Study of the<mml:math xmlns:mml="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML" display="inline"><mml:mi>B</mml:mi><mml:mo>→</mml:mo><mml:mi>X</mml:mi><mml:mo stretchy="false">(</mml:mo><mml:mn>3872</mml:mn><mml:mo stretchy="false">)</mml:mo><mml:mo stretchy="false">(</mml:mo><mml:mo>→</mml:mo><mml:msup><mml:mi>D</mml:mi><mml:mrow><mml:mo>*</mml:mo><mml:mn>0</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup><mml:msup><mml:mover accent="true"><mml:mi>D</mml:mi><mml:mo>¯</mml:mo></mml:mover><mml:mn>0</mml:mn></mml:msup><mml:mo stretchy="f

Aushev, T.; Zwahlen, N.; Adachi, I.; Aihara, H.; Bakich, A. M.; Balagura, V.; Bay, A.; Belous, K.; Bhardwaj, V.; Bischofberger, M.; Bondar, A.; Bożek, A.; Brodzicka, J.; Browder, T. E.; Chào, Y.; Chen, A.; Chen, P.; Cheon, B. G.; Chiang, C. C.; Chistov, R.; Cho, I. S.; Choi, S. K.; Choi, Y.; Dalseno, J.; Danilov, M.; Drutskoy, A.; Eidelman, S.; Gabyshev, N.; Goldenzweig, P.; Ha, H.; Haba, J.; Han, B. Y.; Hayashii, H.; Hoshi, Y.; Hou, W.-S.; Hyun, H. J.; Iijima, T.; Inami, K.; Itoh, R.; Iwabuchi, M.; Iwasaki, M.; Iwasaki, Y.; Joshi, N. J.; Julius, T.; Kah, D. H.; Kang, J. H.; Kapusta, P.; Kawasaki, T.; Kim, H. J.; Kim, H. O.; Kim, J. H.; Kim, Y. I.; Kim, Y. J.; Ko, B. R.; Korpar, S.; Križan, P.; Krokovny, P.; Kuhr, T.; Kumar, Ramanuj; Kwon, Y.; Lange, J. S.; Lee, Soohyung; Li, J.; Liu, C.; Liventsev, D.; Louvot, R.; Matyja, A.; McOnie, S.; Medvedeva, T.; Miyabayashi, K.; Miyata, H.; Miyazaki, Y.; Mizuk, R.; Nakano, E.; Nakao, M.; Natkaniec, Z.; Nishida, S.; Nishimura, K.; Nitoh, O.; Ogawa, S.; Ohshima, T.; Okuno, S.; Olsen, S. L.; Pakhlov, P.; Pakhlova, G.; Pałka, H.; Park, C. W.; Park, H.; Park, H. K.; Pestotnik, R.; Petrič, M.; Piilonen, L. E.; Ryu, S.; Sahoo, H.; Sakai, Kenichi; Sakai, Y.; Schneider, O.; Schwanda, C.; Senyo, K.; Shapkin, M.; Shen, C. P.; Shiu, J. G.; Shwartz, B.; Singh, J. B.; Smerkol, P.; Sokolov, A.; Solovieva, E.; Starič, M.; Sumiyoshi, T.; Teramoto, Y.; Tikhomirov, I.; Trabelsi, K.; Uehara, S.; Uglov, T.; Unno, Y.; Uno, S.; Usov, Y.; Varner, G.; Vervink, K.; Wang, C. H.; Wang, P.; Watanabe, Y.; Wedd, R.; Wicht, J.; Won, E.; Yabsley, B.; Yamashita, Y.; Yamauchi, M.; Yuan, C. Z.; Zhang, Z. P.; Zhulanov, V.; Živko, T.; Zupanc, A.; Zyukova, O.

doi:10.1103/physrevd.81.031103

Cited by 118 publications

(93 citation statements)

References 24 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…They found that the BaBar data [87] is more compatible with the assumption of the X(3872) being a virtual state of a dynamical nature in the DD * system, and the charmonium admixture is small. In contrast, they found that the Belle data [78] clearly indicated a sizeable cc 2 3 P 1 component in the X(3872) wave function, which conclusion is similar to that in Ref. [597].…”

Section: Molecular Schemecontrasting

confidence: 52%

“…[598], Kalashnikova and Nefediev analyzed the same data from Belle [78] and BaBar [87]. They found that the BaBar data [87] is more compatible with the assumption of the X(3872) being a virtual state of a dynamical nature in the DD * system, and the charmonium admixture is small.…”

Section: Molecular Schemementioning

confidence: 76%

“…[597], Zhang, Meng, Zheng used the coupled-channel Flatté formula to perform an analysis of the Belle data on the X(3872) [78]. They found the co-existence of two poles: one is a sheet II (or sheet IV) pole very close to the D * 0D0 threshold, and the other one is a sheet III pole below the D * 0D0 threshold.…”

Section: Molecular Schemementioning

confidence: 99%

“…The difference between B 0 → K 0 X and B ± → K ± X also attracted much experimental interest. The Belle Collaboration measured the ratio of branching fractions Γ(B 0 → K 0 X)/Γ(B + → K + X) to be (0.82 ± 0.22 ± 0.05) [77], (1.26±0.65±0.06) [78] and (0.50±0.14±0.04) [80], and the mass difference between the X(3872) states produced in B + and B 0 decay to be δM = M (B + →K + X) − M (B 0 →K 0 X) = (0.18±0.89±0.26) MeV [77] and (−0.69±0.97±0.19) MeV [80], while the BaBar Collaboration measured this ratio to be (0.50±0.30±0.05) [85], and (0.41±0.24±0.05) [88], and this mass difference to be (2.7 ± 1.3 ± 0.2) MeV [85] and (2.7 ± 1.6 ± 0.4) MeV [88], where we have assumed experimental results from B + and B − are the same.…”

Section: The Charmonium-like Xyz Statesmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The Belle Collaboration searched for its open charm decay mode D * 0D0 and set an upper limit [78] B(B → Y(3940)K) × B(Y(3940) → D * 0D0 ) < 0.67 × 10 −4 .…”

Section: +003mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 4 more Smart Citations

The hidden-charm pentaquark and tetraquark states

et al. 2016

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In the past decade many charmonium-like states were observed experimentally. Especially those charged charmoniumlike Z c states and bottomonium-like Z b states can not be accommodated within the naive quark model. These charged Z c states are good candidates of either the hidden-charm tetraquark states or molecules composed of a pair of charmed mesons. Recently, the LHCb Collaboration discovered two hidden-charm pentaquark states, which are also beyond the quark model. In this work, we review the current experimental progress and investigate various theoretical interpretations of these candidates of the multiquark states. We list the puzzles and theoretical challenges of these models when confronted with the experimental data. We also discuss possible future measurements which may distinguish the theoretical schemes on the underlying structures of the hidden-charm multiquark states.

show abstract

Section: Molecular Schemecontrasting

confidence: 52%

Section: Molecular Schemementioning

confidence: 76%

Section: Molecular Schemementioning

confidence: 99%

Section: The Charmonium-like Xyz Statesmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The Belle Collaboration searched for its open charm decay mode D * 0D0 and set an upper limit [78] B(B → Y(3940)K) × B(Y(3940) → D * 0D0 ) < 0.67 × 10 −4 .…”

Section: +003mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 3 more Smart Citations

The hidden-charm pentaquark and tetraquark states

et al. 2016

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Prospects in Spectroscopy with Belle II

Bhardwaj

2019

Springer Proceedings in Physics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Heavy quarkonium: progress, puzzles, and opportunities

Brambilla¹,

Eidelman²,

Heltsley³

et al. 2011

Advances in the Physics of Particles and Nuclei

Self Cite

103

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

A golden age for heavy quarkonium physics dawned a decade ago, initiated by the confluence of exciting advances in quantum chromodynamics (QCD) and an explosion of related experimental activity. The early years of this period were chronicled in the Quarkonium Working Group (QWG) CERN Yellow Report (YR) in 2004, which presented a comprehensive review of the status of the field at that time and provided specific recommendations for further progress. However, the broad spectrum of subsequent breakthroughs, surprises, and continuing puzzles could only be partially anticipated. Since the release of the YR, the BESII program concluded only to give birth to BESIII; the B-factories and CLEO-c flourished; quarkonium production and polarization measurements at HERA and the Tevatron matured; and heavy-ion collisions at RHIC have opened a window on the deconfinement regime. All these experiments leave legacies of quality, precision, and unsolved mysteries for quarkonium physics, and therefore beg for continuing investigations at BESIII, the LHC, RHIC, FAIR, the Super Flavor and/or Tau-Charm factories, JLab, the ILC, and beyond. The list of newly-found conventional states expanded to include hc(1P ), χc2(2P ), B + c , and η b (1S). In addition, the unexpected and still-fascinating X(3872) has been joined by * Editors † Section coordinators ‡ Corresponding author: bkh2@cornell.edu more than a dozen other charmonium-and bottomonium-like "XY Z" states that appear to lie outside the quark model. Many of these still need experimental confirmation. The plethora of new states unleashed a flood of theoretical investigations into new forms of matter such as quark-gluon hybrids, mesonic molecules, and tetraquarks. Measurements of the spectroscopy, decays, production, and in-medium behavior of cc, bb, and bc bound states have been shown to validate some theoretical approaches to QCD and highlight lack of quantitative success for others. Lattice QCD has grown from a tool with computational possibilities to an industrialstrength effort now dependent more on insight and innovation than pure computational power. New effective field theories for the description of quarkonium in different regimes have been developed and brought to a high degree of sophistication, thus enabling precise and solid theoretical predictions. Many expected decays and transitions have either been measured with precision or for the first time, but the confusing patterns of decays, both above and below open-flavor thresholds, endure and have deepened. The intriguing details of quarkonium suppression in heavy-ion collisions that have emerged from RHIC have elevated the importance of separating hotand cold-nuclear-matter effects in quark-gluon plasma studies. This review systematically addresses all these matters and concludes by prioritizing directions for ongoing and future efforts.

show abstract

Study of theB→X(3872)(→D*0D¯0
T. Aushev¹,
N. Zwahlen²,
I. Adachi³
et al.

Cited by 118 publications

References 24 publications

The hidden-charm pentaquark and tetraquark states

The hidden-charm pentaquark and tetraquark states

Prospects in Spectroscopy with Belle II

Heavy quarkonium: progress, puzzles, and opportunities

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About

Study of theB→X(3872)(→D*0D¯0T. Aushev1, N. Zwahlen2, I. Adachi3 et al.

Cited by 118 publications

References 24 publications

The hidden-charm pentaquark and tetraquark states

The hidden-charm pentaquark and tetraquark states

Prospects in Spectroscopy with Belle II

Heavy quarkonium: progress, puzzles, and opportunities

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About

Study of theB→X(3872)(→D*0D¯0
T. Aushev¹,
N. Zwahlen²,
I. Adachi³
et al.