Relative Phase between Relative Phase between

Strong and EM DecaysStrong and EM Decays

at BESIII and CLEOcat BESIII and CLEOcMarco Destefanis Università degli Studi di Torino

1

on behalf of the BESIII Collaboration

Quarkonium 2013

The 9th International Workshop on Heavy Quarkonium

IHEP, Beijing, April 22-26, 2013

OverviewOverview

• BESIII experiment

• Motivation

CLEOc and SND results

• Investigated processes

• Summary

2

3

Charmonium Physics D-Physics Light Hadron Spectroscopy -Physics ...

Physics program

The BESIII Experiment @ IHEPThe BESIII Experiment @ IHEP

BEijing Spectrometer III

e+e- collisions

S tuned depending on energy

D.M. Asner et al, Physics at BES-III, arXiv:0809.1869v1 [hep-ex] (2008)

4

Beam energy:1.0-2.3 GeV

Design Luminosity:1×1033 cm-2s-1

Achieved Luminosity: 6.5×1032 cm-2s-1 @ ψ(3770) Optimum energy:

1.89 GeV Energy spread:

5.16 ×10-4

No. of bunches:93

Bunch length:1.5 cm

Total current:0.91 A

Circumference:237m

e-e+

BEPCII Storage RingsBEPCII Storage Rings

Beijing Electron-Positron Collider II

5

MDC: small cell & He gasxy= 130 mp/p = 0.5% @1GeVdE/dx = 6%

EMC: CsI crystals, 28 cm E/E = 2.5% @1 GeV z = 0.6 cm/E

TOF: T = 80 ps Barrel 110 ps Endcap

Magnet: 1T Superconducting

Muon: 9 layer RPC

Trigger: Tracks & ShowersPipelined; Latency = 2.4 msData Acquisition: Event rate = 3 kHz Thruput ~ 50 MB/s

Zero Degree Detector (ISR)

BESIII DetectorBESIII Detector

J/J/ψψ Strong and Electromagnetic Decay Strong and Electromagnetic Decay AmplitudesAmplitudes

Resonant contributionsΓJ/ψ ~ 93KeV → pQCD

pQCD: all amplitudes almost real [1,2]

QCD -> Фp ~ 10° [1]

Non-resonant continuumpQCD regime

AEM

6[1] J. Bolz and P. Kroll, WU B 95-35.[2] S.J. Brodsky, G.P. Lepage, S.F. Tuan, Phys. Rev. Lett. 59, 621 (1987).

Strong → A3g

Electromagnetic → Aγ

Non-resonant Continuum → AEM

hadrons

hadrons

hadrons

J/J/ψψ Strong and Electromagnetic Decay Strong and Electromagnetic Decay AmplitudesAmplitudes

• If both real, they must interfere (Фp ~ 0°/180°)

• On the contrary Фp ~ 90° → No interference

J/ψ → NN (½+½-) Фp = 89° ± 15° [1]; 89° ± 9°[2]

J/ψ → VP (1-0-) Фp = 106° ± 10° [3]

J/ψ → PP (0-0-) Фp = 89.6° ± 9.9° [4]

J/ψ → VV (1-1-) Фp = 138° ± 37° [4]

• Results are model dependent

• Model independent test:interference with the non resonant continuum

[1] R. Baldini, C. Bini, E. Luppi, Phys. Lett. B404, 362 (1997); R. Baldini et al., Phys. Lett. B444, 111 (1998)[2] M. Ablikim et al., Phys. Rev. D 86, 032014 (2012).[3] L. Kopke and N. Wermes, Phys. Rep. 174, 67 (1989); J. Jousset et al., Phys. Rev. D41,1389 (1990).[4] M. Suzuki et al., Phys. Rev. D60, 051501 (1999).

7

8

J/J/ψψ Strong and Electromagnetic Decay AmplitudesStrong and Electromagnetic Decay Amplitudes

J/J/ψψ →→ NN NN

Favoured channel 3g match 3qq pairs

Without EM contribution p = n, due to isospin

EM contribution amplitudes have opposite sign, like magnetic moments

BRnn expected ~ ½ BRpp

But the BR are almost equal according to BESIII[1]:

BR(J/ψ → pp) = (2.112 ± 0.004 ± 0.027)•10-3

BR(J/ψ → nn) = (2.07 ± 0.01 ± 0.14)•10-3

Suggests 90° phase

[1] M. Ablikim et al., Phys. Rev. D 86, 032014 (2012).

A3g,A R<<1A3g A R 1

2

3

3

)/(

)/(p

g

ng

AA

AA

ppJBr

nnJBrR

9

Cross section for eCross section for e++ee---> -> ππ++ππ--ππ00

Interference of φ(1020) amplitudes @ SND experiment[1]

Shape indicates full interference path

phase ~ 180°

φ decay in agreement with PQCD

A3g and AEM are both real

[1] M.N. Achasov et al., PRD 63, 072002 (2001).

10

Phase Reconstruction @ CLEOcPhase Reconstruction @ CLEOc

φ

S. Dobbs et al., Phys. Rev. D 74, 011105 (2006).

11

Phase Reconstruction @ CLEOcPhase Reconstruction @ CLEOc

Evis = event energy

Charged π FF

S. Dobbs et al., Phys. Rev. D 74, 011105 (2006).

Was an Interference Already Seen?Was an Interference Already Seen?

e+e- → hadrons

e+e- → µ+µ-

e+e- → e+e-J.Z. Bai et al., Phys. Lett. B 355,

374-380 (1995)

Yes

without the strong contribution

12

Investigated ProcessesInvestigated Processes

Inclusive scenario: does not see anything

The phase is there, but the mean goes to 0

Interference |3| * fgf

Sum over all the final states ||3 ffg

Closure approximation 1|| ff

But orthogonal states0|3 g

If we sum over all the channels, the interference ≈ 013

Investigated ProcessesInvestigated Processes

Exclusive scenario: could see interference effects

• e+e+ -> J/ψ -> pp, nn NN

BR ~ 2.17x10-3 σcont~ 11 pb

• e+e- -> J/ψ -> ρπ VP

BR ~ 1.69% σcont~ 20 pb

• e+e- -> J/ψ -> 2(π+π-)π0

BR ~ 5.5% σcont~ 500 pb

14

15

Investigated ProcessesInvestigated Processes

Exclusive scenario: could see interference effects also on

• e+e- -> J/ψ -> π+π-

• e+e- -> J/ψ -> K+K-

• e+e- -> J/ψ -> K0K0

proposed and under study [1]

All the other channels for free

Even number of π: strong decay forbidden

-> interference must be

seen[1] H. Czyz, and J. Kühn, Phys. Rev. D80: 034035 (2009)

σcont~ 11 pb

21FF

S

10

1

W

Continuum Cross SectionContinuum Cross Section

16

σcont~ 500 pb

0

1

W

σcont~ 20 pb

6

1

W

pppppppp

ρπρπρπρπ

55ππ55ππ

V. Druzhinin et al., Rev. Mod. Phys. 83, 1545 (2011) ; B. Aubert et al., Phys. Rev. D73,012005 (2006)

Phase GeneratorPhase Generator

• Event generator

• Monte-Carlo method (100000 iterations)

• Cross section evaluation at each point

• Beam spread gaussian (0.93 MeV)

• Radiative correction (simple model to be optimized)

• Max radiation 300 MeV (~20% ECM)

• Cross section:2

3217

2

2/1012][

i

risris

i

outin eCiWW

eCC

W

cBBnb

17

Simulated Yields for eSimulated Yields for e++ee---> -> pppp

continuum referenceσ ~ 11 pb

beam energy spread + radiative corrections

(to be optimized)

no corrections beam energy spread(0.93 MeV)

Δφ = 0°

Δφ = 90°

Δφ = 180°

18

Simulated Yields for pp -> Simulated Yields for pp -> µµ++µµ--

continuum referenceσ ~ 18 pb

no corrections beam energy spread

Δφ = 0°

Δφ = 90°

Δφ = 180°

19

Phase SignPhase Sign

* red: Δφ = -90°

blue: Δφ = +90°Maximum differences at the 1% level

20

pppppppp

Energy Points ChoiceEnergy Points Choice

ρπρπ

55ππ

pppp

21

Maximum interference: 0°

Depends on the process

Energy Points ChoiceEnergy Points Choice

ρπρπ

55ππ

pppp

22

2 pts at low Wfix the continuumfix the slope

Maximum interference: 0°

Depends on the process

Energy Points ChoiceEnergy Points Choice

ρπρπ

55ππ

pppp

23

2 pts at low Wfix the continuumfix the slope

2 pts at deep positions

Maximum interference: 0°

Depends on the process

Energy Points ChoiceEnergy Points Choice

ρπρπ

55ππ

pppp

24

2 pts at low Wfix the continuumfix the slope

2 pts at deep positions

Maximum interference: 0°

Depends on the process

Energy Points ChoiceEnergy Points Choice

ρπρπ

55ππ

pppp

25

2 pts at low Wfix the continuumfix the slope

2 pts at deep positions 1 pt Beginning of the BW

Maximum interference: 0°

Depends on the process

Energy Points ChoiceEnergy Points Choice

What happens at 90°

Gradient calculation

The deep corresponds roughly to the maximum gradient

(σ90-σi)/σ90

i = 70i = 70

i = 100i = 100

i = 80i = 80

i = 110i = 110

26

i = i = 7070

i = 100i = 100

i = i = 8080

i = 110i = 110

pppppppp ρπρπρπρπ

Energy Points ChoiceEnergy Points Choice

3050 MeV

3060 MeV

3083 MeV

3090 MeV

3093 MeV

27

Luminosity HypothesisLuminosity Hypothesis

• 5 values of Luminosity: 8.6•1031, 1032, 2•1032,

5•1032, 1033 [cm-2s-1]

• Time: 1 day = 86400 s

• Injection efficiency = 0.8

• Reconstruction efficiencypp = 0.67ρπ = 0.385π = 0.20

• Rate = L•T•εinj•εrec • σ

Integrated Luminosity

Lint/day = L • T • εinj

6•1036, 6.9•1036,

1.4•1037, 3.5•1037,

6.9•1037 [cm-2]

28

Precision of the FitPrecision of the Fit

29

10°

90°

170°

Statistical error for:

pp circle

ρπ triangle

170°

• Lower sensitivity

(No 0°-90° and 90°-180° symmetry)

2 parameters:

φ and σcont

30

5 days Lint = 1.4x1037 [cm-2]

points: 3050,3060, 3083,3090, 3093

MeV

ℓ1 : ℓ1 : ℓ2 : ℓ2 : ℓ1

Fit resultsFit results

10°

90°

170°

Statistical error:

pp circle

ρπ triangle

Open points:

1:1:0.5:0.5:2

Very low sensitivity to Luminosity ratiosBest and simplest choice: 1:1:1:1:1

31

J/J/ψψ Scan Scan3 parameters:

φ, σcont and Bout

Points Par Inj. eff. Δφ [°] Δσ [pb] ΔBout

5 3 0.7 29.3 1.3 0.7•10-3

5 3 0.8 26.7 1.3 0.7•10-3

6 3 0.8 6.1 0.9 0.4•10-5

12 3 0.7 6.3 0.9 0.7•10-4

12 3 0.8 5.9 0.9 0.7•10-4

σcont = 11 pb Bout = 2.17•10-3

3 parameters: 3096.9 needed (1 point more with high

statistics)

Δφ = +90°pppppppp

32

J/J/ψψ Phase Phase

Energyrequested

[MeV]

Energycollected

[MeV]LLintint [pb [pb-1-1]]

3050 3046 14.0

3060 3056 14.0

3083 3086 16.5

3090 3085 14.0

3093 3088 14.0

3097 3097 79.6

33

J/J/ψψ Phase – Real Data Phase – Real Data

Ecm(GeV) 𝓛 (pb-1)3.0500 14.895±0.029

3.0600 15.056±0.030

3.0830 4.759±0.017

3.0856 17.507±0.032

3.0900 15.552±0.030

3.0930 15.249±0.030

3.0943 2.145±0.011

3.0952 1.819±0.010

Ecm(GeV) 𝓛 (pb-1)3.0958 2.161±0.011

3.0969 2.097±0.011

3.0982 2.210±0.011

3.0990 0.759±0.007

3.1015 1.164±0.010

3.1055 2.106±0.011

3.1120 1.719±0.010

3.1200 1.261±0.009

3.0969 79.6

B.X. Zhang, Luminosity measurement for J/psi phase and lineshape study.

34

ee++ee---> -> μμ++μμ-- Phase Phase ReconstructionReconstruction2 good charged tracks:

|Rxy|<1cm, |Rz|<10cm;|cos|<0.8.

No good neutral tracks in EMC:

0<T<14 (x50 ns)

E>25MeV (|cos|<0.8), E>50 MeV (0.86<|cos|<0.92)

,charged<10o.Vertex fit to impove the momentum resolution:

2vertex<100.

Veto e+e:

Each charged track has an energy deposit in EMC;

E/p<0.25.

Veto cosmic rays:

=|Tof(+)-Tof()|<0.5

Momentum window cut:

•|p±-pthe|<3

Leptonic decay

Contributions from Aγ and AEM

35

ee++ee---> 2(-> 2(ππ++ππ--) Phase ) Phase ReconstructionReconstruction

4 good charged tracks:

|Rxy|<1cm, |Rz|<10cm.

Vertex fit to improve the momentum resolution.

Veto bkg from -conversion

(2(e+e)):

All angles between and , 10o<+<170o.

Veto events which have multi-tracks:

Minimum angle between () pairs: ()>170o.

G-Parity

Contributions from Aγ and AEM

36

ee++ee---> 2(-> 2(ππ++ππ--))ππ00 Phase Phase ReconstructionReconstruction

4 good charged tracks:

|Rxy|<1cm, |Rz|<10cm.

At least 2 good neutral tracks in EMC:

0<T<14 (x50 ns);

E>25MeV (|cos|<0.8), E>50 MeV (0.86<|cos|<0.92)

,charged<10o.

PID for each charged track:

prob()>prob(K)

Vertex fit:

2vertex<100.

3-C kinematic fit:

Loop all photons, choose the combination with the minimum 2

3C(<200).

0 selection:

|M()-0.135|<0.02 GeV/c2

9.0|E-E|

|cos|0

21decay

0

p

）（

Multi-combination from intermediate processes

Contributions from Aγ and AEM

37

2 good charged tracks:

• |Rxy| < 1 cm, |Rz| < 10 cm;

• back-to-back tracks: 178° < θ < 180°;

• p < 2 GeV/c;

• |cos| < 0.92

Analysis in Barrel + End Cap.

ppbar Events Reconstructionppbar Events Reconstruction

M. Ablikim et al., Phys. Rev. D 86, 032014 (2012).

38

ISR Radiative CorrectionsISR Radiative Corrections

Comparison of different generators

•KKMC Phase Space

•KKMC 1 + cos2θ

•ConExc

•Babayaga

ISR on/off

Check at each energy point

Reconstruction Efficiency and Systematic Errors

SummarySummary

• J/ψ decay amplitude phase: 0° (theory) but 90°

(data)

• Energy points collected: 3046, 3056, 3086, 3085,

3088

• Statistical significance enough to discriminate between different theoretical predictions

• Precision of fit → Luminosity dependence

• Analysis is ongoing

Next StepsNext Steps

• Complete the presented analysis

• Analyze more final states

• More refined ISR evaluation

39