VUB-RECOIL Archives

Vub measurement using recoil of fully reconstructed Bs

VUB-RECOIL@LISTSERV.SLAC.STANFORD.EDU

Options: Use Forum View

Use Monospaced Font
Show Text Part by Default
Show All Mail Headers

Message: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Topic: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Author: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]

Print Reply
Subject:
From:
Alessio Sarti <[log in to unmask]>
Date:
09 Jan 2003 07:05:09 -0800 (PST)Thu, 09 Jan 2003 07:05:09 -0800 (PST)
Content-Type:
TEXT/PLAIN
Parts/Attachments:
TEXT/PLAIN (38 lines)
 > 4)  Table 9:  what is the reason for the large contributions of K+- for
 B+-  ??
 >

Hi all,
I've spent a bit of time trying to understand the reasons for such
behaviour. I've obtained the 'inclusive' breakdown for the various
categories and they still show the big disagreement. I've also removed the
analysis cuts and redone the study and the discrepancy is still there.
So I've tried to look (with Ric's help :)..) once again at the physical
arguments that are supporting such behaviour (excess of B+ -> K+).
>From the PDG we got:

Gamma           D+/-        D0

tot           0.946ps-1   2.41ps-1
semilep       0.168ps-1   0.163ps-1
K0            0.57ps-1    1.01ps-1
K+/-          0.29ps-1    1.35ps-1

Given that B+ -> mostly in D0 while B0 -> mostly in D+/- I think that
we've found the source of what we see (B+ -> K+ >3 times higher than B0
-> K+). The relation btw the different BR for D0 and D+ in K+ and K0 can
be found 'counting' the quarks involved in D decays and pointing out that
D0 and D+ decays in K+ differs also for a colour factor (D+->K+ being
suppressed).

That might be the reason of the results obtained/showed in table 9.
Adding a small comment in the BAD clarifying that can help the reader
understanding the numbers quoted:
I'll add it if there are no other doubt/questions remaining on that issue.

Commenst are welcomed.
Cheers,
Alessio



ATOM RSS1 RSS2