1: %\documentclass[preprint,aps,amsmath,superscriptaddress,nofootinbib,tightenlines]{revtex4}

2: \documentclass[preprint,aps,amsmath,superscriptaddress,nofootinbib]{revtex4}

3: %\usepackage{graphicx}

4: \usepackage{bm}

5: \usepackage{epsfig}

6: %\usepackage{times}

7: 

8: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

9: %Put your definitions here

10: 

11: \def\bsigma{\mbox{\boldmath $\sigma$}}

12: \def\Slash#1{{#1\!\!\!\!\!\slash}}

13: \def\Dslash{D\!\!\!\!\slash}

14: \newcommand{\nn}{\nonumber} 

15: \newcommand{\lc}{\lowercase}

16: \newcommand{\bea}{\begin{eqnarray}}

17: \newcommand{\eea}{\end{eqnarray}}

18: \newcommand{\mcdot}{\!\cdot\!}

19: \newcommand{\LQCD}{{\Lambda_{\rm QCD}}}

20: 

21: \newcommand{\mpi}{m_{\pi}}

22: \newcommand{\md}{m_{D}}

23: \newcommand{\mds}{m_{D^*}}

24: \newcommand{\mx}{m_{X}} 

25: \newcommand{\mdds}{M_{DD*}}

26: \newcommand{\vd}{v_D}

27: \newcommand{\vpi}{v_\pi}

28: \newcommand{\mev}{\textrm{MeV}}

29: 

30: 

31: \newcommand{\bd}{ \bm{  D  } }

32: \newcommand{\bdbar}{ \bm{  {\bar D } } }

33: 

34: \begin{document}

35: 

36: 

37: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

38: %Define Title, Author, Address, Preprint#

39: 

40: %\preprint{\vbox{ \hbox{CMU-HEP-03-06}   \hbox{FERMILAB-Pub-03/069-T} }}

41: 

42: \title{Pion Interactions in the $X(3872)$} 

43: 

44: \author{S. Fleming\footnote{Electronic address:     fleming@physics.arizona.edu}}

45: \affiliation{Department of Physics, 

46:         University of Arizona,

47: 	Tucson, AZ 85721

48: 	\vspace{0.2cm}}

49: 	

50: \author{M. Kusunoki\footnote{Electronic address: masa@physics.arizona.edu}}

51: \affiliation{Department of Physics, 

52:         University of Arizona,

53: 	Tucson, AZ 85721

54: 	\vspace{0.2cm}}

55: 

56: \author{T. Mehen\footnote{Electronic address: mehen@phy.duke.edu}}

57: \affiliation{Department of Physics, 

58: 	Duke University, Durham,  

59: 	NC 27708\vspace{0.2cm}}

60: \affiliation{Jefferson Laboratory, 

61: 	12000 Jefferson Ave., 

62: 	Newport News, VA 23606\vspace{0.2cm}}

63: \affiliation{Center for Theoretical Physics, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, 

64: Cambridge, MA 02139	\vspace{0.2cm}}

65: 

66: \author{U. van Kolck\footnote{Electronic address: vankolck@physics.arizona.edu}}

67: \affiliation{Department of Physics, 

68:         University of Arizona,

69: 	Tucson, AZ 85721

70: 	\vspace{0.2cm}}

71: \affiliation{Kernfysisch Versneller Instituut,

72:         Rijksuniversiteit Groningen,

73: 	Zernikelaan 25, 9747 AA Groningen, The Netherlands

74:         \vspace{0.2cm}}

75: \affiliation{Instituto de F\'\i sica Te\'orica,

76:         Universidade Estadual Paulista,

77: 	Rua Pamplona 145, 01405-900 S\~ao Paulo, SP, Brazil

78: 	\vspace{0.2cm}}

79: 

80: \date{\today\\ \vspace{1cm} }

81: 

82: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

83: %Create the title page

84: 

85: \begin{abstract}

86: 

87: We consider 

88: %the 

89: pion interactions in an effective field theory of the 

90: narrow resonance $X(3872)$, assuming it is 

91: a weakly bound molecule of the charm mesons

92: $D^{0} \bar D^{*0}$ and $D^{*0} \bar D^{0}$. 

93: Since the hyperfine splitting of 

94: the $D^{0}$ and $D^{*0}$ is only 7

95: MeV greater than the neutral pion mass, pions can be produced near

96: threshold and are  non-relativistic. 

97: We show that 

98: %corrections from 

99: pion exchange can be treated in

100: perturbation theory and 

101: calculate the next-to-leading-order correction

102: to the partial decay width  $\Gamma[X\to D^0 \bar D^{0} \pi^0]$.

103: 

104: 

105: \end{abstract}

106: 

107: \maketitle

108: 

109: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

110: %\tighten

111: \newpage

112: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

113: %Main body of the paper

114: 

115: \section{Introduction}

116: The idea that the recently discovered 

117: $X(3872)$ is a shallow molecular bound state of $D^{*0} \bar{D^0}$ and 

118: $\bar{D}^{*0} D^0$ mesons is extremely attractive and 

119: has motivated numerous calculations of $X(3872)$ properties 

120: using effective-range theory, for a review see Ref.~\cite{Voloshin:2006wf}. 

121: Going beyond this approximation

122: requires including effects from dynamical pion exchange. 

123: The goal of this paper is to develop an effective theory of non-relativistic 

124: $D$ mesons and pions 

125: %which 

126: that can be used to compute properties of the $X(3872)$ 

127: systematically at low energies. Due to the accidental

128: nearness of the $D^*$-$D$ hyperfine splitting and the pion mass, 

129: pion exchanges are characterized by an anomalously small scale compared 

130: to what is usually the case in nuclear physics~\cite{Suzuki:2005ha}.

131: We argue in this paper that, unlike in conventional nuclear physics, 

132: these effects can be treated using perturbation theory and compute 

133: the decay $X \to D^0 \bar{D}^0 \pi^0$ to next-to-leading order (NLO) 

134: in the effective theory.

135: 

136: We begin by reviewing the current  experimental understanding of the 

137: $X(3872)$. The $X(3872)$ is a narrow resonance discovered by the Belle

138: collaboration \cite{Choi:2003ue} in electron-positron collisions 

139: through the decay 

140: $B^{\pm}\to XK^{\pm}$ followed by the decay $X\to J/\psi\,\pi^+\pi^-$.

141: Its existence has been confirmed by the CDF and D\O  ~collaborations

142: through its inclusive production in proton-antiproton collisions

143: \cite{Acosta:2003zx, Abazov:2004kp} and by the Babar collaboration

144: through the discovery mode $B^\pm\to XK^\pm$ \cite{Aubert:2004ns}.

145: The combined averaged mass of the $X(3872)$ measured by these experiments is 

146: \cite{Olsen:2004fp}

147: \begin{eqnarray}

148:  m_X = 3871.2 \pm 0.5  \; {\rm MeV}.

149: \label{mX}

150: \end{eqnarray}

151: Note that the mass of the $X(3872)$ is quite close to the $D^{0}\bar D^{*0}$

152: threshold at $3871.81\pm 0.36$ MeV \cite{Cawlfield:2007dw}.

153: The Belle collaboration has placed an upper limit on the width of

154: the $X(3872)$ \cite{Choi:2003ue}:

155: \begin{eqnarray}

156:  \Gamma_X  < 2.3 \; {\rm MeV} \;\; (90 \%\;{\rm C.L.}).

157: \label{GammaX}

158: \end{eqnarray}

159: 

160: The $X(3872)$ has also been observed in  

161: the decays $X\to J/\psi\,\pi^+\pi^-\pi^0$ 

162: and $X\to J/\psi\,\gamma$ \cite{Abe:2005ix}.

163: The ratio of branching fractions for the three- and two-pion final states is

164: ~\cite{Abe:2005ix} 

165: \bea\label{isoval}

166: \frac{{\rm Br}[X\to J/\psi \,\pi^+ \pi^- \pi^0]}

167:      {{\rm Br}[X\to J/\psi \, \pi^+ \pi^-]}

168: = 1.0 \pm 0.4 \pm 0.3 \, .

169: \eea

170: Since these decays are thought to proceed through $J/\psi \,\rho$ for the 

171: $J/\psi \,\pi^+ \pi^-$ final state, and through $J/\psi \, \omega$ for

172: the $J/\psi \,\pi^+ \pi^- \pi^0$ final state, the ratio in Eq.~(\ref{isoval}) 

173: indicates a large violation of isospin invariance. 

174: A near-threshold enhancement in 

175: $D^0 \bar{D}^0 \pi^0$ has been observed in $B\to D^0 \bar{D}^0 \pi^0 K$ 

176: decays~\cite{Gokhroo:2006bt}. This is the first evidence for the decay 

177: $X\to D^0 \bar{D}^0 \pi^0$, though the peak of the observed resonance

178: in Ref.~\cite{Gokhroo:2006bt} is at 

179: $3875.2 \pm 0.7^{+0.3}_{-1.6}\pm 0.8 \, \mev$,

180: which is 2$\sigma$ above the world-averaged  $X(3872)$ mass.

181: The branching ratio for $X\to D^0 \bar{D}^0 \pi^0$

182: observed in Ref.~\cite{Gokhroo:2006bt} is $8.8^{+3.1}_{-3.6}$  larger than 

183: the discovery  mode $X\to J/\psi \, \pi^+ \pi^-$. 

184: The Babar collaboration has established 

185: ${\rm Br}[X\to J/\psi\,\pi^+\pi^-] > \, 0.042$ 

186: at $90\%$ C.L.~\cite{Mohanty:2005dm,Aubert:2005vi}.

187: Various upper limits have been placed on the product of 

188: ${\rm Br}[B^\pm\to X K^\pm]$ and other

189: branching fractions of the $X(3872)$

190: including $D^{0}\bar D^{0}$, $D^+D^-$~\cite{Abe:2003zv},

191: $\chi_{c1}\gamma$, $\chi_{c2}\gamma$, $J/\psi\,\pi^0\pi^0$ 

192: \cite{Abe:2004sd},

193: and $J/\psi\, \eta$ 

194: \cite{Aubert:2004fc}. 

195: Upper limits have also been placed on the partial widths

196: for the decay of $X(3872)$ into $e^+e^-$ 

197: \cite{Yuan:2003yz, Dobbs:2004di}

198: and into $\gamma\gamma$ \cite{Dobbs:2004di}.

199: 

200: The possible $J^{PC}$ quantum numbers of the $X(3872)$ 

201: have been examined. 

202: The observation of $X \to J/\psi\,\gamma$ 

203: establishes $C=+$. 

204: This is consistent with 

205: the shape of the $\pi^+\pi^-$ invariant mass distributions 

206: \cite{Choi:2003ue, Aubert:2004ns, Abulencia:2005zc}.

207: Belle's angular distribution analysis of  

208: $X\to J/\psi\,\pi^+\pi^-$ favors $J^{PC}=1^{++}$ 

209: \cite{Abe:2005iy}.

210: A recent CDF analysis~\cite{Abulencia:2006ma} finds that 

211: $J/\psi \, \pi^+ \pi^- $ angular distributions are only 

212: consistent with $J^{PC} = 1^{++}$ and $2^{-+}$.

213: 

214: The quantum numbers 

215: $J^{PC} = 1^{++}$ arise if  

216: the $X(3872)$ is a $C=+$, $S$-wave molecular bound state

217: of $D^0\bar{D}^{*0} + \bar{D}^0 D^{*0}$. 

218: The possibility of a shallow molecular state is motivated by the proximity 

219: of the $X(3872)$ to the $D^{0} \bar{D}^{*0}$ threshold and  naturally 

220: explains the large isospin violation observed in pion decays and 

221: the dominance of the $D^0 \bar{D}^0 \pi^0$ decay mode. 

222: The narrow width and the non-observation of decays

223: such as $X\to \chi_c \gamma$ are highly unusual for a conventional charmonium 

224: state above the $D \bar{D}$ threshold. 

225: {}From the mass in Eq.~(\ref{mX}) and the recent measurement of the $D^0$ mass

226: in Ref.~\cite{Cawlfield:2007dw} one infers a binding energy

227: \begin{eqnarray}

228:  E_X &=&  \md + \mds - \mx \nonumber \\

229:      &=&   0.6 \pm 0.6 \; \mev.

230: \label{eb} 

231: \end{eqnarray}

232: %of $0.6 \pm 0.6$ MeV. 

233: This favors a bound-state interpretation

234: of the $X(3872)$, however, because of the large uncertainty, the mass alone

235: cannot rule out  a resonance or ``cusp'' near the $D^0\bar{D}^{*0}$ 

236: threshold ~\cite{Bugg:2004rk}.

237: In this paper we will assume the $X(3872)$ is a molecular bound state, 

238: though our method can be extended to the case where the $X(3872)$ is 

239: a shallow resonance.

240: For other interpretations, see Refs.~\cite{Barnes:2003vb, Eichten:2004uh,

241: Tornqvist:2004qy,Wong:2003xk,Swanson:2003tb,

242: Close:2003mb, Li:2004st,Seth:2004zb,Maiani:2004vq,Navarra:2006nd,

243: Ishida:2005em,Vijande:2004vt, Bauer:2005yu,Kim:2006fa,Swanson:2006st, 

244: Colangelo:2007ph}.

245: A recent review can be found in Ref.~\cite{Zhu:2007wz}. 

246: 

247: The interpretation as a $D D^*$ molecule is particularly predictive

248: because the small binding energy implies that the molecule has universal

249: properties that are determined by the binding energy

250: \cite{Voloshin:2003nt,Voloshin:2005rt,Braaten:2003he,Braaten:2004rw,Braaten:2004fk,Braaten:2004ai}.

251: The small binding energy can be further exploited through factorization 

252: formulae for production and decay rates of the $X(3872)$

253: \cite{Braaten:2005jj, Braaten:2005ai}. Voloshin calculated the decays 

254: $X\to D^{0}\bar D^{0} \pi^0$~\cite{Voloshin:2003nt} and 

255: $X\to D^{0}\bar D^{0} \gamma$~\cite{Voloshin:2005rt}

256: using the universal wavefunction of the molecule.

257: %%%

258: 

259: The main purpose of this paper is to consider the effect of $\pi^0$

260: exchange on the properties of the $X(3872)$. Consider the one-pion exchange

261: contribution to $D^{*0} \bar{D}^0 \to  D^0  \bar{D}^{*0}$ scattering 

262: depicted in Fig.~\ref{pionex}.

263: %

264: \begin{figure}

265: \begin{center}

266: \includegraphics[width=5cm]{DDsOPE.ps}

267: \caption{ One-pion exchange diagram for

268: $D^{*0} \bar D^{0} \to D^{0} \bar D^{*0}$ scattering. 

269: The single and double lines represent the spin-0 

270: and spin-1 $D$ mesons, respectively.

271: The dashed line represents the  $\pi^0$. 

272: \label{pionex}}

273: \end{center}

274: \end{figure}

275: %

276: This leads to an amplitude 

277: \bea\label{ope}

278: \frac{g^2}{2f_\pi^2}

279: \frac{{\vec{\epsilon}}^{\,\, *} \cdot \vec{q} \, \vec{\epsilon}\cdot \vec{q}}

280:      {\vec{q}^{\,2} - \mu^2}\, ,

281: \eea

282: where $g$ is the $D$-meson axial (transition) coupling, 

283: $f_\pi$ is the pion decay constant,

284: $\vec \epsilon$ and ${\vec{\epsilon}}^{\,\, *}$ are the polarization vectors 

285: of the incoming and outgoing $D^*$ mesons, respectively,

286: and $\vec{q}$ is the momentum transfer. 

287: The scale $\mu$ appearing in the propagator denominator is given by 

288: $\mu^2 = \Delta^2 -m_\pi^2$, where $\Delta$ is the $D^*$-$D$ hyperfine 

289: splitting and $m_{\pi}$ is the neutral pion mass.

290: The hyperfine splitting, $\Delta$, appears in the pion propagator because 

291: the exchanged pion carries energy $q^0 \simeq \Delta$ as well as 

292: momentum $\vec{q}$.

293: Note that $\mu$ is anomalously small, $\mu \approx 45\, {\rm MeV}$, 

294: because of the nearness of $\Delta = 142\, {\rm MeV}$

295: and $m_{\pi}=135 \, {\rm MeV}$. 

296: This suggests that pions generate anomalously long-range effects

297: and should be included as explicit degrees of freedom

298: in the description of the molecule, if

299: the binding energy in Eq.~(\ref{eb}) is not much smaller 

300: than its upper limit.

301: 

302: The pion interactions in the $D$ and $D^*$ system were

303: quantitatively analyzed using a

304: one-pion-exchange potential model by Tornqvist \cite{Tornqvist:1993ng},

305: who actually predicted a $D\bar{D}^*$ bound state (deuson) with 

306: a mass close to the observed $X(3872)$.

307: After the discovery of the $X(3872)$, Swanson~\cite{Swanson:2003tb} considered

308: a potential model that includes both a one-pion-exchange

309: potential and a quark-exchange potential and

310: found a weakly bound state in the S-wave $J^{PC}=1^{++}$ channel.

311: %Tornqvist

312: These authors 

313: worked in the isospin limit and used isospin-averaged pion masses and 

314: hyperfine splittings and obtained

315: long-range Yukawa-like potentials~\cite{Tornqvist:1993ng}.

316: %Furthermore, 

317: Note that the effective mass term in the

318: propagator in Eq. (\ref{ope}) has the opposite

319: sign from what one typically obtains from meson exchange. 

320: This leads to a $\pi^0$-exchange potential in position space which is

321: oscillatory rather than Yukawa-like, 

322: as pointed out by Suzuki~\cite{Suzuki:2005ha}. 

323: 

324: A central point of this paper is that the effect of $\pi^0$ exchange can be 

325: dealt with using perturbation theory. Naive dimensional analysis of the 

326: relative size of two-pion and one-pion exchange graphs yields the ratio

327: \bea\label{Xexp}

328: \frac{g^2 M_{DD^*} \mu}{4 \pi f_\pi^2} \approx \frac{1}{20}-\frac{1}{10} \, ,

329: \eea

330: where $M_{DD^*}$ is the reduced mass of the $D$ and $D^*$ and we have set 

331: $g = 0.5 -0.7$~\cite{Ahmed:2001xc, Anastassov:2001cw,Fajfer:2006hi}.

332: This is in contrast with two-nucleon systems where a similar estimate 

333: yields~\cite{Kaplan:1998tg, Kaplan:1998we}

334: \bea\label{NNexp}

335: \frac{g_A^2 M_N m_\pi}{8 \pi f_\pi^2} \approx \frac{1}{2} \, ,

336: \eea

337: where $g_A=1.25$ is the nucleon axial coupling and $M_N$ is the nucleon mass.

338: A perturbative treatment of pions fails in the $^3S_1$ channel where 

339: iteration of the spin-tensor force yields large corrections at 

340: next-to-next-leading order (NNLO)~\cite{Fleming:1999bs,Fleming:1999ee}. 

341: This is in part due to the large expansion parameter in Eq.~(\ref{NNexp}) 

342: and in part due to large numerical coefficients appearing in the 

343: NNLO calculation. The amplitude in Eq.~(\ref{ope}) also gives rise  

344: to a spin-tensor force and one may worry that the perturbative treatment 

345: of pions will fail. However, even if large NNLO coefficients like those found 

346: in Ref.~\cite{Fleming:1999bs,Fleming:1999ee}

347: appear in similar diagrams for the $X(3872)$, the expansion parameter 

348: in Eq.~(\ref{Xexp}) is 

349: small enough that one can reasonably expect perturbation theory to work.

350: 

351: In this paper, 

352: we derive an effective field theory of

353: the $D^{0}\bar D^{*0}$ and $D^{*0}\bar D^{0}$

354: interacting with neutral pions near 

355: the $D^{0}\bar D^{*0}$ threshold. This theory is very similar in structure 

356: to the KSW theory of $NN$ interactions 

357: in Ref.~\cite{Kaplan:1998tg, Kaplan:1998we}

358: where a leading-order (LO) contact interaction is summed to all orders 

359: in perturbation

360: theory to produce a bound state at LO and pion exchange is treated

361: perturbatively.~\footnote{A pionless effective theory of shallow nuclear bound

362: states in which the leading non-derivative contact interaction is resummed to 

363: all orders was first proposed in 

364: Ref.~\cite{vanKolck:1998bw}.  For a similar theory of the $X(3872)$ see 

365: Ref.~\cite{AlFiky:2005jd}. }

366: A novel feature of the effective theory for the $X(3872)$ is that the 

367: hyperfine splitting of the $D^{0}$ and $D^{*0}$ is only 

368: 7 MeV above the $\pi^0$ mass and thus the pions are 

369: included as non-relativistic particles. In this paper we focus on the decay

370: $X\to D^0 \bar{D}^0 \pi^0$. Our results are easily extended to 

371: $X \to D^0 \bar{D}^0 \gamma$.

372: At LO our theory reproduces Voloshin's calculations using 

373: effective-range theory~\cite{Voloshin:2003nt,Voloshin:2005rt}. 

374: We then compute the NLO corrections to the decay width.

375: These include effective-range corrections as well as calculable 

376: non-analytic corrections from 

377: $\pi^0$ exchange. We find that non-analytic calculable corrections 

378: from pion exchange are negligible and the NLO correction is dominated 

379: by contact interaction contributions.

380: 

381: This paper is organized as follows. In Section II, we give the Lagrangian 

382: and discuss power counting in our theory. In Section III, we describe 

383: our calculation of the partial width $\Gamma[X\to D^0 \bar{D}^0 \pi^0]$. 

384: In Section IV, we summarize and conclude. 

385: Appendix A describes how our Lagrangian is derived by integrating out 

386: the scales $m_\pi$ and 

387: $\Delta$ from heavy-hadron chiral perturbation theory 

388: (HH$\chi$PT)~\cite{Wise:1992hn,Burdman:1992gh,Yan:1992gz}. 

389: Appendix B gives the results of evaluating the individual NLO diagrams 

390: for the decay amplitude and the wavefunction renormalization.

391: 

392: While this work was being completed, a related preprint~\cite{Braaten:2007ct} 

393: appeared

394: which analyzed the effects of light-meson exchange on a bound state

395: of heavy mesons near a three-meson threshold. This work used a scalar-meson

396: model and calculated the entire line shape of the resonance to second

397: order in the heavy-light meson coupling. Our work is complimentary to that 

398: of Ref.~\cite{Braaten:2007ct} in that we do not use a model but rather a 

399: Lagrangian 

400: that is directly relevant to the $X(3872)$ and we go to higher order 

401: in the heavy-light meson coupling, where renormalization requires 

402: the introduction of higher derivative contact operators.

403: On the other hand, we do not calculate the full line shape but work at

404: the resonance peak where a Breit-Wigner is a suitable approximation.

405: 

406: 

407: 

408: \section{Lagrangian and Power Counting}

409: 

410: 

411: The mass of the $X(3872)$ in Eq.~(\ref{mX}) is 

412: extremely close to the $D^0 \bar D^{*0}$ threshold.

413: Assuming that the $X(3872)$ is a hadronic

414: molecule whose constituents are a superposition of the 

415: $D^{0} \bar D^{*0}$ and $D^{*0} \bar D^{0}$,

416: the $X(3872)$ binding energy is given by Eq.~(\ref{eb}). 

417: %\begin{eqnarray}

418: % E_X &=&  \md + \mds - \mx \nonumber \\

419: %     &=&   0.6 \pm 0.6 \; \mev.

420: %\label{eb} 

421: %\end{eqnarray}

422: %We use the recent measurement of the $D^0$ mass obtained 

423: %by CLEO~\cite{Cawlfield:2007dw}.

424: For reasons stated earlier, our calculations assume positive binding energy

425: and a molecular interpretation of the $X(3872)$. 

426: The upper bound on the typical momentum

427: of the $D$ and $\bar D^*$ in the bound state is then

428: $\gamma \equiv ( 2 \mdds E_X )^{1/2} \le 48 \, \mev$, 

429: where $\mdds$ is the reduced mass 

430: of the $D^0$ and $\bar D^{*0}$. For this binding momentum the 

431: typical velocity of the $D$ and $D^*$ is approximately 

432: $\vd \simeq ( E_X / 2 \mdds )^{1/2} \lesssim 0.02$, 

433: and both the $D$ and $D^*$ are clearly non-relativistic. 

434: We will use non-relativistic fields for the $D$ and $D^*$.

435: 

436: The pion degrees of freedom are also treated non-relativistically.  

437: The maximum energy of the pion emitted in the decay 

438: $X \to D^{0}  \bar D^{0} \pi^0$ is

439: \begin{eqnarray}

440: E_\pi = \frac{ 

441: \mx^2 - 4 \md^2 + \mpi^2}{ 2 \mx }= 142 \, \mev,   

442: \end{eqnarray} 

443: which is just 7 MeV above the $\pi^0$ mass at $134.98\, \mev$. 

444: The maximum pion momentum is approximately $44\, \mev$, which is comparable

445: to both the typical $D$-meson momentum, 

446: $p_D \sim \gamma \lesssim 48 \, \mev$,

447: and the momentum scale appearing

448: in the pion-exchange graph, $\mu \simeq 45\, \mev$.  Since the velocity of 

449: the pions is $v_\pi = p_\pi/m_\pi \leq 0.34$, a non-relativistic treatment 

450: of the pion fields is valid. In this respect the treatment of pions

451: differs from ordinary chiral perturbation theory or the $NN$ theory 

452: of Refs.~\cite{Kaplan:1998tg, Kaplan:1998we}.

453: 

454: The effective Lagrangian includes 

455: the charm mesons, the anti-charm mesons,  and the pion fields.  

456: We denote the fields that annihilate the 

457: $D^{*0}$, $\bar D^{*0}$, $D^{0}$, $\bar D^{0}$,

458: and $\pi^0$  as $\bd$, $\bdbar$, $D$, $\bar D$, and $\pi$, respectively. 

459: To the order we are working we will not need diagrams with charged pions and 

460: charged $D$ mesons so these are neglected in what follows. 

461: We construct an effective Lagrangian that is relevant for 

462: low-energy $S$-wave $DD^*$ scattering, 

463: where the initial and the final states are 

464: the $C=+$ superposition of 

465: $D^{0}\bar D^{*0}$ and $D^{*0}\bar D^{0}$:

466: \begin{eqnarray}

467:  |D D^*\rangle \equiv \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}

468:  \left[

469:  |D^{0}\bar D^{*0} \rangle + | D^{*0}\bar D^{0} \rangle

470:  \right]. 

471: \label{dd*}

472: \end{eqnarray} 

473: An interpolating field with these quantum numbers will be used to calculate

474: the properties of the $X(3872)$.

475: We integrate out all momentum scales much larger than the momentum 

476: scale set by $p_D \sim p_\pi \sim \mu$. For $D$ mesons this corresponds 

477: to kinetic energy $\lesssim 1 \, \mev$,

478: for pions the kinetic energy is $\lesssim 7 \, \mev$. 

479: The hyperfine splitting $\Delta$  and $m_\pi$ 

480: should be treated as large compared to the typical energy scale in the

481: theory. 

482: We start from the Lagrangian of 

483: HH$\chi$PT~\cite{Wise:1992hn,Burdman:1992gh,Yan:1992gz},

484: which describes the interactions of $D$ and $D^*$ mesons

485: with Goldstone bosons, and integrate out the scales $m_\pi$ and $\Delta$

486: by rephasing fields to eliminate the large

487: components of their energy.  The method is similar to the rephasing used 

488: to remove the large mass from the energies of the fields in 

489: heavy-quark effective theory~\cite{Manohar:2000dt}. 

490: Details are given in Appendix A.

491: The effective Lagrangian is 

492: \begin{eqnarray}

493:  {\cal L}_{ } 

494:   &=& 

495:  \bd^{\dagger} \left(i\partial_0 + {\vec{\nabla}^2\over 2 m_{D^*}

496: 		    }\right)\bd 

497:  +   D^\dagger \left(i\partial_0 + {\vec{\nabla}^2\over 2 m_{D} } \right) D 

498: \nonumber \\

499:  && 

500:  + \bdbar^{\dagger} \left(i\partial_0 + {\vec{\nabla}^2\over 2 m_{D^*}

501: 		    }\right)\bdbar 

502:  + \bar D^\dagger \left(i\partial_0 + {\vec{\nabla}^2\over 2 m_{D}

503: 		    }\right) \bar D 

504:  + \pi^\dagger \left(i\partial_0 + {\vec{\nabla}^2\over 2 m_{\pi}}

505:    + \delta\right) \pi

506: %%%

507: \nonumber \\

508: &&+\,  

509: \left(\frac{g}{\sqrt{2} f_\pi}\right) \,\frac{1}{\sqrt{ 2m_\pi } }

510:  \left( D \bd^\dagger \cdot \vec{\nabla}\pi  

511:    + \bar D^\dagger \bdbar \cdot \vec{\nabla}\pi^\dagger \right) + {\rm

512:  h.c.}

513: \nonumber \\

514:  && 

515: - \,  

516: \frac{C_0}{2} \, \left(\bdbar D + \bd \bar D \right)^\dagger 

517: \cdot \left(\bdbar D + \bd \bar D \right) 

518: \nonumber \\

519: &&

520: +  \,   \frac{C_2 }{16} \, 

521: \left(\bdbar D + \bd \bar D \right)^\dagger 

522: \cdot \left(\bdbar (\overleftrightarrow \nabla)^2 D 

523:         + \bd (\overleftrightarrow \nabla)^2 \bar D \right) + h.c.

524: \nonumber \\

525: %%%

526: &&+ \,   \frac{B_1 }{\sqrt{2}}\frac{1}{\sqrt{2 m_\pi}} \left(\bdbar D + \bd \bar D \right)^\dagger \cdot D \bar{D} \vec{\nabla} \pi + h.c. + \cdots, 

527: \label{lag}

528: \end{eqnarray}

529: where 

530: $\delta = \Delta - m_\pi \simeq 7\, \mev$. 

531: Note that $\mu^2 = \Delta^2 - m_\pi^2 \approx 2 m_\pi \delta $.   

532: We use the notation 

533: $\overleftrightarrow \nabla = \overleftarrow\nabla - \overrightarrow

534: \nabla$, and ``$\cdots$'' 

535: in Eq.~(\ref{lag}) denotes higher-order interactions.

536: The pion decay constant is $f_\pi = 132 \,\mev$ with our choice of

537: normalization.

538: Notice that, 

539: since we are only interested in a $C=+$ superposition of the

540: $D^{0}\bar D^{*0}$ and $D^{*0}\bar D^{0}$

541: defined in Eq.~(\ref{dd*}), contact interactions 

542: are written in terms of the combination of fields 

543: $ \left(\bdbar D + \bd \bar D \right) / \sqrt{2}$. 

544: Because $\pi$ is a non-relativistic field, $\pi$ annihilates and $\pi^\dagger$

545: creates $\pi^0$ quanta, so that the Lagrangian in Eq.~(\ref{lag})

546: allows $ D^{0*}\to D^0 +\pi^0$ and $D^0 + \pi^0\to D^{*0}$ transitions 

547: and forbids $D^{*0}+\pi^0\to D^0$ and $D^0 \to D^{*0}+\pi^0$. 

548: Therefore in this effective field theory the only channels that appear

549: are $\bar{D}^{*0} D^0 + \bar{D}^0 D^{* 0}$ and $D^0 \bar{D}^0 \pi^0$.

550: In amplitudes with external pions, we must multiply by $\sqrt{2 m_\pi}$ 

551: because of the normalization of the non-relativistic pion fields.  

552: In the $X(3872) \to D^0 \bar{D}^0 \pi^0$ decay diagrams, this will cancel the

553: factors of $1/\sqrt{2 m_\pi}$ in the axial coupling and in the term 

554: proportional to $B_1$ in Eq.~(\ref{lag}).  

555: 

556: Other channels can of course couple to the $X(3872)$. The three-body channels

557: $D^\pm \bar{D}^0 \pi^\mp$ and $D^+ D^- \pi^0$ are above the $X(3872)$ 

558: by only $2.8 \pm 0.6\, \mev$ 

559: and $3.0 \pm 0.6 \, \mev$, 

560: respectively. These channels can only appear as virtual intermediate states 

561: in $X(3872)$ decay  and  self-energy graphs that contain at least 

562: two pion exchanges. These graphs are NNLO and therefore do not appear at the 

563: order we are working.~\footnote{This assumes that the interpolating field 

564: for the $X(3872)$ is $\propto \bdbar D + \bd \bar D$, i.e. 

565: is constructed from neutral $D$-meson

566: fields only. Since physical results should not depend on the choice 

567: of interpolating field, we are 

568: free to make this choice.} The  $D^{*+} D^-$ threshold lies 

569: $8.7 \, \mev$ above the $X(3872)$,

570: and we may integrate out these states because they lie outside the 

571: range of the effective theory.

572: If kept in the theory, this intermediate state would also only appear at NNLO.

573: One may worry about other  nearby thresholds,

574: especially $J/\psi\, \rho$ and $J/\psi \, \omega$ which are only 

575: $1.4\pm 1.1 \, \mev$ and $8.2\pm 1.0 \, \mev$, respectively, 

576: above the $X(3872)$.

577: The $J/\psi\,\rho$ channel has a much smaller energy gap 

578: than the others. However, one should take into account that the magnitude

579: of the complex energy gap includes the width of the $\rho$, 

580: $\Gamma_\rho/2 = 73 \ {\rm MeV}$, so the $J/\psi\,\rho$ channel can be 

581: safely integrated out~\cite{Braaten:2005ai}. 

582: A higher-precision analysis of the $X(3872)$ may

583: need to include these thresholds explicitly, especially if one wishes 

584: to describe the decays

585: $X\to J/\psi \, \pi^+ \pi^-$ and $X\to J/\psi \, \pi^+ \pi^- \pi^0$. 

586: We leave this to future work.

587: 

588: Matching onto HH$\chi$PT yields the $D^0$, $D^{*0}$, and $\pi^0$ 

589: kinetic terms as well as the axial $D^{*0}$-$D^0$-$\pi^0$ coupling.  

590: The coupling constant, $g$, is 

591: determined from data on the decays of $D^*$ mesons.

592: The CLEO measurements of the $D^{*+}$ width yields 

593: $g =  0.59\pm 0.07$ at tree level~\cite{Ahmed:2001xc, Anastassov:2001cw}. 

594: A NLO analysis of $D^*$ decays in  Ref.~\cite{Stewart:1998ke} yields 

595: $g=0.27^{+0.06}_{-0.03}$.

596: A more recent analysis~\cite{Fajfer:2006hi} obtains $g=0.61$ at tree-level

597: and  $g=0.66\, (0.53)$ at NLO, where the number outside parentheses

598: refers to the result when virtual low-lying even-parity charmed mesons 

599: are included in the loop calculations and the number in parentheses refers 

600: to the result obtained when these states are integrated out. 

601: The uncertainty in the NLO extraction of $g$ is estimated to be 20\%.  

602: We will use $g=0.6 \pm 0.1$ in this paper.

603: 

604: The remaining terms in Eq.~(\ref{lag}) with coefficients $C_0$, $C_2$, 

605: and $B_1$ are contact interactions 

606: %which 

607: that are not obtained from matching HH$\chi$PT but must also be 

608: included. They incorporate effects 

609: %which 

610: that come from shorter distance scales than the scale coming from 

611: $\pi^0$ exchange.

612: We have only included operators needed to the order we are working.

613: $C_0$ and $C_2$ mediate $D^0 \bar{D}^{*0}+\bar{D^0} D^{*0}$ scattering 

614: in the $C=+$, $S$-wave channel

615: and have zero and two derivatives, respectively. $B_1$ mediates a transition

616: between $D^0 \bar{D}^{*0}+\bar{D^0} D^{*0}$ in the $C=+$, $S$-wave channel 

617: to a state with a $D^0$, $\bar{D}^0$, and $\pi^0$. 

618: 

619: In our power counting, 

620: $p_D \sim p_{D^*} \sim p_\pi \sim \mu \sim \gamma \sim Q$

621: and we calculate amplitudes in an expansion in powers of $Q$. 

622: Since the $D^0$, $D^{*0}$ and 

623: $\pi^0$ are all non-relativistic, $E_D \sim E_{D^*} \sim E_\pi \sim Q^2$, 

624: so the propagators

625: of all particles are order $Q^{-2}$. Loop integrations are order $Q^5$.

626: The $D^{*0}$-$D^0$-$\pi^0$ axial coupling is order $Q$. 

627: In the exchange diagram

628: of Fig.~\ref{pionex}, one can drop the energy dependence in the pion 

629: propagator.

630: The factors of $\sqrt{2 m_\pi}$ from the vertices cancel the factors of 

631: $1/(2 m_\pi)$ in the momentum-dependent term in the pion propagator and 

632: combine with $\delta$ to give $2 m_\pi \delta = \mu^2$, reproducing 

633: the expression in Eq.~(\ref{ope}). The pion-exchange amplitude is order

634: $Q^0$  as is easily seen from Eq.~(\ref{pionex}).

635: 

636: 

637: Only counting powers of momentum,

638: the Feynman rules for the terms in the Lagrangian with coefficients

639: $C_0$, $C_2$, and $B_1$ are naively of order $Q^0$, $Q^2$ and $Q^1$, 

640: respectively.

641: However, with this power counting the theory is perturbative and cannot 

642: produce a bound state. Instead we will treat $C_0$ non-perturbatively,

643: along the lines of Ref.~\cite{Kaplan:1998tg,vanKolck:1998bw}, and sum

644: diagrams with $C_0$ to all orders. At LO, using  the 

645: power divergence subtraction (PDS) scheme

646: one then finds~\cite{Kaplan:1998tg}, 

647: \bea

648: C_0 = \frac{2 \pi}{M_{DD^*}} \frac{1}{\gamma -\Lambda_{\rm PDS}} \, ,

649: \eea

650: where $\Lambda_{\rm PDS}$ is the dimensional-regularization 

651: parameter.\footnote{The dimensional-regularization 

652: parameter is usually denoted $\mu$

653: but we use a different symbol here to avoid confusion with the scale 

654: appearing in pion exchange.}

655: Taking $\Lambda_{\rm PDS}$ of order $Q$ we find $C_0$ is order $Q^{-1}$ 

656: which justifies its resummation. 

657: In PDS, the coefficient $C_2$ is order $Q^{-2}$ as is  $B_1$, 

658: as we shall see below.

659: No other short-distance operators are needed for our NLO calculation 

660: of $X\to D^0 \bar{D}^0 \pi^0$.

661: Feynman diagrams with $C_2$ and $B_1$ first contribute to 

662: $X\to D^0 \bar{D}^0 \pi^0$

663: at NLO.

664: 

665: In addition to expanding in $Q$, we will make one more approximation in 

666: the NLO calculation of $X\to D^0 \bar{D}^0 \pi^0$. 

667: In many cases it greatly simplifies calculations

668: to expand in $m_\pi/m_D \sim 0.07$. 

669: This is an approximation we will perform when 

670: evaluating loop diagrams. It is not systematized in our power counting 

671: scheme.

672: 

673: As emphasized earlier, the perturbative character of pion exchange

674: depends on the smallness of the parameter appearing in Eq.~(\ref{Xexp}). 

675: Our effective theory can be used even

676: if dimensionless parameters conspire to render pion exchange 

677: non-perturbative, but in this case 

678: one-pion exchange would have to be resummed as done in the 

679: $NN$ system \cite{Nogga:2005hy}.

680: 

681: 

682: \section{ Decay rate for $X(3872)\to D^{0} \bar D^{0} \pi^0$ }

683: 

684: 

685: Here we describe our method for calculating the width of the $X(3872)$ 

686: resonance. We consider the 

687: following two-point function of interpolating fields 

688: $X^i = (D^0 \bar{D}^{0* i}+\bar{D}^0 D^{0* i})/\sqrt{2}$ 

689: for the $X(3872)$ with the spin index $i$: 

690: \bea

691: G(E)\delta^{ij} = \int d^4x \, e^{-i Et } 

692: \langle 0 |T[ X^i(x) X^j(0) ] | 0 \rangle 

693: = i \, \delta^{ij} \frac{Z(-E_X)}{E + E_X + i\Gamma/2} + ... \, ,

694: \eea

695: where 

696: %the $X^i = (D^0 \bar{D}^{0* i}+\bar{D}^0 D^{0* i})/\sqrt{2}$ 

697: %is the interpolating field for the $X(3872)$, 

698: $E_X$ is the binding energy of the $X(3872)$

699: and the ellipsis represents terms that are less important 

700: in the resonance region, $E + E_X \sim \Gamma$.

701: We can define a function $\Sigma(E)$, where $-i \, \Sigma(-E_x)$ 

702: represents the $C_0$-irreducible graphs contributing to $G(E)$.

703: Our definition of $\Sigma(E)$ is similar to the function $\Sigma$ 

704: defined in Appendix A of Ref.~\cite{Kaplan:1998sz}.

705: In terms of $\Sigma(E)$, $G(E)$ is 

706: \bea

707: G(E) &=& \frac{-i \, \Sigma(E)}{1 +  C_0 \, \Sigma(E)} \nn \\

708: &=& \frac{-i \,{\rm Re}\, \Sigma(E) + {\rm Im}\, \Sigma(E)}

709: {1+ C_0 {\rm Re}\, \Sigma(E) + i \, C_0 \, {\rm Im}\,\Sigma(E)}\, .

710: \eea

711: Since the real part of the denominator must vanish at $E = - E_X$, 

712: we have $1 +  C_0 \, {\rm Re}\,\Sigma(-E_X) = 0$, and 

713: expanding about $E=-E_X$ we obtain for $G(E)$ 

714: \bea\label{gexp}

715: G(E) &=&  \frac{i ( 1/C_0 -(E+E_X)  {\rm Re} \, \Sigma^\prime(-E_X)) 

716: +  {\rm Im} \,\Sigma(-E_X)}{C_0 (E+E_X) {\rm Re} 

717: \, \Sigma^\prime(-E_X) + i \,C_0 {\rm Im} \,\Sigma(-E_X)} \nn \\

718: &=&  \frac{i}{C_0^2 (E+E_X) {\rm Re} 

719: \, \Sigma^\prime(-E_X) + i \, C_0^2 \,{\rm Im} \,\Sigma(-E_X)} 

720: - \frac{i}{C_0} \, ,

721: \eea

722: where $\Sigma^\prime = d\Sigma/dE$. From Eq.~(\ref{gexp}), 

723: we immediately see that

724: \bea

725: Z(E) = \frac{1}{C_0^2 \,{\rm Re} \, \Sigma^\prime(-E_X)}\, , 

726: \quad \quad 

727: \Gamma =\frac{2 \,{\rm Im} \,\Sigma(-E_X)}{{\rm Re}\,\Sigma^\prime(-E_X)} \, .

728: \eea

729: The function $2\, {\rm Im}\,\Sigma$ corresponds to the square of the 

730: decay diagrams. It is interesting to compare the result

731: of evaluating the loop diagrams and taking the real part with direct 

732: evaluation of the decay diagrams.

733: 

734: Consider for example the evaluation of the two-loop diagram in 

735: Fig.~\ref{sigmaNLO}a in Appendix B.

736: The result of evaluating the  graph is 

737: \bea

738: {\rm Fig}.~\ref{sigmaNLO}{\rm a})&=& - i \frac{g^2}{2f_\pi^2}\frac{1}{2 m_\pi}

739: \left(\frac{\Lambda_{\rm PDS}}{2}\right)^{8 - 2 D}\\

740: &&\times \int \frac{d^Dq}{(2\pi)^D} \int \frac{d^Dl}{(2\pi)^D} \, 

741: \frac{1}{q_0+E_X/2 -q^2/(2 m_{D^*} )

742: + i\epsilon} \, \frac{1}{-q_0+E_X/2 -q^2/(2 m_{D} )+ i\epsilon} \nn \\ 

743: &&\times \frac{1}{l_0+E_X/2 -l^2/(2 m_{D^*}) + i\epsilon}\, 

744: \frac{1}{-l_0+E_X/2 -l^2/(2 m_{D} )+ i\epsilon} \nn \\

745: &&\times \frac{(q+l)_i (q+l)_j}{q_0 + l_0 -(q+l)^2/(2m_\pi) + \delta 

746: + i \epsilon} \nn \, .

747: \eea

748: We perform the energy integrals by contour integration, taking 

749: the poles of the $D$-meson propagators.

750: This yields

751: \bea\label{7a}

752: {\rm Fig}.~\ref{sigmaNLO}{\rm a})&=&i \frac{g^2}{2f_\pi^2}

753: \left(\frac{\Lambda_{\rm PDS}}{2}\right)^{8 - 2 D} \nn \\

754: && \times

755: \int \frac{d^{D-1}q}{(2\pi)^{D-1}} \int \frac{d^{D-1}l}{(2\pi)^{D-1}} \, 

756: \frac{1}{E_X -q^2/(2 M_{DD^*} )+ i\epsilon} \, 

757: \frac{1}{E_X -l^2/(2 M_{DD^*} )+ i\epsilon} \nn \\  

758: &&\times \quad \frac{(q+l)_i (q+l)_j}

759:                     {2 m_\pi(E_X -q^2/(2 m_D)-l^2/(2 m_D)) -(q+l)^2 

760: + \mu^2+ i \epsilon} \nn \\

761: \nn \\

762: &=& i  \frac{g^2}{2f_\pi^2}(2 M_{DD^*})^2 \left(\frac{\Lambda_{\rm PDS}}{2}

763: \right)^{8 - 2 D} \nn \\

764: &&\times \int \frac{d^{D-1}q}{(2\pi)^{D-1}} 

765: \int \frac{d^{D-1}l}{(2\pi)^{D-1}} \, 

766: \frac{1}{q^2 + \gamma^2 - i\epsilon}\, \frac{1}{l^2 + \gamma^2 - i\epsilon}  

767: \nn \\

768: &&\times \quad\frac{(q+l)_i (q+l)_j}

769:                    {- m_\pi(\gamma^2/M_{DD^*} +q^2/m_D+l^2/m_D)) -(q+l)^2 

770: +\mu^2 +i \epsilon} \, .

771: \eea

772: The first two propagators that come from the $D^*$ mesons clearly scale 

773: as $Q^{-2}$. The 

774: last two terms in the pion propagator denominator, $-(q+l)^2 + \mu^2$, 

775: scale as $Q^2$ while

776: the other terms scale as $(m_\pi/m_D) Q^2$. Since $m_\pi/m_D \sim 0.07$ 

777: is comparable to our expansion

778: parameter in Eq.~(\ref{Xexp}),

779: these terms can be systematically dropped. The neglected terms come 

780: from the pion kinetic energy, and in dropping them we are treating 

781: the pions in the potential approximation~\cite{Mehen:1999hz}.

782: The final answer is then

783: \bea

784: {\rm Fig}.~\ref{sigmaNLO}{\rm a}) &=&-i \frac{g^2}{2f_\pi^2}(2 M_{DD^*})^2 

785: \left(\frac{\Lambda_{\rm PDS}}{2}\right)^{8 - 2 D}

786:  \nn \\

787: &&\times \int \frac{d^{D-1}q}{(2\pi)^{D-1}} 

788: \int \frac{d^{D-1}l}{(2\pi)^{D-1}} \, 

789: \frac{1}{q^2 + \gamma^2 - i\epsilon} \,\frac{1}{l^2 + \gamma^2 -i\epsilon}  

790: \,\frac{(q+l)_i (q+l)_j}{(q+l)^2 - \mu^2 - i \epsilon} \nn \\

791: &=& -i\frac{g^2}{2f_\pi^2}\frac{\delta_{ij}}{3}

792: \left(\frac{M_{DD^*}}{2\pi}\right)^2

793: \left[ (\Lambda_{\rm PDS} -\gamma)^2 

794: +\mu^2\left(\frac{1}{4\hat \epsilon} +\frac{1}{2} 

795: + \log \left(\frac{\Lambda_{\rm PDS}}{2 \gamma -i \mu}

796: \right)\right)\right] \, .

797: \eea

798: where $1/(4\hat \epsilon)= 1/(4 \epsilon) + ({\rm ln}\, \pi -

799: \gamma_{\rm E})/2$.

800: We have used three-dimensional rotational invariance to replace

801: $(q+l)_i (q+l)_j$ with $(q+l)^2 \delta_{ij}/3$ and use the PDS scheme 

802: to evaluate the remaining scalar integrals.

803: 

804: There is one instance when dropping $m_\pi/m_D$ corrections is not 

805: appropriate. 

806: To see this consider evaluating the real part of Fig.~\ref{sigmaNLO}a 

807: by evaluating the cut 

808: diagram. The cut runs through the $D$-meson and pion propagators. 

809: In the cut diagrams,

810: these propagators are replaced with $\delta$-functions. 

811: For the $D$-meson propagators

812: integrating over the $\delta$-functions is equivalent to taking 

813: the pole using contour integration.

814: So the cut diagram is obtained from Eq.~(\ref{7a}) simply by replacing 

815: the pion propagator 

816: with the corresponding $\delta$-function. 

817: Doing this and making the substitutions

818: $q\to p_{\bar{D}}$ and $l \to p_D$ so that $q+l= p_D + p_{\bar D}= -p_\pi$, 

819: one obtains

820: \bea\label{cut7a}

821: &&\frac{g^2}{2 f_\pi^2}(2 M_{DD^*})^2 

822: \int \frac{d^3 p_D d^3p_{\bar{D}} }{(2\pi)^5} \nn \\

823: &&\times |\vec{\epsilon} \cdot \vec{p}_\pi|^2 

824: \frac{1}{p_D^2+\gamma^2} \frac{1}{p_{\bar D}^2+\gamma^2}

825: \; \delta\left(\mu^2- p_\pi^2 -\frac{m_\pi}{ M_{DD^*}} \gamma^2 

826: -  \frac{m_\pi}{m_D} p_D^2

827:  -  \frac{m_\pi}{m_D} p_{\bar D}^2 \right) \, .

828: \eea

829: This clearly reproduces the interference term in Voloshin's effective-range 

830: calculation of 

831: $X\to D^0 \bar{D}^0 \pi^0$ \cite{Voloshin:2003nt}. 

832: The $\delta$-function in Eq.~(\ref{cut7a}) 

833: imposes the 

834: constraint on the phase space due to energy conservation. 

835: Dropping $m_\pi/m_D$-suppressed 

836: terms in the $\delta$-function corresponds to neglecting the final-state 

837: $D$-meson's kinetic energy

838: and would leave the integrals over their momentum unconstrained. 

839: Clearly this is not a good approximation. 

840: Physically, it is also clear that the on-shell propagating pion in the final

841: state cannot be treated in the potential approximation.

842: 

843: Therefore, in evaluating  ${\rm Im}\, \Sigma(-E_X)$ we will calculate 

844: the decay amplitudes for the diagrams and integrate

845: over the physical three-body phase. In diagrams with virtual pions, 

846: we drop the kinetic energy so the pions are potential.\footnote{For 

847: further discussion on the role

848: of recoil corrections, see Ref. \cite{Baru:2004kw}.}

849: In the virtual diagrams

850: this approximation is valid up to $O(m_\pi/m_D)$ corrections. 

851: Since our expansion parameter is expected

852: to be $0.05-0.1$, making this approximation in the virtual NLO graphs 

853: induces an error of the

854: same size as the NNLO correction.

855: 

856: The LO decay diagram is shown in Fig.~\ref{lodecay}. 

857: The $D^*$ propagator scales as 

858: $1/Q^2$ and the axial coupling scales as $Q$ so the LO diagram 

859: is order $Q^{-1}$. We show only 

860: one diagram, but there are two channels related by $C$-conjugation 

861: that are implied.

862: It is straightforward to evaluate these diagrams and obtain

863: \bea

864: i \frac{g }{f_\pi} \, \frac{M_{DD^*}}{p_D^2 +\gamma^2}\,\vec{p}_\pi 

865: \cdot \vec{\epsilon}_X + (p_D \to p_{\bar D}) \, ,

866: \eea

867: The LO contribution to the wavefunction diagram is shown 

868: in Fig.~\ref{sigmaLO}.

869: The graph is $O(Q)$ and therefore ${\rm Re}\, \Sigma^\prime(-E_X)$ 

870: is $O(Q^{-1})$. 

871: The result

872: of evaluating this graph and taking the derivative is 

873: \bea

874: {\rm Re}\, \Sigma^\prime_{LO} = \frac{M_{DD^*}^2}{2 \pi \gamma}\, .

875: \eea

876: The LO decay diagram in Fig.~\ref{lodecay} is $O(Q^{-1})$ so the 

877: leading contribution to 

878: ${\rm Im}\, \Sigma(-E_X)$

879: from Fig.~\ref{lodecay} is $O(Q^{-2})$. 

880: Dividing by the LO wavefunction renormalization 

881: which is $O(Q^{-1})$

882: one sees that the leading contribution to the decay rate is $O(Q^{-1})$. 

883: The result 

884: reproduces Voloshin's calculation of 

885: $X\to D^0 {\bar D}^0 \pi^0$~\cite{Voloshin:2003nt}:

886: \bea

887: \frac{d \Gamma_{\rm LO}}{d p_D^2 d p_{\bar D}^2}= 

888: \frac{g^2}{32 \pi^3 f_\pi^2} 2 \pi \gamma (\vec{p}_\pi 

889: \cdot \vec{\epsilon}_X )^2

890: \bigg[ \frac{1}{p_D^2 + \gamma^2} + \frac{1}{p_{\bar D}^2 + \gamma^2}\bigg]^2

891: \eea

892: %

893: \begin{figure}[t]

894: \begin{center}

895: \includegraphics[width=3cm]{./fig1.ps}

896: \caption{ LO diagram for decay rate. \label{lodecay}}

897: \end{center}

898: \end{figure}

899: %

900: \begin{figure}[t]

901: \begin{center}

902: \includegraphics[width=3cm]{./fig9.ps}

903: \caption{LO diagram for calculating wavefunction renormalization.

904: \label{sigmaLO}}

905: \end{center}

906: \end{figure}

907: %

908: 

909: The NLO corrections to the decay rate are suppressed by one power of $Q$.

910: They come from graphs, shown in 

911: Figs.~\ref{nlopiondecay} and \ref{nlocontactdecay}, 

912: with one additional pion exchange 

913: %and from graphs with 

914: or one insertion of $C_2$ and $B_1$. These coefficients scale as $Q^{-2}$.

915: NLO contributions to the wavefunction renormalization are down by one power 

916: of $Q$ as well.

917: These contributions are given by the two-loop self-energy  diagrams involving 

918: pion exchange 

919: or an insertion of $C_2$ shown in Fig.~\ref{sigmaNLO}.

920: 

921: %

922: \begin{figure}[t]

923: \begin{center}

924: a) \includegraphics[width=3cm]{./fig2.ps} \hspace{1.0 in}

925: b) \includegraphics[width=3cm]{./fig3.ps}

926: \caption{ NLO diagrams for the decay rate involving pion exchange. 

927: \label{nlopiondecay}}

928: \end{center}

929: \end{figure}

930: %

931: \begin{figure}[t]

932: \begin{center}

933: a) \includegraphics[width=4cm]{./fig4.ps} \hspace{1.0 in}

934: b) \includegraphics[width=4cm]{./fig5.ps}

935: \caption{ NLO diagrams for the decay rate which involve contact interaction. 

936: \label{nlocontactdecay}}

937: \end{center}

938: \end{figure}

939: %

940: \begin{figure}[t]

941: \begin{center}

942: a) \includegraphics[width=3cm]{./fig7.ps} \hspace{0.5 in}

943: b) \includegraphics[width=3cm]{./fig6.ps} \hspace{0.5 in}

944: c) \includegraphics[width=4cm]{./fig8.ps} 

945: \caption{NLO diagrams for calculating wavefunction renormalization.

946: \label{sigmaNLO}}

947: \end{center}

948: \end{figure}

949: %

950: 

951: 

952: The results for individual diagrams are given in Appendix B. 

953: The final expression

954: for the NLO differential rate is 

955: \bea\label{NLOrate}

956: \frac{d \Gamma_{\rm NLO}}{d p_D^2 d p_{\bar D}^2} &=& 

957: \frac{d \Gamma_{\rm LO}}{d p_D^2 d p_{\bar D}^2}\bigg(1 

958: + \frac{g^2 M_{DD^*} \gamma}{6 \pi f_\pi^2}

959: \left(\frac{4 \gamma^2-\mu^2}{4 \gamma^2+\mu^2}\right)

960: + C_2(\Lambda_{\rm PDS}) 

961: \frac{M_{DD^*} \gamma (\gamma-\Lambda_{\rm PDS})^2}{\pi} \bigg) \\

962: &&\hspace{-0.4 in}-\frac{g \gamma}{16 \pi^3 f_\pi}

963: \bigg( \frac{g M_{DD^*}}{f_\pi} C_2(\Lambda_{\rm PDS})  

964: + B_1(\Lambda_{\rm PDS})\bigg)(\Lambda_{\rm PDS}-\gamma)\, 

965: (\vec{p}_\pi \cdot \vec{\epsilon}_X )^2 \, 

966: \bigg[ \frac{1}{p_D^2 + \gamma^2} + \frac{1}{p_{\bar D}^2 + \gamma^2}\bigg]

967: \nn \\

968: &&\hspace{-0.4 in}- \frac{g^4 M_{DD^*} \gamma}{64 \pi^3 f_\pi^4}  

969: (\vec{p}_\pi \cdot \vec{\epsilon}_X )^2 

970: \bigg[\frac{{\rm Re}\, h_1(p_D)}{p_D^2 + \gamma^2} 

971: + \frac{{\rm Re} \,h_1(p_{\bar D})}{p_{\bar D}^2 + \gamma^2}\bigg]

972: \bigg[ \frac{1}{p_D^2 + \gamma^2} + \frac{1}{p_{\bar D}^2 + \gamma^2}\bigg] 

973: \nn \\

974: &&\hspace{-0.4 in}+ \frac{g^4 M_{DD^*}\gamma}{64 \pi^3 f_\pi^4} 

975: \bigg[\frac{{\rm Re}\, h_2(p_D)}{p_D^2 + \gamma^2}

976: \,\vec{p}_\pi 

977: \cdot \vec{\epsilon}_X\,\vec{p}_D \cdot \vec{\epsilon}_X 

978: \,\vec{p}_\pi \cdot \vec{p}_D + (p_D \to p_{\bar D})\bigg]

979: \bigg[ \frac{1}{p_D^2 + \gamma^2} + \frac{1}{p_{\bar D}^2 + \gamma^2}\bigg]  

980: \, . \nn

981: \eea

982: The functions $h_1(p)$ and $h_2(p)$ are given in Appendix B. 

983: The first line in Eq.~(\ref{NLOrate}) 

984: is a multiplicative correction to the LO decay rate. 

985: Note that in the absence of pions

986: \bea\label{c2}

987: C_2(\Lambda_{\rm PDS}) = \frac{2 \pi}{M_{DD^*}} \frac{r_0}{2}

988: \frac{1}{(\Lambda_{\rm PDS} -\gamma)^2} \, ,

989: \eea

990: where $r_0$ is the effective range. 

991: The term proportional to $C_2$ in the first line 

992: of Eq.~(\ref{NLOrate}) reproduces the expected correction from the 

993: effective-range 

994: theory, in which the leading correction involving $r_0$ comes 

995: from the modification of the 

996: normalization of the wavefunction:

997: \bea

998: \psi^{\rm ER}(r) = 

999: \sqrt{\frac{\gamma}{4 \pi (1-\gamma r_0)}}\frac{e^{-\gamma r}}{r} \, .

1000: \eea

1001: The second line in Eq.~(\ref{NLOrate}) is the interference between 

1002: a short-distance

1003: local coupling of the $X$ to the $D^0 \bar{D}^0 \pi^0$ state and the LO 

1004: amplitude. Note the coefficient of this term scale as 

1005: $1/(\Lambda_{\rm PDS} -\gamma)$

1006: and disappears if one takes $\Lambda_{\rm PDS} \to \infty$, confirming 

1007: the short-distance nature of the contribution. 

1008: The final terms are non-analytic corrections due to pion exchange.

1009: These contributions turn out to give a very small ($\sim 1\%$) 

1010: contribution to the 

1011: decay rate, so the NLO correction is entirely dominated 

1012: by the contact interaction contributions.

1013: 

1014: We will parametrize $C_2$ according to Eq.~(\ref{c2}), 

1015: where $r_0$ is to be interpreted

1016: as the short-distance contribution to the effective range. 

1017: Since we have integrated out the scales $m_\pi$ and $\Delta$, 

1018: it is reasonable to take $r_0 \sim (100 \, {\rm MeV})^{-1}$.

1019: We will parametrize 

1020: \bea

1021: \bigg( \frac{g M_{DD^*}}{f_\pi} C_2(\Lambda_{\rm PDS}) 

1022: + B_1(\Lambda_{\rm PDS})\bigg)(\Lambda_{\rm

1023: PDS}-\gamma) = \frac{\eta}{(100\, {\rm MeV})^3} \, , 

1024: \eea

1025: where $\eta$ is a dimensionless parameter we expect to be of order unity.

1026: Fig.~\ref{x-ddp} shows the  partial width $\Gamma[X\to D^0 \bar{D}^0 \pi^0]$ 

1027: as a function of the binding energy. 

1028: The central solid line is the LO result. We use the central 

1029: value for the tree-level extraction of the $D$-meson axial coupling, 

1030: $g = 0.6$. 

1031: The band in Fig.~\ref{x-ddp} shows the NLO rate with the  parameters $r_0$ 

1032: and $\eta$ varied between

1033: \bea

1034: 0 \leq r_0 \leq \frac{1}{100\, {\rm MeV}}\, , \qquad -1 \leq \eta \leq 1 \, . 

1035: \eea

1036: As stated earlier the non-analytic 

1037: calculable corrections from pion exchange in Eq.~(\ref{NLOrate}) 

1038: give negligible corrections. The band is 

1039: dominated entirely by the contact interaction contributions.

1040: Measurements of the $X$ mass and partial decay width into

1041: $D^{0}\bar{D}^{0}\pi^{0}$ can naturally be explained within 

1042: a molecular picture if the corresponding point in Fig.~\ref{x-ddp} 

1043: falls within, 

1044: or ---due to higher orders--- close to, 

1045: this band. Values far outside the band can be acommodated only if

1046: short-range parameters or higher-order effects are anomalously large. 

1047: In either case the appeal of our framework would be strongly diminished.

1048: 

1049: 

1050: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

1051: \begin{figure}[t]

1052: \begin{center}

1053: \includegraphics[width=12cm,angle=270]{xplot.ps}

1054: \caption{ Decay rate for $X\to D^{0}\bar D^{0}\pi^0$ as a 

1055: function of $E_X$. We use $g=0.6$. The central solid line 

1056: corresponds to the 

1057: %leading-order 

1058: LO prediction. The band is the 

1059: result of the NLO calculation when the parameters $r_0$ and $\eta$

1060: are varied in the ranges

1061: $0 \leq r_0 \leq (100 \,{\rm MeV})^{-1}$ and $-1 \leq \eta \leq 1$.

1062: \label{x-ddp}}

1063: \end{center}

1064: \end{figure}

1065: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

1066: 

1067: 

1068: 

1069: \section{Summary}

1070: 

1071: In this paper we have developed an effective field theory of non-relativistic 

1072: pions and $D$ mesons that can be used to describe the properties of 

1073: the $X(3872)$, assuming it is a weakly bound state of $D^0 \bar{D}^{*0}$ 

1074: and $D^{*0} \bar{D}^{0}$ with anomalously small binding energy. 

1075: Because of an accidental cancellation between 

1076: the $D$-meson hyperfine splitting and the mass of the $\pi^0$, 

1077: pion exchange is characterized by a smaller scale than is typically 

1078: the case in nuclear physics. 

1079: This relatively small scale and the small axial coupling 

1080: in the $D$-meson system (compared to the nucleon's axial coupling) 

1081: combine to make the corrections from $\pi^0$-meson exchange amenable 

1082: to perturbation theory. 

1083: This justifies the application of a theory similar to that

1084: proposed by Kaplan, Savage, and Wise for low-energy $NN$ interactions

1085: \cite{Kaplan:1998tg,Kaplan:1998we}, 

1086: in which a leading-order contact interaction is resummed to all orders 

1087: to produce the bound state, and pion exchange and higher-derivative 

1088: contact interactions are treated within perturbation theory.

1089: 

1090: This theory reproduces at leading order the calculation of 

1091: $\Gamma[X\to D^0 \bar{D}^0 \pi^0]$ by Voloshin \cite{Voloshin:2003nt}

1092: which exploits the universal behavior of the $D D^*$ wavefunction in limit 

1093: of small binding energy. 

1094: Effective-range corrections as well as other corrections from 

1095: short-distance scales are encoded in higher-dimension contact operators 

1096: in the theory. These corrections turn out to completely 

1097: dominate non-analytic calculable corrections from $\pi^0$ exchange. 

1098: Varying these coefficients within 

1099: ranges determined  by naturalness allows us to estimate the size of 

1100: corrections to the leading-order calculations of Voloshin. 

1101: While it is somewhat disappointing that the non-analytic calculable 

1102: corrections from $\pi^0$  exchange are so small that an experimental 

1103: test of this aspect of the theory 

1104: seems unlikely in the foreseeable future, 

1105: the smallness of these corrections confirms one of the main points of 

1106: this work, 

1107: namely that pion exchange can be dealt with using perturbation theory.

1108: 

1109: A naive estimate of the size of the NNLO corrections based on the expansion 

1110: parameter in 

1111: Eq.~(\ref{Xexp}) is 1\% or smaller. 

1112: It is important to remember that in conventional 

1113: nuclear physics, large corrections come from graphs with two or more pion 

1114: exchanges in 

1115: the $^3S_1$ channel, which first arise at NNLO. 

1116: The two-pion exchange graphs at NNLO graphs come with

1117: large coefficients, $\sim 5$, which ruin the perturbative expansion of

1118: KSW for two-nucleon systems~\cite{Fleming:1999ee}. 

1119: In our case similar size coefficients in two-pion exchange 

1120: graphs should not ruin perturbation theory since even with a large 

1121: coefficient $\sim 5$, 

1122: they would only be expected to be

1123:  5\% or smaller. 

1124: It would be interesting to perform the NNLO calculation to check this. A 

1125: NNLO correction of 5\% would dominate the non-analytic NLO contribution

1126: but would be smaller than the uncertainty in the contact interaction 

1127: contribution, indicating 

1128: convergence of the expansion.

1129: In the unlikely case that pion exchange is non-perturbative,

1130: it can be resummed as done in nuclear physics \cite{Nogga:2005hy}.

1131: 

1132: It is straightforward to extend the analysis of this paper to other 

1133: $X(3872)$ decay and production

1134: processes, such as $X\to D^0 \bar{D}^0 \gamma$ 

1135: or $X\to J/\psi \rho^* \to J/\psi \pi^+ \pi^-$. 

1136: Coupling to $J/\psi \, \rho$ and $J/\psi \,\omega$ channels

1137: can be incorporated by including these degrees of freedom explicitly 

1138: in the theory and coupling them to

1139: $D^0  \bar{D}^{*0} + D^{*0}  \bar{D}^{0}$  via contact interactions. 

1140: It would be interesting to calculate $\pi^0$ 

1141: exchange to other decays of the $X(3872)$ to see if these corrections 

1142: lead to any interesting observable effects.

1143: It would also be interesting to use data or theoretical calculations 

1144: to fix some of the counterterms appearing in the

1145: theory so as render calculations in this paper more predictive. 

1146: 

1147: \acknowledgments 

1148: 

1149: We would like to thank E. Braaten and C. Hanhart for useful discussions.

1150: This work was supported in part by the U.S. Department of Energy under 

1151: grant numbers

1152: DE-FG02-06ER41449 (S.F. and M.K.), 

1153: DE-FG02-05ER41368 (T.M.), DE-FG02-05ER41376 (T.M.), 

1154: DE-AC05-84ER40150 (T.M.), and DE-FG02-04ER41338 (U.v.K.),

1155: by the Nederlandse Organisatie voor Wetenschappelijk Onderzoek  (U.v.K.),

1156: and by Brazil's FAPESP under a Visiting Professor grant (U.v.K.).

1157: We would also 

1158: like to thank the hospitality of the University of Arizona (T.M.),

1159: the Center for Theoretical Physics at MIT (T.M.),

1160: the Kernfysisch Versneller Instituut at Rijksuniversiteit Groningen (U.v.K.),

1161: the Instituto de F\'\i sica Te\'orica of the

1162: Universidade Estadual Paulista (U.v.K.),

1163: and the Instituto de F\'\i sica of the Universidade de S\~ao Paulo (U.v.K.)

1164: where part of this work was completed.

1165: 

1166: \appendix

1167: \section{Deriving the EFT Lagrangian from HH$\chi$PT}\label{hhchipt}

1168: 

1169: Heavy-hadron chiral perturbation theory 

1170: (HH$\chi$PT )~\cite{Wise:1992hn,Burdman:1992gh,Yan:1992gz} can be 

1171: used to derive the low-energy effective Lagrangian for $D$ mesons, 

1172: $D^{*}$ mesons, and

1173: pions relevant to the $X(3872)$. We begin with the  

1174: two-component HH$\chi$PT Lagrangian introduced in Ref.~\cite{Hu:2005gf},

1175: %

1176: \begin{eqnarray}

1177:  {\cal L}  =

1178: {\rm Tr}\left[ H^\dagger (i D_0) H \right] 

1179:   - g \, {\rm Tr}\left[ H^\dagger H \bsigma\cdot {\bf A} \right] 

1180:  + {\Delta_{} \over 4} \,

1181: {\rm Tr}\left[ H^\dagger \bsigma H\bsigma\right], 

1182: \label{append-L}

1183: \end{eqnarray}

1184: %

1185: where $\bsigma$ are the Pauli matrices, $\Delta_{}=m_{H^*}-m_{H}$, 

1186: $H = {\bf D}\cdot\bsigma+ D$,

1187: and ${\bf A}= -\vec{\nabla}\pi/f_\pi +{\cal O}(\pi^3) $. Here

1188: ${\bf D}$ is a heavy vector field, $D$ is a heavy pseudoscalar field,

1189: and $\pi$ is the pion field,

1190: %

1191: \begin{eqnarray}

1192:  \pi = \begin{pmatrix} {1\over \sqrt{2}}\pi^0 & \pi^+ \\ 

1193: \pi^- & -{1\over \sqrt{2}}\pi^0   \end{pmatrix}.

1194: \end{eqnarray}

1195: %

1196: Evaluating the traces in Eq.~(\ref{append-L}) we obtain

1197: %

1198: \begin{eqnarray}

1199:  {\cal L} &=& 

1200: 2{\bf D}^\dagger \left(iD_0-{\Delta_{} \over 4} \right) {\bf D} 

1201: + 2 D^\dagger \left(iD_0 + {3\Delta_{} \over 4} \right) D  \nonumber

1202: \\

1203: &&\hspace{2cm}

1204: - 2 g \, \left(

1205: {\bf D}^\dagger \cdot {\bf A} D + D^\dagger {\bf D}\cdot {\bf A}

1206: \right) 

1207: -2ig\, {\bf D}^\dagger\cdot {\bf D}\times {\bf A} \,.

1208: \label{append-L2}

1209: \end{eqnarray}

1210: %

1211: Since we wish to describe a bound state of two heavy mesons the power counting

1212: of HH$\chi$PT in powers of $1/m_H$ is inappropriate. Instead we need to power

1213: count in the relative velocity $v \ll 1$ of the heavy mesons. The

1214: kinetic energy which is sub-leading in $1/m_H$ is leading in $v$, 

1215: and as a consequence we must include the kinetic term in our Lagrangian,

1216: %

1217: \begin{eqnarray}

1218:  {\cal L} &=& 

1219: 2{\bf D}^\dagger \left(iD_0+ \frac{\vec{\nabla}^2}{2m_{D^*}}-\frac{\Delta}{4} 

1220: \right) {\bf D} 

1221: + 2 D^\dagger \left(iD_0 + \frac{\vec{\nabla}^2}{2m_{D}}+ {3\Delta_{} \over 4}

1222: \right) D  \nonumber

1223: \\

1224: &&\hspace{2cm}

1225: - 2 g \, \left(

1226: {\bf D}^\dagger \cdot {\bf A} D + D^\dagger {\bf D}\cdot {\bf A}

1227: \right) 

1228: -2ig\, {\bf D}^\dagger\cdot {\bf D}\times {\bf A} \,.

1229: \label{append-L2.5}

1230: \end{eqnarray}

1231: %

1232: We now rescale the heavy-meson fields

1233: %

1234: \begin{eqnarray}

1235:  \{D, {\bf D}\} \to \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}} \;e^{i 3\Delta t/4} \{D, {\bf D} \} \,,

1236: \end{eqnarray}

1237: %

1238: which gives 

1239: %

1240: \begin{eqnarray}

1241:  {\cal L} &=& 

1242: {\bf D}^\dagger \left(iD_0+\frac{\vec{\nabla}^2}{2m_{D^*}}-\Delta_{} 

1243: \right) {\bf D} 

1244: +D^\dagger \left(iD_0+\frac{\vec{\nabla}^2}{2m_{D}} \right) D  \nonumber

1245: \\ 

1246: &&\hspace{2cm}

1247: - g \, \left(

1248: {\bf D}^\dagger \cdot {\bf A} D + D^\dagger {\bf D}\cdot {\bf A}

1249: \right) 

1250: - ig\, {\bf D}^\dagger\cdot {\bf D}\times {\bf A} \,.

1251: \label{append-L3}

1252: \end{eqnarray}

1253: %

1254: Since we are only interested in those terms involving $D^{*0}$, $D^{0}$, 

1255: and $\pi^0$ 

1256: we keep only these fields in the Lagrangian,

1257: %

1258: \begin{eqnarray}

1259:  {\cal L} &=& 

1260: {\bf D}^\dagger \left(iD_0+ \frac{\vec{\nabla}^2}{2m_{D^*}}-\Delta_{} 

1261: \right) {\bf D} 

1262: +D^\dagger \left(iD_0 + \frac{\vec{\nabla}^2}{2m_{D}}\right) D  \nonumber

1263: \\ 

1264: &&\hspace{2cm}

1265: + \frac{g}{\sqrt{2}f_\pi} \, \left(

1266: {\bf D}^\dagger \cdot\vec{\nabla}\pi^0 D + D^\dagger {\bf D}\cdot 

1267: \vec{\nabla}\pi^0 \right) 

1268: -i\frac{g}{\sqrt{2}f_\pi}\, {\bf D}^\dagger\cdot {\bm D}\times 

1269: \vec{\nabla}\pi^0.

1270: \label{append-L4}

1271: \end{eqnarray}

1272: %

1273: 

1274: Next the kinetic term for the pion is derived from the chiral Lagrangian

1275: %

1276: \begin{eqnarray}

1277:  {\cal L}_{\pi} 

1278: &=&

1279:  \frac{f^2_\pi}{8} {\rm Tr}\left[\partial_\mu \Sigma \partial^\mu

1280:        \Sigma^\dagger \right] +\frac{f^2_\pi}{4} B_0 {\rm

1281:  Tr}\left[ {\cal M}\,(\Sigma+\Sigma^\dagger )\right]

1282: \\

1283: &=& 

1284: \frac{1}{2}\partial_\mu \pi^0\, \partial^\mu \pi^0 +

1285: \frac{1}{2}m_\pi^2(\pi^{0})^2  + \text{ self-interactions}

1286: \\

1287: &=& 

1288: \frac{1}{2}\pi^0 

1289: \left( -\partial^2 -m_\pi^2 \right)\pi^0  + \cdots,

1290: \end{eqnarray}

1291: %

1292: where $\Sigma=\exp(2i\pi/f_\pi)$, ${\cal M}={\rm diag}(m_u,m_d)$

1293: is the quark-mass matrix and $B_0$ is a constant.

1294: The pion self-interaction terms are not needed at the order we are working so 

1295: they are dropped, and we add the pion kinetic term in the last line above 

1296: to Eq.~(\ref{append-L4}) to obtain our Lagrangian. 

1297: 

1298: However, this Lagrangian still includes the large 

1299: scales $m_\pi$ and $\Delta_{}$, which must be integrated out of the theory. 

1300: Since we are interested in a non-relativistic theory of pions we are 

1301: justified in splitting the pion fields into creation and annihilation 

1302: operators $\pi^0 = \hat \pi + \hat \pi^{\dagger}$. 

1303: In addition we rescale the meson fields to make the large

1304: scales explicit:

1305: %

1306: \begin{eqnarray}

1307:  \hat \pi = \frac{1}{\sqrt{2m_\pi}} \, e^{-im_\pi t}\,  \pi \,,

1308: \hspace{1cm}

1309:  \hat \pi^\dagger = \frac{1}{\sqrt{2m_\pi}} \, e^{im_\pi t}\,\pi^\dagger \,,

1310: \hspace{1cm}

1311: {\bf D} \to e^{-im_\pi t}\,{\bf D}.

1312: \label{pihat}

1313: \end{eqnarray}

1314: %

1315: The pion kinetic term can then be expanded

1316: %

1317: \begin{eqnarray}

1318:  {\cal L}_\pi 

1319: &=& \frac{1}{2}\pi^0 

1320: \left( -\partial_0^2 + \vec{\nabla}^2 -m_\pi^2 \right)\pi^0

1321: \nn \\

1322: &=&

1323: {1\over 4 m_\pi} \left\{

1324:  \pi^\dagger  \left( 2im_\pi\partial_0 - \partial_0^2 

1325: + \vec{\nabla}^2  \right)  \pi

1326: + \pi  \left( -2im_\pi\partial_0 - \partial_0^2 

1327: + \vec{\nabla}^2  \right)  \pi^\dagger 

1328: \right. \nn \\

1329: && \left.

1330: + e^{-2im_\pi t} \pi \left( 2im_\pi\partial_0 - \partial_0^2 

1331: + \vec{\nabla}^2  \right)  \pi

1332: + e^{2im_\pi t} \pi^\dagger \left( -2im_\pi\partial_0 - \partial_0^2 

1333: + \vec{\nabla}^2  \right)  \pi^\dagger

1334: \right\}

1335: \nn \\

1336: &=& 

1337: \pi^\dagger \left( i\partial_0 + {\vec{\nabla}^2 \over 2m_\pi}

1338:  \right) \pi + \text{higher-order relativistic corrections} \,.

1339:  \end{eqnarray}

1340: %

1341: The terms in the third line include a large phase factor and as a consequence 

1342: can be integrated out. 

1343: In addition to modifying the pion propagator the field redefinition 

1344: in Eq.~(\ref{pihat}) modifies the kinetic term for ${\bf D}$,

1345: %

1346: \begin{eqnarray}

1347:  {\bf D}^\dagger \left(i\partial_0  

1348: + \frac{\vec{\nabla}^2}{2m_{D^*}}- \Delta_{} \right) {\bf D}

1349: \to 

1350: {\bf D}^\dagger \left(i\partial_0 

1351: + \frac{\vec{\nabla}^2}{2m_{D^*}}- \delta \right) {\bf D},

1352: \end{eqnarray} 

1353: %

1354: where $\delta = \Delta_{} -m_\pi \simeq 7$ MeV.

1355: Note that after the field rescaling the last term in Eq.~(\ref{append-L4}) 

1356: contains a 

1357: phase factor $e^{-im_\pi t}$, and can be dropped.

1358: 

1359: Finally, we obtain the the first three lines of the Lagrangian given 

1360: in Eq.~(\ref{lag}) by 

1361: another rephasing of the ${\bf D}$ and $\pi$ fields,

1362: %

1363: \begin{eqnarray}

1364:  {\bf D} \to e^{-i \delta \, t}\, {\bf D}, \hspace{1cm} 

1365:  \pi \to e^{-i \delta \, t} \, \pi.

1366: \end{eqnarray}

1367: %

1368: This just shifts the residual mass from the ${\bf D}$ kinetic term

1369: to the $\pi$ kinetic term. This last step is not essential, however it 

1370: is convenient. The remaining terms in Eq.~(\ref{lag}) are short-distance 

1371: interactions allowed by power counting and the symmetries of the theory.

1372: 

1373: \section{NLO diagrams}\label{nlo}

1374: 

1375: The NLO decay diagrams involving pion exchange are shown in 

1376: Fig.~\ref{nlopiondecay}. 

1377: The result for Fig.~\ref{nlopiondecay}a) is

1378: \bea

1379: i \frac{g^3 M^2_{DD^*}}{8\pi f^3_\pi(p_D^2 +\gamma^2)} \,

1380: \bigg[ \left(\frac{2}{3}\Lambda_{\rm PDS} -h_1(p_D)\right) \,\vec{p}_\pi \cdot \vec{\epsilon}_X

1381: +h_2(p_D)\,\vec{p}_D \cdot \vec{\epsilon}_X\,  \vec{p}_D \cdot \vec{p}_\pi \bigg] + (p_D \to p_{\bar D}) \, ,

1382: \eea

1383: where the functions $h_1(p)$ and $h_2(p)$ are given by:

1384: \begin{align}

1385:  h_1(p) &= \int_0^1 dx\sqrt{-p^2 x^2 +(p^2+\gamma^2 + \mu^2) x

1386:  -\mu^2-i\epsilon} \nonumber \\

1387: &= {p^2-\gamma^2-\mu^2 \over 4 p^2 } \gamma 

1388: + {(p^2+\gamma^2+\mu^2)^2-4p^2\mu^2 \over 8p^3} 

1389: \tan^{-1}{2p\gamma\over - p^2+\gamma^2+\mu^2} \nonumber \\ 

1390: &\quad -i{\mu\over 4p^2}(p^2+\gamma^2+\mu^2)-i 

1391:  {(p^2+\gamma^2+\mu^2)^2-4p^2\mu^2 \over 16p^3} 

1392: \ln{\gamma^2+(\mu-p)^2\over \gamma^2+(\mu+p)^2}

1393: \\

1394:  h_2(p) & =  \int_0^1 dx{x^2\over 

1395: \sqrt{-p^2 x^2 +(p^2+\gamma^2 + \mu^2) x

1396:  -\mu^2-i\epsilon} } \nonumber \\

1397: &= -{5p^2+3\gamma^2+3\mu^2 \over 4 p^4 } \gamma 

1398: + {3(p^2+\gamma^2+\mu^2)^2-4p^2\mu^2 \over 8p^5} 

1399: \tan^{-1}{2p\gamma\over - p^2+\gamma^2+\mu^2} \nonumber \\ 

1400: &\quad -i{3 \mu\over 4p^4}(p^2+\gamma^2+\mu^2)-i 

1401:  {3(p^2+\gamma^2+\mu^2)^2-4p^2\mu^2 \over 16p^5} 

1402: \ln{\gamma^2+(\mu-p)^2\over \gamma^2+(\mu+p)^2} \, ,

1403: \end{align}

1404: and the result for Fig.~\ref{nlopiondecay}b) is

1405: \bea

1406: - \frac{g^3 M^2_{DD^*}}{12\pi f^3_\pi}\frac{\mu^3}{(p_D^2 +\gamma^2)^2} 

1407: \, \vec{p}_\pi \cdot \vec{\epsilon}_X

1408:  + (p_D \to p_{\bar D}).

1409: \eea

1410: Note that Fig.~\ref{nlopiondecay}b) includes, as a subgraph, the one-loop 

1411: $D^*$ self-energy contribution. In the PDS scheme the self-energy graph 

1412: has a linear divergence which gives an additive renormalization to the 

1413: residual mass term of

1414: the $D^{*}$. At tree level, we performed a field redefinition

1415: which moved the residual mass term from  the kinetic term of the $D^*$ 

1416: to the kinetic term of the pion

1417: through a field redefinition. In order that loop corrections do not 

1418: reintroduce a residual mass for the $D^{*}$, we introduce a  counterterm 

1419: $-\delta_{\rm ct} (\bd^\dagger \bd +\bdbar^\dagger \bdbar)$, 

1420: which is defined to cancel the residual mass term at each order in 

1421: perturbation theory. At one-loop order, 

1422: $\delta_{\rm ct} = g^2\mu^2\Lambda_{\rm PDS}/24\pi f_\pi^2$.

1423: This linearly  divergent contribution to the self-energy also appears in

1424: Fig.~\ref{sigmaNLO}b) and is canceled by an insertion of the residual

1425: mass counterterm in a $D D^*$ bubble (not shown in the figure).

1426: 

1427: The NLO diagrams with the counterterms $C_2$ and $B_1$ are shown 

1428: in Fig.~\ref{nlocontactdecay}. 

1429: The result for Fig.~\ref{nlocontactdecay}a) is

1430: \bea

1431: - i C_2(\Lambda_{\rm PDS})\frac{g M_{DD^*}^2 

1432: (\Lambda_{\rm PDS}-\gamma)}{4\pi f_\pi}

1433: \, \frac{p_D^2-\gamma^2}{p_D^2+\gamma^2} \, \vec{p}_\pi \cdot 

1434: \vec{\epsilon}_X + (p_D \to p_{\bar D}) \, ,

1435: \eea

1436: and the result for Fig.~\ref{nlocontactdecay}b) is

1437: \bea

1438: - i B_1(\Lambda_{\rm PDS})\frac{M_{DD^*}(\Lambda_{\rm PDS}-\gamma)}{2 \pi}

1439:  \, \vec{p}_\pi \cdot \vec{\epsilon}_X \, .

1440: \eea

1441: 

1442: Finally, we show the NLO wave function renormalization diagrams in 

1443: Fig.~\ref{sigmaNLO}.

1444: The NLO contribution to ${\rm Re} \,\Sigma^\prime(-E_X)$ from the graphs

1445: in Fig.~\ref{sigmaNLO} is

1446: \bea

1447: \frac{g^2 M_{DD^*}^3}{12 \pi^2 f_\pi^2}

1448: \bigg[ \frac{\Lambda_{\rm PDS}-\gamma}{\gamma} 

1449: +\frac{2 \mu^2}{4\gamma^2+\mu^2} \bigg]

1450: - C_2(\Lambda_{\rm PDS}) \frac{M_{DD^*}^3 (\gamma-\Lambda_{\rm PDS})

1451: (2\gamma-\Lambda_{\rm PDS})}{2 \pi^2} \, .

1452: \eea

1453: 

1454: 

1455: 

1456: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

1457: %Bibliography

1458: 

1459: \begin{thebibliography}{}

1460: 

1461: %\cite{Voloshin:2006wf}

1462: \bibitem{Voloshin:2006wf}

1463:   M.~B.~Voloshin,

1464:   %``Molecular quarkonium,'' 

1465: in {\it Proceedings of 4th Flavor Physics and CP Violation Conference 

1466: (FPCP 2006), Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada, 9-12 Apr 2006}, pp 014

1467:   [arXiv:hep-ph/0605063].

1468:   %%CITATION = ECONF,C060409,014;%%

1469: 

1470: %\cite{Suzuki:2005ha}

1471: \bibitem{Suzuki:2005ha}

1472:   M.~Suzuki,

1473:   %``The X(3872) boson: Molecule or charmonium,''

1474:   Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 72}, 114013 (2005)

1475:   [arXiv:hep-ph/0508258].

1476:   %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0508258;%%

1477:   %%Cited 5 times in SPIRES-HEP

1478: 

1479: %\cite{Choi:2003ue}

1480: \bibitem{Choi:2003ue}

1481:   S.~K.~Choi {\it et al.}  [Belle Collaboration],

1482:   % ``Observation of a new narrow charmonium state in exclusive B+- $\to$ K+-

1483:   % pi+ pi- J/psi decays,''

1484:   %

1485:   Phys.\ Rev.\ Lett.\  {\bf 91}, 262001 (2003)

1486:   [arXiv:hep-ex/0309032].

1487:   %%CITATION = HEP-EX 0309032;%%

1488:   %%Cited 148 times in SPIRES-HEP

1489: 

1490: %\cite{Acosta:2003zx}

1491: \bibitem{Acosta:2003zx}

1492:   D.~Acosta {\it et al.}  [CDF II Collaboration],

1493:   % ``Observation of the narrow state X(3872) $\to$ J/psi pi+ pi- in anti-p p

1494:   % collisions at s**(1/2) = 1.96-TeV,''

1495:   %

1496:   Phys.\ Rev.\ Lett.\  {\bf 93}, 072001 (2004)

1497:   [arXiv:hep-ex/0312021].

1498:   %%CITATION = HEP-EX 0312021;%%

1499:   %%Cited 106 times in SPIRES-HEP

1500: 

1501: %\cite{Abazov:2004kp}

1502: \bibitem{Abazov:2004kp}

1503:   V.~M.~Abazov {\it et al.}  [D0 Collaboration],

1504:   % ``Observation and properties of the X(3872) decaying to J/psi pi+ pi- in  p

1505:   % anti-p collisions at s**(1/2) = 1.96-TeV,''

1506:   %

1507:   Phys.\ Rev.\ Lett.\  {\bf 93}, 162002 (2004)

1508:   [arXiv:hep-ex/0405004].

1509:   %%CITATION = HEP-EX 0405004;%%

1510:   %%Cited 68 times in SPIRES-HEP

1511: 

1512: %\cite{Aubert:2004ns}

1513: \bibitem{Aubert:2004ns}

1514:   B.~Aubert {\it et al.}  [BABAR Collaboration],

1515:   % ``Study of the B $\to$ J/psi K- pi+ pi- decay and measurement of the B $\to$

1516:   % X(3872) K- branching fraction,''

1517:   %

1518:   Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 71}, 071103 (2005)

1519:   [arXiv:hep-ex/0406022].

1520:   %%CITATION = HEP-EX 0406022;%%

1521:   %%Cited 61 time in SPIRES-HEP

1522: 

1523: %\cite{Olsen:2004fp}

1524: \bibitem{Olsen:2004fp}

1525:   S.~L.~Olsen  [Belle Collaboration],

1526:   %``Search for a charmonium assignment for the X(3872),''

1527:   Int.\ J.\ Mod.\ Phys.\ A {\bf 20}, 240 (2005)

1528:   [arXiv:hep-ex/0407033].

1529:   %%CITATION = HEP-EX 0407033;%%

1530:   %%Cited 18 times in SPIRES-HEP

1531: 

1532: 

1533: %\cite{Cawlfield:2007dw}

1534: \bibitem{Cawlfield:2007dw}

1535:   C.~Cawlfield {\it et al.} [CLEO Collaboration],

1536:   %``A precision determination of the D0 mass,''

1537:   arXiv:hep-ex/0701016.

1538:   %%CITATION = HEP-EX/0701016;%%

1539: 

1540: 

1541: %\cite{Abe:2005ix}

1542: \bibitem{Abe:2005ix}

1543:   K.~Abe {\it et al.} [Belle Collaboration],

1544:   %``Evidence for X(3872) $\to$ gamma J/psi and the sub-threshold decay X(3872)

1545:   %$\to$ omega J/psi,''

1546:   arXiv:hep-ex/0505037.

1547:   %%CITATION = HEP-EX 0505037;%%

1548:   %%Cited 18 times in SPIRES-HEP

1549:   

1550: 

1551: %\cite{Gokhroo:2006bt}

1552: \bibitem{Gokhroo:2006bt}

1553:   G.~Gokhroo {\it et al.} [Belle Collaboration],

1554:   %``Observation of a near-threshold D0 anti-D0 pi0 enhancement in B --> D0

1555:   %anti-D0 pi0 K decay,''

1556:   Phys.\ Rev.\ Lett.\  {\bf 97}, 162002 (2006)

1557:   [arXiv:hep-ex/0606055].

1558:   %%CITATION = PRLTA,97,162002;%%

1559:   

1560: %\cite{Mohanty:2005dm}

1561: \bibitem{Mohanty:2005dm}

1562:   G.~B.~Mohanty  [BABAR Collaboration],

1563:   %``New hadron spectroscopy with BABAR,''

1564:   arXiv:hep-ex/0509039.

1565:   %%CITATION = HEP-EX 0509039;%%

1566:   %%Cited 1 time in SPIRES-HEP

1567:   

1568: %\cite{Aubert:2005vi}

1569: \bibitem{Aubert:2005vi}

1570:   B.~Aubert {\it et al.}  [BABAR Collaboration],

1571:   %``Measurements of the absolute branching fractions of B+- --> K+- X/(c

1572:   %anti-c),''

1573:   Phys.\ Rev.\ Lett.\  {\bf 96}, 052002 (2006)

1574:   [arXiv:hep-ex/0510070].

1575:   %%CITATION = PRLTA,96,052002;%%

1576: 

1577: 

1578: 

1579: %\cite{Abe:2003zv}

1580: \bibitem{Abe:2003zv}

1581:   K.~Abe {\it et al.}  [Belle Collaboration],

1582:   %``Observation of B+ $\to$ psi(3770) K+,''

1583:   Phys.\ Rev.\ Lett.\  {\bf 93}, 051803 (2004)

1584:   [arXiv:hep-ex/0307061].

1585:   %%CITATION = HEP-EX 0307061;%%

1586:   %%Cited 27 times in SPIRES-HEP

1587: 

1588: 

1589: %\cite{Abe:2004sd}

1590: \bibitem{Abe:2004sd}

1591:   K.~Abe {\it et al.}  [Belle Collaboration],

1592:   %``Properties of the X(3872) at Belle,''

1593:   arXiv:hep-ex/0408116.

1594:   %%CITATION = HEP-EX 0408116;%%

1595:   %%Cited 24 times in SPIRES-HEP

1596: 

1597: %\cite{Aubert:2004fc}

1598: \bibitem{Aubert:2004fc}

1599:   B.~Aubert {\it et al.}  [BABAR Collaboration],

1600:   %``Observation of the decay B $\to$ J/psi eta K and search for X(3872) $\to$

1601:   %J/psi eta,''

1602:   Phys.\ Rev.\ Lett.\  {\bf 93}, 041801 (2004)

1603:   [arXiv:hep-ex/0402025].

1604:   %%CITATION = HEP-EX 0402025;%%

1605:   %%Cited 25 times in SPIRES-HEP

1606: 

1607: %\cite{Yuan:2003yz}

1608: \bibitem{Yuan:2003yz}

1609:   C.~Z.~Yuan, X.~H.~Mo and P.~Wang,

1610:   %``The upper limit of the e+ e- partial width of X(3872). ((V),''

1611:   Phys.\ Lett.\ B {\bf 579}, 74 (2004)

1612:   [arXiv:hep-ph/0310261].

1613:   %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0310261;%%

1614:   %%Cited 19 times in SPIRES-HEP

1615:  

1616: %\cite{Dobbs:2004di}

1617: \bibitem{Dobbs:2004di}

1618:   S.~Dobbs {\it et al.}  [CLEO Collaboration],

1619:   %``Search for X(3872) in gamma gamma fusion and ISR at CLEO,''

1620:   Phys.\ Rev.\ Lett.\  {\bf 94}, 032004 (2005)

1621:   [arXiv:hep-ex/0410038].

1622:   %%CITATION = HEP-EX 0410038;%%

1623:   %%Cited 9 times in SPIRES-HEP

1624: 

1625: %\cite{Abulencia:2005zc}

1626: \bibitem{Abulencia:2005zc}

1627:   A.~Abulencia {\it et al.}  [CDF Collaboration],

1628:   %``Measurement of the dipion mass spectrum in $X(3872) \to J/\psi \pi^+

1629:   %\pi^-$  decays,''

1630:   Phys.\ Rev.\ Lett.\  {\bf 96}, 102002 (2006)

1631:   [arXiv:hep-ex/0512074].

1632:   %%CITATION = PRLTA,96,102002;%%

1633: 

1634: 

1635: 

1636: 

1637: 

1638: %\cite{Abe:2005iy}

1639: \bibitem{Abe:2005iy}

1640:   K.~Abe {\it et al.} [Belle Collaboration],

1641:   %``Experimental constraints on the possible J(PC) quantum numbers of the

1642:   %X(3872),''

1643:   arXiv:hep-ex/0505038.

1644:   %%CITATION = HEP-EX 0505038;%%

1645:   %%Cited 20 times in SPIRES-HEP

1646: 

1647: %\cite{Abulencia:2006ma}

1648: \bibitem{Abulencia:2006ma}

1649:   A.~Abulencia {\it et al.} [CDF Collaboration],

1650:   %``Analysis of the quantum numbers J(PC) of the X(3872),''

1651:   arXiv:hep-ex/0612053.

1652:   %%CITATION = HEP-EX/0612053;%%

1653: 

1654: %%\cite{Yao:2006px}

1655: %\bibitem{Yao:2006px}

1656: %  W.~M.~Yao {\it et al.}  [Particle Data Group],

1657: %  %``Review of particle physics,''

1658: %  J.\ Phys.\ G {\bf 33}, 1 (2006).

1659: %  %%CITATION = JPHGB,G33,1;%%

1660: 

1661: %\cite{Bugg:2004rk}

1662: \bibitem{Bugg:2004rk}

1663:   D.~V.~Bugg,

1664:   %``Reinterpreting several narrow 'resonances' as threshold cusps,''

1665:   Phys.\ Lett.\ B {\bf 598}, 8 (2004)

1666:   [arXiv:hep-ph/0406293].

1667:   %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0406293;%%

1668:   %%Cited 24 times in SPIRES-HEP

1669: 

1670: 

1671: %\cite{Barnes:2003vb}

1672: \bibitem{Barnes:2003vb}

1673:   T.~Barnes and S.~Godfrey,

1674:   %``Charmonium options for the X(3872),''

1675:   Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 69}, 054008 (2004)

1676:   [arXiv:hep-ph/0311162].

1677:   %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0311162;%%

1678:   %%Cited 64 times in SPIRES-HEP

1679: 

1680: 

1681: 

1682: %\cite{Eichten:2004uh}

1683: \bibitem{Eichten:2004uh}

1684:   E.~J.~Eichten, K.~Lane and C.~Quigg,

1685:   %``Charmonium levels near threshold and the narrow state X(3872) $\to$ pi+

1686:   %pi- J/psi,''

1687:   Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 69}, 094019 (2004)

1688:   [arXiv:hep-ph/0401210].

1689:   %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0401210;%%

1690:   %%Cited 63 times in SPIRES-HEP

1691: 

1692: %\cite{Tornqvist:2004qy}

1693: \bibitem{Tornqvist:2004qy}

1694:   N.~A.~Tornqvist,

1695:   %``Isospin breaking of the narrow charmonium state of Belle at 3872-MeV as  a

1696:   %deuson,''

1697:   Phys.\ Lett.\ B {\bf 590}, 209 (2004)

1698:   [arXiv:hep-ph/0402237].

1699:   %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0402237;%%

1700:   %%Cited 50 times in SPIRES-HEP

1701: 

1702: 

1703: %\cite{Wong:2003xk}

1704: \bibitem{Wong:2003xk}

1705:   C.~Y.~Wong,

1706:   %``Molecular states of heavy quark mesons,''

1707:   Phys.\ Rev.\ C {\bf 69}, 055202 (2004)

1708:   [arXiv:hep-ph/0311088].

1709:   %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0311088;%%

1710:   %%Cited 34 times in SPIRES-HEP

1711: 

1712: 

1713: 

1714: %\cite{Swanson:2003tb}

1715: \bibitem{Swanson:2003tb}

1716:   E.~S.~Swanson,

1717:   %``Short range structure in the X(3872),''

1718:   Phys.\ Lett.\ B {\bf 588}, 189 (2004)

1719:   [arXiv:hep-ph/0311229].

1720:   %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0311229;%%

1721:   %%Cited 67 times in SPIRES-HEP

1722: 

1723: %\cite{Close:2003mb}

1724: \bibitem{Close:2003mb}

1725:   F.~E.~Close and S.~Godfrey,

1726:   %``Charmonium hybrid production in exclusive B meson decays,''

1727:   Phys.\ Lett.\ B {\bf 574}, 210 (2003)

1728:   [arXiv:hep-ph/0305285].

1729:   %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0305285;%%

1730:   %%Cited 24 times in SPIRES-HEP

1731: 

1732: %\cite{Li:2004st}

1733: \bibitem{Li:2004st}

1734:   B.~A.~Li,

1735:   %``Is X(3872) a possible candidate of hybrid meson,''

1736:   Phys.\ Lett.\ B {\bf 605}, 306 (2005)

1737:   [arXiv:hep-ph/0410264].

1738:   %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0410264;%%

1739:   %%Cited 9 times in SPIRES-HEP

1740: 

1741: %\cite{Seth:2004zb}

1742: \bibitem{Seth:2004zb}

1743:   K.~K.~Seth,

1744:   %``An alternative interpretation of X(3872),''

1745:   Phys.\ Lett.\ B {\bf 612}, 1 (2005)

1746:   [arXiv:hep-ph/0411122].

1747:   %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0411122;%%

1748:   %%Cited 10 times in SPIRES-HEP

1749: 

1750: %\cite{Maiani:2004vq}

1751: \bibitem{Maiani:2004vq}

1752:   L.~Maiani, F.~Piccinini, A.~D.~Polosa and V.~Riquer,

1753:   %``Diquark-antidiquarks with hidden or open charm and the nature of X(3872),''

1754:   Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 71}, 014028 (2005)

1755:   [arXiv:hep-ph/0412098].

1756:   %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0412098;%%

1757:   %%Cited 30 times in SPIRES-HEP

1758: 

1759: %\cite{Navarra:2006nd}

1760: \bibitem{Navarra:2006nd}

1761:   F.~S.~Navarra and M.~Nielsen,

1762:   %``X(3872) --> J/psi pi+ pi- and X(3872) --> J/psi pi+ pi- pi0 decay widths

1763:   %from QCD sum rules,''

1764:   Phys.\ Lett.\  B {\bf 639}, 272 (2006)

1765:   [arXiv:hep-ph/0605038].

1766:   %%CITATION = PHLTA,B639,272;%%

1767: 

1768: %\cite{Ishida:2005em}

1769: \bibitem{Ishida:2005em}

1770:   M.~Ishida, S.~Ishida and T.~Maeda,

1771:   %``Four quark c n - anti-n anti-c states in U(12)-scheme and

1772:   %X(3872)/Y(3940),''

1773:   arXiv:hep-ph/0509212.

1774:   %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0509212;%%

1775:   %%Cited 1 time in SPIRES-HEP 

1776: 

1777: %\cite{Vijande:2004vt}

1778: \bibitem{Vijande:2004vt}

1779:   J.~Vijande, F.~Fernandez and A.~Valcarce,

1780:   %``Describing non-(q anti-q) candidates,''

1781:   Int.\ J.\ Mod.\ Phys.\ A {\bf 20}, 702 (2005)

1782:   [arXiv:hep-ph/0407136].

1783:   %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0407136;%%

1784:   %%Cited 3 times in SPIRES-HEP

1785: 

1786: %\cite{Bauer:2005yu}

1787: \bibitem{Bauer:2005yu}

1788:   G.~Bauer,

1789:   %``The X(3872) meson and 'exotic' spectroscopy at CDF II. Or not?,''

1790:   Int.\ J.\ Mod.\ Phys.\ A {\bf 21}, 959 (2006)

1791:   [arXiv:hep-ex/0505083].

1792:   %%CITATION = HEP-EX 0505083;%%

1793:   %%Cited 7 times in SPIRES-HEP

1794: 

1795: 

1796: %\cite{Kim:2006fa}

1797: \bibitem{Kim:2006fa}

1798:   J.~D.~Kim, S.~K.~Lee and J.~B.~Choi,

1799:   %``Gluonic structures of tetraquarks,''

1800:   arXiv:nucl-th/0601048.

1801:   %%CITATION = NUCL-TH 0601048;%%

1802:   %%Cited 0 times in SPIRES-HEP

1803: 

1804: 

1805: %\cite{Swanson:2006st}

1806: \bibitem{Swanson:2006st}

1807:   E.~S.~Swanson,

1808:   %``The new heavy mesons: A status report,''

1809:   Phys.\ Rept. {\bf 429}, 243 (2006)

1810:   [arXiv:hep-ph/0601110].

1811:   %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0601110;%%

1812:   %%Cited 1 time in SPIRES-HEP

1813: 

1814: 

1815:  %\cite{Colangelo:2007ph}

1816:  \bibitem{Colangelo:2007ph}

1817:   P.~Colangelo, F.~De Fazio and S.~Nicotri,

1818:   %``X(3872) --> D anti-D gamma decays and the structure of X(3872),''

1819:   arXiv:hep-ph/0701052.

1820:   %%CITATION = HEP-PH/0701052;%%

1821: 

1822: %\cite{Zhu:2007wz}

1823: \bibitem{Zhu:2007wz}

1824:   S.~L.~Zhu,

1825:   %``New hadron states,''

1826:   arXiv:hep-ph/0703225.

1827:   %%CITATION = HEP-PH/0703225;%%

1828: 

1829: %\cite{Voloshin:2003nt}

1830: \bibitem{Voloshin:2003nt}

1831:   M.~B.~Voloshin,

1832:   %``Interference and binding effects in decays of possible molecular component

1833:   %of X(3872),''

1834:   Phys.\ Lett.\ B {\bf 579}, 316 (2004)

1835:   [arXiv:hep-ph/0309307].

1836:   %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0309307;%%

1837:   %%Cited 44 times in SPIRES-HEP

1838: 

1839: %\cite{Voloshin:2005rt}

1840: \bibitem{Voloshin:2005rt}

1841:   M.~B.~Voloshin,

1842:   %``X(3872) diagnostics with decays to D anti-D gamma,''

1843:   Int.\ J.\ Mod.\ Phys.\  A {\bf 21}, 1239 (2006)

1844:   [arXiv:hep-ph/0509192].

1845:   %%CITATION = IMPAE,A21,1239;%%

1846: 

1847: 

1848: %\cite{Braaten:2003he}

1849: \bibitem{Braaten:2003he}

1850:   E.~Braaten and M.~Kusunoki,

1851:   %``Low-energy universality and the new charmonium resonance at 3870-MeV,''

1852:   Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 69}, 074005 (2004)

1853:   [arXiv:hep-ph/0311147].

1854:   %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0311147;%%

1855:   %%Cited 35 times in SPIRES-HEP

1856: 

1857: %\cite{Braaten:2004rw}

1858: \bibitem{Braaten:2004rw}

1859:   E.~Braaten and M.~Kusunoki,

1860:   %``Production of the X(3870) at the Upsilon(4S) by the coalescence of  charm

1861:   %mesons from B decays,''

1862:   Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 69}, 114012 (2004)

1863:   [arXiv:hep-ph/0402177].

1864:   %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0402177;%%

1865:   %%Cited 17 times in SPIRES-HEP

1866: 

1867: 

1868: %\cite{Braaten:2004fk}

1869: \bibitem{Braaten:2004fk}

1870:   E.~Braaten, M.~Kusunoki and S.~Nussinov,

1871:   %``Production of the X(3870) in B meson decay by the coalescence of charm

1872:   %mesons,''

1873:   Phys.\ Rev.\ Lett.\  {\bf 93}, 162001 (2004)

1874:   [arXiv:hep-ph/0404161].

1875:   %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0404161;%%

1876:   %%Cited 13 times in SPIRES-HEP

1877: 

1878: %\cite{Braaten:2004ai}

1879: \bibitem{Braaten:2004ai}

1880:   E.~Braaten and M.~Kusunoki,

1881:   %``Exclusive production of the X(3872) in B meson decay,''

1882:   Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 71}, 074005 (2005)

1883:   [arXiv:hep-ph/0412268].

1884:   %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0412268;%%

1885:   %%Cited 10 times in SPIRES-HEP

1886: 

1887: 

1888: 

1889: 

1890: 

1891: %\cite{Braaten:2005jj}

1892: \bibitem{Braaten:2005jj}

1893:   E.~Braaten and M.~Kusunoki,

1894:   %``Factorization in the production and decay of the X(3872),''

1895:   Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 72}, 014012 (2005)

1896:   [arXiv:hep-ph/0506087].

1897:   %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0506087;%%

1898:   %%Cited 6 times in SPIRES-HEP

1899: 

1900: %\cite{Braaten:2005ai}

1901: \bibitem{Braaten:2005ai}

1902:   E.~Braaten and M.~Kusunoki,

1903:   %``Decays of the X(3872) into J/psi and light hadrons,''

1904:   Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 72}, 054022 (2005)

1905:   [arXiv:hep-ph/0507163].

1906:   %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0507163;%%

1907:   %%Cited 2 times in SPIRES-HEP

1908: 

1909: %\cite{Tornqvist:1993ng}

1910: \bibitem{Tornqvist:1993ng}

1911:   N.~A.~Tornqvist,

1912:   %``From the deuteron to deusons, an analysis of deuteron - like meson meson

1913:   %bound states,''

1914:   Z.\ Phys.\ C {\bf 61}, 525 (1994)

1915:   [arXiv:hep-ph/9310247].

1916:   %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9310247;%%

1917:   %%Cited 24 times in SPIRES-HEP

1918: 

1919: %\cite{Ahmed:2001xc}

1920: \bibitem{Ahmed:2001xc}

1921:   S.~Ahmed {\it et al.}  [CLEO Collaboration],

1922:   %``First measurement of Gamma(D*+),''

1923:   Phys.\ Rev.\ Lett.\  {\bf 87}, 251801 (2001)

1924:   [arXiv:hep-ex/0108013].

1925:   %%CITATION = HEP-EX 0108013;%%

1926:   %%Cited 41 time in SPIRES-HEP

1927: 

1928: %\cite{Anastassov:2001cw}

1929: \bibitem{Anastassov:2001cw}

1930:   A.~Anastassov {\it et al.}  [CLEO Collaboration],

1931:   %``First measurement of Gamma(D*+) and precision measurement of m(D*+) -

1932:   %m(D0),''

1933:   Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 65}, 032003 (2002)

1934:   [arXiv:hep-ex/0108043].

1935:   %%CITATION = HEP-EX 0108043;%%

1936:   %%Cited 62 times in SPIRES-HEP

1937:   

1938: %\cite{Fajfer:2006hi}

1939: \bibitem{Fajfer:2006hi}

1940:   S.~Fajfer and J.~Kamenik,

1941:   %``Chiral loop corrections to strong decays of positive and negative  parity

1942:   %charmed mesons,''

1943:   Phys.\ Rev.\  D {\bf 74}, 074023 (2006)

1944:   [arXiv:hep-ph/0606278].

1945:   %%CITATION = PHRVA,D74,074023;%%

1946:  

1947:   %\cite{Kaplan:1998tg}

1948: \bibitem{Kaplan:1998tg}

1949:   D.~B.~Kaplan, M.~J.~Savage and M.~B.~Wise,

1950:   %``A new expansion for nucleon nucleon interactions,''

1951:   Phys.\ Lett.\ B {\bf 424}, 390 (1998)

1952:   [arXiv:nucl-th/9801034].

1953:   %%CITATION = NUCL-TH 9801034;%%

1954:   %%Cited 130 times in SPIRES-HEP

1955:   

1956: %\cite{Kaplan:1998we}

1957: \bibitem{Kaplan:1998we}

1958:   D.~B.~Kaplan, M.~J.~Savage and M.~B.~Wise,

1959:   %``Two-nucleon systems from effective field theory,''

1960:   Nucl.\ Phys.\ B {\bf 534}, 329 (1998)

1961:   [arXiv:nucl-th/9802075].

1962:   %%CITATION = NUCL-TH 9802075;%%

1963:   %%Cited 147 times in SPIRES-HEP

1964:   

1965: %\cite{Fleming:1999bs}

1966: \bibitem{Fleming:1999bs}

1967:   S.~Fleming, T.~Mehen and I.~W.~Stewart,

1968:   %``The N N scattering (3)S(1) - (3)D(1) mixing angle at NNLO,''

1969:   Phys.\ Rev.\ C {\bf 61}, 044005 (2000)

1970:   [arXiv:nucl-th/9906056].

1971:   %%CITATION = NUCL-TH 9906056;%%

1972:   %%Cited 26 times in SPIRES-HEP

1973: 

1974: 

1975: %\cite{Fleming:1999ee}

1976: \bibitem{Fleming:1999ee}

1977:   S.~Fleming, T.~Mehen and I.~W.~Stewart,

1978:   %``NNLO corrections to nucleon nucleon scattering and perturbative pions,''

1979:   Nucl.\ Phys.\ A {\bf 677}, 313 (2000)

1980:   [arXiv:nucl-th/9911001].

1981:   %%CITATION = NUCL-TH 9911001;%%

1982:   %%Cited 40 times in SPIRES-HEP  

1983:   

1984:   

1985:  

1986:   

1987: %\cite{vanKolck:1998bw}

1988: \bibitem{vanKolck:1998bw}

1989:   U.~van Kolck,

1990:   %``Effective field theory of short-range forces,''

1991:   Nucl.\ Phys.\  A {\bf 645}, 273 (1999)

1992:   [arXiv:nucl-th/9808007].

1993:   %%CITATION = NUPHA,A645,273;%%

1994: 

1995: 

1996: %\cite{AlFiky:2005jd}

1997: \bibitem{AlFiky:2005jd}

1998:   M.~T.~AlFiky, F.~Gabbiani and A.~A.~Petrov,

1999:   %``X(3872): Hadronic molecules in effective field theory,''

2000:   Phys.\ Lett.\  B {\bf 640}, 238 (2006)

2001:   [arXiv:hep-ph/0506141].

2002:   %%CITATION = PHLTA,B640,238;%%

2003: 

2004: %\cite{Wise:1992hn}

2005: \bibitem{Wise:1992hn}

2006:   M.~B.~Wise,

2007:   %``Chiral Perturbation Theory For Hadrons Containing A Heavy Quark,''

2008:   Phys.\ Rev.\  D {\bf 45}, 2188 (1992).

2009:   %%CITATION = PHRVA,D45,2188;%%

2010: 

2011: %\cite{Burdman:1992gh}

2012: \bibitem{Burdman:1992gh}

2013:   G.~Burdman and J.~F.~Donoghue,

2014:   %``Union of chiral and heavy quark symmetries,''

2015:   Phys.\ Lett.\  B {\bf 280}, 287 (1992).

2016:   %%CITATION = PHLTA,B280,287;%%

2017: 

2018: %\cite{Yan:1992gz}

2019: \bibitem{Yan:1992gz}

2020:   T.~M.~Yan, H.~Y.~Cheng, C.~Y.~Cheung, G.~L.~Lin, Y.~C.~Lin and H.~L.~Yu,

2021:   %``Heavy Quark Symmetry And Chiral Dynamics,''

2022:   Phys.\ Rev.\  D {\bf 46}, 1148 (1992)

2023:   [Erratum-ibid.\  D {\bf 55}, 5851 (1997)].

2024:   %%CITATION = PHRVA,D46,1148;%%

2025: 

2026: %\cite{Braaten:2007ct}

2027: \bibitem{Braaten:2007ct}

2028:   E.~Braaten, M.~Lu and J.~Lee,

2029:   %``Weakly-bound hadronic molecule near a 3-body threshold,''

2030:   arXiv:hep-ph/0702128.

2031:   %%CITATION = HEP-PH/0702128;%%

2032: 

2033: 

2034: 

2035: %\cite{Manohar:2000dt}

2036: \bibitem{Manohar:2000dt}

2037:   A.~V.~Manohar and M.~B.~Wise,

2038:   %``Heavy quark physics,''

2039:   Camb.\ Monogr.\ Part.\ Phys.\ Nucl.\ Phys.\ Cosmol.\  {\bf 10} (2000) 1.

2040:   %%CITATION = CMPCE,10,1;%%

2041: 

2042: %\cite{Stewart:1998ke}

2043: \bibitem{Stewart:1998ke}

2044:   I.~W.~Stewart,

2045:   %``Extraction of the D* D pi coupling from D* decays,''

2046:   Nucl.\ Phys.\ B {\bf 529}, 62 (1998)

2047:   [arXiv:hep-ph/9803227].

2048:   %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9803227;%%

2049:   %%Cited 28 times in SPIRES-HEP

2050: 

2051: %\cite{Nogga:2005hy}

2052: \bibitem{Nogga:2005hy}

2053:   A.~Nogga, R.~G.~E.~Timmermans and U.~van Kolck,

2054:   %``Renormalization of One-Pion Exchange and Power Counting,''

2055:   Phys.\ Rev.\  C {\bf 72} (2005) 054006

2056:   [arXiv:nucl-th/0506005].

2057:   %%CITATION = PHRVA,C72,054006;%%

2058: 

2059: %\cite{Kaplan:1998sz}

2060: \bibitem{Kaplan:1998sz}

2061:   D.~B.~Kaplan, M.~J.~Savage and M.~B.~Wise,

2062:   %``A perturbative calculation of the electromagnetic form factors of the

2063:   %deuteron,''

2064:   Phys.\ Rev.\  C {\bf 59}, 617 (1999).

2065: %  [arXiv:nucl-th/9804032].

2066:   %%CITATION = PHRVA,C59,617;%%

2067: 

2068: 

2069: %\cite{Mehen:1999hz}

2070: \bibitem{Mehen:1999hz}

2071:   T.~Mehen and I.~W.~Stewart,

2072:   %``Radiation pions in two-nucleon effective field theory,''

2073:   Nucl.\ Phys.\  A {\bf 665}, 164 (2000)

2074:   [arXiv:nucl-th/9901064].

2075:   %%CITATION = NUPHA,A665,164;%%

2076: 

2077: %\cite{Baru:2004kw}

2078: \bibitem{Baru:2004kw}

2079:   V.~Baru, C.~Hanhart, A.~E.~Kudryavtsev and U.~G.~Meissner,

2080:   %``The role of the nucleon recoil in low-energy meson nucleus reactions,''

2081:   Phys.\ Lett.\  B {\bf 589}, 118 (2004)

2082:   [arXiv:nucl-th/0402027].

2083:   %%CITATION = PHLTA,B589,118;%%

2084: 

2085: %\cite{Hu:2005gf}

2086: \bibitem{Hu:2005gf}

2087:   J.~Hu and T.~Mehen,

2088:   %``Chiral Lagrangian with heavy quark-diquark symmetry,''

2089:   Phys.\ Rev.\  D {\bf 73}, 054003 (2006)

2090:   [arXiv:hep-ph/0511321].

2091:   %%CITATION = PHRVA,D73,054003;%%

2092: 

2093: 

2094: \end{thebibliography}

2095: 

2096: \end{document}

2097: 

2098: 

2099: 

2100: 

2101: