass of about
588: $M(B^*) + M(K) - 41 \simeq 5778$ MeV/$c^2$. (Here we have taken the average
589: of charged and neutral kaon masses, and ignored changes in hyperfine energies
590: when replacing $c$ by $b$. Calculations in Ref.\ \cite{Guo:2006fu} find a
591: $\bar B K$ bound state at $5725 \pm 39$ MeV/$c^2$ and a $\bar B^* K$ bound
592: state at $5778 \pm 7$ MeV/$c^2$, while the most recent of
593: Refs.\ \cite{Matsuki:1997da} finds a $\bar B K$ bound state at 5627 MeV/$c^2$
594: and two $\bar B^* K$ bound states at 5660 and 5781 MeV/$c^2$.) In analogy with
595: the charmed-strange system, these states might be expected to decay via photon
596: or $\pi^0$ emission to $B_s$ and/or $B^*_s$, subject to the usual spin-parity
597: selection rules.
598:
599: \subsection{Effects in exotic baryon-antibaryon channels}
600:
601: The regularity noted above for meson-meson and meson-baryon resonance
602: formation, that when an antiquark in a meson can annihilate a quark in a meson
603: or baryon then one expects a resonance to be formed below a certain value of
604: $p^* < p_0$, was generalized to baryon-antibaryon resonances
605: \cite{Rosner:1973fq} to predict a corresponding value $p_0^{B \bar B} = 200$
606: MeV/$c$. This rule, if correct, would predict the existence of exotic
607: baryon-antibaryon resonances \cite{Rosner:1968si}, which have never been
608: seen, not far above baryon-antibaryon threshold. Examples of manifestly exotic
609: channels are $\Delta^{++} \bar n$ and $\bar \Lambda p \pi^+$, with minimal
610: quark content $uu \bar d \bar d$ and $u u \bar d \bar s$, respectively.
611: Some recent suggestions for observing such resonances in $B$ decays were made
612: in Ref.\ \cite{Rosner:2003ia}.
613:
614: A stronger version of the above resonance formation model is suggested in
615: the present article: If neither incident particle is a pion, at least one
616: resonance may be formed {\it below threshold}. Thus, the search for
617: exotic mesons may require one to study spectra well below baryon-antibaryon
618: threshold, where ground-state exotic mesons are indeed expected
619: \cite{Jaffe:1976ig}.
620:
621: \section{SUMMARY}
622:
623: The rapid decrease of the S-wave $I=0$ $\pi \pi$ scattering amplitude near
624: $K \bar K$ threshold is seen to be mirrored in a host of other phenomena,
625: whose origin may reflect similar physics. In the case of the coupled
626: $\pi \pi$ and $K \bar K$ channels, a key role is played by the $f_0(980)$
627: resonance, whose presence is responsible for a rapid increase of the
628: elastic $I=J=0$ phase shift $\delta^0_0$ through $180^\circ$, where the
629: S-wave $\pi \pi$ amplitude vanishes just before becoming highly inelastic.
630: Other effects which may be regarded within the same framework include the
631: dip in $R$ for $e^+ e^- \to$ (hadrons) around a center-of-mass energy
632: of 4.25 GeV and several dips in the cross section for photoproduction or
633: $e^+ e^-$ production of specific final states near the thresholds for others.
634:
635: It is suggested that all these effects may be associated with the formation
636: of bound states in the channels which are about to open, with a possible
637: relation to Feshbach resonances which similarly occur in coupled-channel
638: problems. Tests of this proposal include the observation of a dip in $I=0$
639: S-wave $\Sigma \pi$ scattering near $K^- p$ threshold and the presence of
640: exotic baryon-antibaryon resonances below threshold. This phenomenon does
641: not appear to be universal, but widespread. Further dynamical information
642: remains to be found in order to predict its occurrence reliably.
643:
644: \section*{ACKNOWLEDGMENTS}
645:
646: I thank E. van Beveren, D. Bugg, F. Close, J. Collar, F.-K. Guo, C. Hanhart, R.
647: Jaffe, T. Matsuki, U. Mei{\ss}ner, J. Pel\'aez, G. Rupp, and S. F. Tuan for
648: helpful comments, and the Newman Laboratory of
649: Elementary-Particle Physics, Cornell University, for its kind hospitality
650: during part of this investigation. This work was supported in part by the
651: United States Department of Energy under Grant No.\ DE FG02 90ER40560.
652:
653: \begin{thebibliography}{99}
654:
655: \bibitem{Flatte:1972rz} S.~M.~Flatt\'e {\it et al.},
656: Phys.\ Lett.\ B {\bf 38}, 232 (1972).
657:
658: \bibitem{PDG} W.-M. Yao {\it et al.} [Particle Data Group],
659: J. Phys.\ G {\bf 33}, 1 (2006).
660:
661: \bibitem{Au:1986vs} K.~L.~Au, D.~Morgan and M.~R.~Pennington,
662: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 35}, 1633 (1987).
663:
664: \bibitem{Bugg:2005nt} D.~V.~Bugg,
665: arXiv:hep-ex/0510014, expanded version of presentation at 11th International
666: Conference on Hadron Spectroscopy (Hadron05), Rio de Janeiro, Brazil,
667: 21--26 August 2005.
668:
669: \bibitem{rte} C. Ramsauer, Ann.\ der Physik (Leipzig) Ser.\ 4, {\bf 64},
670: 513 (1921); {\it ibid.} {\bf 66}, 545 (1921) [see also H. F. Mayer, {\it ibid.}
671: {\bf 64}, 451 (1921)]; J. S. Townsend and V. A. Bailey,
672: Phil.\ Mag.\ Ser.\ 6, {\bf 43}, 593 (1922); {\it ibid.} {\bf 44}, 1033 (1922);
673: N. F. Mott and H. S. W. Massey, {\it The Theory of Atomic Collisions}, 3rd
674: Ed., Ch.\ 18 (Oxford University Press, 1965). For a recent discussion see
675: W. R. Johnson and C. Guet, Phys.\ Rev.\ A {\bf 49}, 1041 (1994).
676:
677: \bibitem{Wigner:1948} E. P. Wigner, Phys.\ Rev.\ {\bf 73}, 1002 (1948).
678:
679: \bibitem{Bugg:2004rk} D.~V.~Bugg, Phys.\ Lett.\ B {\bf 598}, 8 (2004).
680:
681: \bibitem{monon}
682: % R. C. Block and R. M. Brugger, in {\it Neutron Sources for
683: % Basic Physics and Applications}, ed.\ by A. Michandon {\it et al.} (Pergamon,
684: % New York, 1983); F. Y. Tseng and R. M. Brigger, Nucl.\ Instr.\ Meth.\
685: %{\bf 134}, 441 (1976); O. Aizawa {\it et al.}, J. Nuc.\ Sci.\ Tech.\ {\bf 20},
686: %354 (1983); A. V. Murzin {\it et al.}, Sov.\ At.\ Energy {\bf 67}, 699 (1989);
687: %S. V. Musolino {\it et al.}, Med.\ Phys.\ {\bf 18}, 806 (1991); C. A. Perks
688: %{\it et al.}, Rad.\ Prot.\ Dosim.\ {\bf 15}, 31 (1986); all as
689: See numerous references quoted by P. S.
690: Barbeau, J. I. Collar, and M. Whaley, University of Chicago preprint, 2006.
691:
692: \bibitem{Bai:2001ct} J.~Z.~Bai {\it et al.} [BES Collaboration],
693: Phys.\ Rev.\ Lett.\ {\bf 88}, 101802 (2002).
694:
695: \bibitem{Rosner:2006ag} J.~L.~Rosner, arXiv:hep-ph/0606166,
696: invited talk presented at CIPANP 2006 (Conference on the Intersections of
697: Particle and Nuclear Physics, Westin Rio Mar Beach, Puerto Rico, 30 May -- 3
698: June 2006), proceedings to be published by AIP.
699:
700: \bibitem{Aubert:2005iz} B. Aubert {\it et al.} [BaBar Collaboration],
701: Phys.\ Rev.\ Lett.\ {\bf 95}, 121802 (2005).
702:
703: \bibitem{BeKspipi} K. Abe {\it et al.} [Belle Collaboration], Moriond 2006.
704:
705: \bibitem{Asner:2003uz} D.~M.~Asner {\it et al.} [CLEO Collaboration],
706: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 70}, 091101 (2004).
707:
708: \bibitem{Paras06} C. Cawlfield {\it et al.} [CLEO Collaboration],
709: hep-ex/0606045, to be published in Phys.\ Rev.\ D (2006).
710:
711: \bibitem{Frabetti:2001ah} P.~L.~Frabetti {\it et al.} [E687 Collaboration],
712: Phys.\ Lett.\ B {\bf 514}, 240 (2001).
713:
714: \bibitem{Frabetti:2003pw} P.~L.~Frabetti {\it et al.},
715: Phys.\ Lett.\ B {\bf 578}, 290 (2004).
716:
717: \bibitem{Coleman:2006} J. Coleman [BaBar Collaboration], presented at
718: CIPANP 2006 ({\it op.\ cit.}).
719:
720: \bibitem{Meissner:1997fa} U.~G.~Mei{\ss}ner, G.~Muller and S.~Steininger,
721: Phys.\ Lett.\ B {\bf 406}, 154 (1997) [Erratum-ibid.\ B {\bf 407}, 454 (1997)].
722:
723: \bibitem{Meissner:1997gf} U.~G.~Mei{\ss}ner, Nucl.\ Phys.\ A {\bf 629}, 72C
724: (1998).
725:
726: \bibitem{Cabibbo:2005ez} N.~Cabibbo, Phys.\ Rev.\ Lett.\ {\bf 93}, 121801
727: (2004); N.~Cabibbo and G.~Isidori, JHEP {\bf 0503}, 021 (2005);
728: G.~Colangelo, J.~Gasser, B.~Kubis and A.~Rusetsky,
729: Phys.\ Lett.\ B {\bf 638}, 187 (2006), and references therein.
730:
731: \bibitem{Batley:2005ax} J.~R.~Batley {\it et al.} [NA48/2 Collaboration],
732: Phys.\ Lett.\ B {\bf 633}, 173 (2006).
733:
734: \bibitem{Adeva:2005pg} B.~Adeva {\it et al.} [DIRAC Collaboration],
735: Phys.\ Lett.\ B {\bf 619}, 50 (2005).
736:
737: \bibitem{Schmidt:2001vg} A.~Schmidt {\it et al.},
738: Phys.\ Rev.\ Lett.\ {\bf 87}, 232501 (2001).
739:
740: \bibitem{MeissnerPC} I thank U. Mei{\ss}ner for this example.
741:
742: \bibitem{Ablikim:2006aj} M.~Ablikim {\it et al.}, arXiv:hep-ex/0605105.
743:
744: \bibitem{Novikov:1977dq} V.~A.~Novikov, L.~B.~Okun, M.~A.~Shifman,
745: A.~I.~Vainshtein, M.~B.~Voloshin and V.~I.~Zakharov,
746: Phys.\ Rept.\ {\bf 41}, 1 (1978).
747:
748: \bibitem{Close:2005iz} F.~E.~Close and P.~R.~Page,
749: Phys.\ Lett.\ B {\bf 628}, 215 (2005).
750:
751: \bibitem{HQS} See, e.g., A. de R\'ujula, H. Georgi, and S. L. Glashow, Phys.\
752: Rev.\ Lett.\ {\bf 37}, 785 (1976); J.~L.~Rosner, Comments Nucl.\ Part.\ Phys.\
753: {\bf 16}, 109 (1986); M.~Lu, M.~B.~Wise and N.~Isgur, Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 45},
754: 1553 (1992).
755:
756: \bibitem{Aubert:2005rm} B.~Aubert {\it et al.} [BaBar Collaboration],
757: Phys.\ Rev.\ Lett.\ {\bf 95}, 142001 (2005);
758: CLEO Collaboration, reported by S. Blusk, CIPANP 2006 ({\it op.\ cit.});
759: Belle Collaboration, reported by S. Olsen at Quarkonium Working group meeting,
760: Brookhaven National Laboratory, June 27--30, 2006.
761:
762: \bibitem{Coan:2006rv} T.~E.~Coan {\it et al.} [CLEO Collaboration],
763: Phys.\ Rev.\ Lett.\ {\bf 96}, 162003 (2006).
764:
765: \bibitem{Agnello:2002kp} M.~Agnello {\it et al.},
766: Phys.\ Lett.\ B {\bf 527}, 39 (2002).
767:
768: \bibitem{Tornqvist:1995kr} N.~A.~Tornqvist,
769: Z.\ Phys.\ C {\bf 68}, 647 (1995).
770:
771: \bibitem{Baru:2003qq}
772: V.~Baru, J.~Haidenbauer, C.~Hanhart, Y.~Kalashnikova and A.~Kudryavtsev,
773: Phys.\ Lett.\ B {\bf 586}, 53 (2004).
774:
775: \bibitem{Oller:1998zr} A. Dobado and J. R. Pel\'aez,
776: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 47}, 4883(1993); {\it ibid.} {\bf 56}, 3057 (1997);
777: J. A. Oller, E. Oset, and J. R. Pel\'aez, {\it ibid.} {\bf 59}, 074001 (1999);
778: {\it ibid.} {\bf 60}, 099906 (Erratum) (1999); J.~A.~Oller and E.~Oset,
779: {\it ibid.} {\bf 60}, 074023 (1999); J. A. Oller, E. Oset, and J. R. Pel\'aez,
780: Phys.\ Rev.\ Lett.\ {\bf 80}, 3452 (1998); J. R. Pel\'aez, {\it ibid.}
781: {\bf 92}. 102001 (2004); J.~A.~Oller, E.~Oset and A.~Ramos,
782: Prog.\ Part.\ Nucl.\ Phys.\ {\bf 45}, 157 (2000) [arXiv:hep-ph/0002193];
783: J. Oller, Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 71}, 054030 (2005); F. K. Guo {\it et al.},
784: Nucl.\ Phys.\ A {\bf 773}, 78 (2006);
785: S.~Descotes-Genon and B.~Moussallam, arXiv:hep-ph/0607133.
786:
787: \bibitem{vanBeveren:2006ua}E.~van Beveren, D.~V.~Bugg, F.~Kleefeld and G.~Rupp,
788: arXiv:hep-ph/0606022.
789:
790: \bibitem{BG71}
791: L.~S.~Brown and R.~L.~Goble, Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 4}, 723 (1971).
792:
793: \bibitem{Lehmann:1972kv} H.~Lehmann,
794: Phys.\ Lett.\ B {\bf 41}, 529 (1972).
795:
796: \bibitem{VB85} E.~van Beveren, {\it et al.},
797: Z.\ Phys.\ C {\bf 30}, 615 (1986).
798:
799: \bibitem{BuggPC} I am indebted to D. Bugg for an interesting analogy between
800: this ``locking'' of masses to thresholds and the behavior of phase-locked
801: loops in electronic circuits. For a discussion of the latter, see P. Horowitz
802: and W. Hill, {\it The Art of Electronics,} 2nd edition (Cambridge University
803: Press, 1989), p.\ 641ff.
804:
805: \bibitem{Caprini:2005zr} I.~Caprini, G.~Colangelo and H.~Leutwyler,
806: Phys.\ Rev.\ Lett.\ {\bf 96}, 132001 (2006).
807:
808: \bibitem{Pennington:2006qi} M.~R.~Pennington, arXiv:hep-ph/0604212.
809:
810: \bibitem{Bugg:2006gc} D.~V.~Bugg, arXiv:hep-ph/0608081.
811:
812: \bibitem{Llanes-Estrada:2005vf} F.~J.~Llanes-Estrada, Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 72},
813: 031503 (2005).
814:
815: \bibitem{Barnes:2005pb} T.~Barnes, S.~Godfrey and E.~S.~Swanson,
816: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 72}, 054026 (2005).
817:
818: \bibitem{Maiani:2005pe} L.~Maiani, V.~Riquer, F.~Piccinini and A.~D.~Polosa,
819: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 72}, 031502 (2005).
820:
821: \bibitem{Zhu:2005hp} S.~L.~Zhu, Phys.\ Lett.\ B {\bf 625}, 212 (2005);
822: E.~Kou and O.~Pene, Phys.\ Lett.\ B {\bf 631}, 164 (2005);
823:
824: \bibitem{ClosePC} I am indebted to F. Close for this suggestion. See also
825: Ref.\ \cite{Barnes:2005pb}.
826:
827: \bibitem{Bai:2003sw} J.~Z.~Bai {\it et al.} [BES Collaboration],
828: Phys.\ Rev.\ Lett.\ {\bf 91}, 022001 (2003).
829:
830: \bibitem{Ablikim:2005um} M.~Ablikim {\it et al.} [BES Collaboration],
831: Phys.\ Rev.\ Lett.\ {\bf 95}, 262001 (2005).
832:
833: \bibitem{Ablikim:2006dw} M.~Ablikim {\it et al.} [BES Collaboration],
834: Phys.\ Rev.\ Lett.\ {\bf 96}, 162002 (2006).
835:
836: \bibitem{Li:2006ru} B.~A.~Li,
837: arXiv:hep-ph/0602072, to be published in Phys.\ Rev.\ D.
838:
839: \bibitem{Dalitz:1959dn} R.~H.~Dalitz and S.~F.~Tuan,
840: Phys.\ Rev.\ Lett.\ {\bf 2}, 425 (1959);
841: Annals Phys.\ {\bf 8}, 100 (1959); {\it ibid.} {\bf 10}, 307 (1960).
842:
843: \bibitem{Petersen:1972qk} W.~P.~Petersen and J.~L.~Rosner,
844: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 6}, 820 (1972).
845:
846: \bibitem{Faiman:1976gg} D.~Faiman, Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 15}, 854 (1977).
847:
848: \bibitem{Isgur:1978xi} N.~Isgur and G.~Karl,
849: Phys.\ Lett.\ B {\bf 74}, 353 (1978);
850: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 18}, 4187 (1978).
851:
852: \bibitem{Tuan} I am grateful to S. F. Tuan for this example.
853:
854: \bibitem{Aubert:2006ux} B.~Aubert {\it et al.} [BaBar Collaboration],
855: arXiv:hep-ex/0607043, submitted to the 33rd International Conference on
856: High-Energy Physics, ICHEP 06, 26 July -- 2 August 2006, Moscow, Russia.
857:
858: \bibitem{Jaffe} I thank R. Jaffe for this example.
859:
860: \bibitem{Tan:1969jq} T.~H.~Tan, Phys.\ Rev.\ Lett.\ {\bf 23}, 395 (1969).
861:
862: \bibitem{Braun:1977ma} O.~Braun {\it et al.},
863: Nucl.\ Phys.\ B {\bf 124}, 45 (1977).
864:
865: \bibitem{PDG84} C. G. Wohl {\it et al.} [Particle Data Group], Rev.\ Mod.\
866: Phys.\ {\bf 56}, S1 (1984). A compilation of references for the $\Lambda p$
867: state at 2129 MeV/$c^2$ may be found on p.\ S292. The Particle Data Group
868: stopped tabulating dibaryon resonances after 1988.
869:
870: \bibitem{Oakes:1963} R. J. Oakes, Phys.\ Rev.\ {\bf 131}, 2239 (1963).
871:
872: \bibitem{Dalitz:1980zc} R.~H.~Dalitz,
873: invited paper presented at the International Conference on Nuclear Physics,
874: Berkeley, CA, 24--30 August 1980, Nucl.\ Phys.\ A {\bf 354}, 101C (1981);
875: R.~H.~Dalitz and A.~Deloff, Czech.\ J.\ Phys.\ B {\bf 32}, 1021 (1982);
876: Austral.\ J.\ Phys.\ {\bf 36}, 617 (1983).
877:
878: \bibitem{Voloshin:1976ap} M.~B.~Voloshin and L.~B.~Okun,
879: JETP Lett.\ {\bf 23}, 333 (1976)
880: [Pisma Zh.\ Eksp.\ Teor.\ Fiz.\ {\bf 23}, 369 (1976)];
881: A.~De Rujula, H.~Georgi and S.~L.~Glashow,
882: Phys.\ Rev.\ Lett.\ {\bf 38}, 317 (1977).
883:
884: \bibitem{Choi:2003ue} S.~K.~Choi {\it et al.} [Belle Collaboration],
885: Phys.\ Rev.\ Lett.\ {\bf 91}, 262001 (2003).
886:
887: \bibitem{Aubert:2004ns} B.~Aubert {\it et al.} [BaBar Collaboration],
888: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 71}, 071103 (2005).
889:
890: \bibitem{Acosta:2003zx} D.~Acosta {\it et al.} [CDF II Collaboration],
891: Phys.\ Rev.\ Lett.\ {\bf 93}, 072001 (2004);
892: V.~M.~Abazov {\it et al.} [D0 Collaboration],
893: Phys.\ Rev.\ Lett.\ {\bf 93}, 162002 (2004).
894:
895: \bibitem{Close:2003sg} F.~E.~Close and P.~R.~Page, Phys.\ Lett.\ B {\bf 578},
896: 119 (2004); N.~A.~Tornqvist, hep-ph/0308277; E.~S.~Swanson, Phys.\ Lett.\ B
897: {\bf 588}, 189 (2004); {\it ibid.} {\bf 598}, 197 (2004).
898:
899: \bibitem{Gokhroo:2006bt}
900: G.~Gokhroo {\it et al.} [Belle Collaboration], arXiv:hep-ex/0606055.
901:
902: \bibitem{Braaten:2005jj} E.~Braaten and M.~Kusunoki,
903: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 72}, 014012 (2005).
904:
905: \bibitem{Aubert:2003fg} B.~Aubert {\it et al.} [BaBar Collaboration],
906: Phys.\ Rev.\ Lett.\ {\bf 90}, 242001 (2003); D.~Besson {\it et al.} [CLEO
907: Collaboration], Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 68}, 032002 (2003); K.~Abe {\it et al.}
908: [Belle Collaboration], Phys.\ Rev.\ Lett.\ {\bf 92}, 012002 (2004).
909:
910: \bibitem{Godfrey:1985xj} S.~Godfrey and N.~Isgur,
911: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 32}, 189 (1985); S.~Godfrey and R.~Kokoski,
912: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 43}, 1679 (1991).
913:
914: \bibitem{Cahn:2003cw} R.~N.~Cahn and J.~D.~Jackson,
915: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 68}, 037502 (2003).
916:
917: \bibitem{Matsuki:1997da} T.~Matsuki and T.~Morii,
918: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 56}, 5646 (1997)
919: [Austral.\ J.\ Phys.\ {\bf 50}, 163 (1997);
920: T.~Matsuki, K.~Mawatari, T.~Morii and K.~Sudoh,
921: Phys.\ Lett.\ B {\bf 606}, 329 (2005))];
922: T.~Matsuki, T.~Morii and K.~Sudoh, arXiv:hep-ph/0605019.
923:
924: \bibitem{Bardeen:2003kt} M.~A.~Nowak, M.~Rho and I.~Zahed,
925: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 48}, 4370 (1993); W.~A.~Bardeen and C.~T.~Hill,
926: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 49}, 409 (1994);
927: W.~A.~Bardeen, E.~J.~Eichten and C.~T.~Hill,
928: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 68}, 054024 (2003).
929:
930: \bibitem{Barnes:2003dj} T.~Barnes, F.~E.~Close and H.~J.~Lipkin,
931: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 68}, 054006 (2003).
932:
933: \bibitem{vanBeveren:2003kd} E.~van Beveren and G.~Rupp,
934: Phys.\ Rev.\ Lett.\ {\bf 91}, 012003 (2003);
935: Eur.\ Phys.\ J.\ C {\bf 32}, 493 (2004); hep-ph/0606110.
936:
937: \bibitem{Guo:2006fu} F.~K.~Guo, P.~N.~Shen, H.~C.~Chiang and R.~G.~Ping,
938: Phys.\ Lett.\ B {\bf 641}, 278 (2006); F.~K.~Guo, P.~N.~Shen, and
939: H.~C.~Chiang, hep-ph/0610008.
940:
941: \bibitem{Close:2004ip} F.~E.~Close,
942: Int.\ J.\ Mod.\ Phys.\ A {\bf 20}, 5156 (2005).
943:
944: \bibitem{Feshbach:1958nx} H.~Feshbach, Annals Phys.\ {\bf 5}, 357 (1958).
945: See also U. Fano, Nuovo Cim.\ {\bf 12}, 156 (1935); Phys.\ Rev.\ {\bf 124},
946: 1866 (1961).
947:
948: \bibitem{BE} See, e.g., J. L. Roberts {\it et al.}, Phys.\ Rev.\ Lett.\ {\bf
949: 85}, 728 (2000); S. L. Cornish {\it et al., ibid.} {\bf 85}, 1795 (2000);
950: J. L. Roberts {\it et al., ibid.} {\bf 86}, 4211(2001); E. Hadby {\it et al.,
951: ibid.} {\bf 94}, 120402 (2005), and references therein.
952:
953: \bibitem{Close:2003tv} F.~E.~Close,
954: AIP Conf.\ Proc.\ {\bf 717}, 919 (2004) [arXiv:hep-ph/0311087].
955:
956: \bibitem{vanBeveren:2002zt} E.~van Beveren and G.~Rupp, arXiv:hep-ph/0207022,
957: contributed to ICHEP02 (Amsterdam);
958: E.~van Beveren, G.~Rupp, N.~Petropoulos and F.~Kleefeld,
959: AIP Conf.\ Proc.\ {\bf 660}, 353 (2003) [arXiv:hep-ph/0211411];
960: E.~van Beveren and G.~Rupp,
961: AIP Conf.\ Proc.\ {\bf 688}, 88 (2003) [arXiv:hep-ph/0306185].
962:
963: \bibitem{Rosner:1973fq} J.~L.~Rosner, Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 6}, 2717 (1972).
964:
965: \bibitem{Russ:2000bs} J.~Russ {\it et al.} [SELEX Collaboration],
966: arXiv:hep-ex/0010011, presented at XXX International Conference on
967: High Energy Physics, Osaka, in {\it ICHEP 2000: Proceedings}, edited by C. S.
968: Lim and T. Yamanaka (Singapore, World Scientific, 2001), p.\ 820.
969:
970: \bibitem{Aubert:2006xn} B.~Aubert {\it et al.} [BaBar Collaboration],
971: arXiv:hep-ex/0608009.
972:
973: \bibitem{Lipkin:1980tk} H.~J.~Lipkin,
974: Phys.\ Rev.\ Lett.\ {\bf 46}, 1307 (1981);
975: Phys.\ Lett.\ B {\bf 254}, 247 (1991).
976:
977: \bibitem{Bugg:2005xx} D.~V.~Bugg,
978: Phys.\ Lett.\ B {\bf 632}, 471 (2006), and references therein.
979:
980: \bibitem{Rosner:1968si} J.~L.~Rosner,
981: Phys.\ Rev.\ Lett.\ {\bf 21}, 950 (1968).
982:
983: \bibitem{Rosner:2003ia} J.~L.~Rosner,
984: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 69}, 094014 (2004).
985:
986: \bibitem{Jaffe:1976ig} R.~L.~Jaffe, Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 15}, 267, 281 (1977);
987: see also Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 17}, 1444 (1978).
988:
989: \end{thebibliography}
990: \end{document}
991: