4.7 Article

Λb → pl-(v)over-barl form factors from lattice QCD with static b quarks

Journal

PHYSICAL REVIEW D
Volume 88, Issue 1, Pages -

Publisher

AMER PHYSICAL SOC
DOI: 10.1103/PhysRevD.88.014512

Keywords

-

Funding

  1. U.S. Department of Energy [DE-FG02-94ER40818, DE-AC02-05CH11231]
  2. U.S. Department of Energy Outstanding Junior Investigator Award [DE-SC000-1784]
  3. Taiwanese NSC [99-2112-M-009-004-MY3]
  4. STFC
  5. National Science Foundation at NERSC [OCI-1053575]
  6. STFC [ST/G000581/1, PP/E006957/1, ST/J000434/1] Funding Source: UKRI
  7. Science and Technology Facilities Council [PP/E006957/1, ST/G000581/1, ST/J000434/1] Funding Source: researchfish

Ask authors/readers for more resources

We present a lattice QCD calculation of form factors for the decay Lambda(b) -> p mu(-)(v) over bar (mu), which is a promising channel for determining the Cabibbo- Kobayashi-Maskawa matrix element vertical bar V-ub vertical bar at the Large Hadron Collider. In this initial study we work in the limit of static b quarks, where the number of independent form factors reduces to two. We use dynamical domain-wall fermions for the light quarks, and perform the calculation at two different lattice spacings and at multiple values of the light-quark masses in a single large volume. Using our form factor results, we calculate the Lambda(b) -> p mu-(v) over bar (mu) differential decay rate in the range 14 GeV2 <= q(2) <= q(max)(2), and obtain the integral integral(q2max)(14 GeV2) [d Gamma/dq(2)]dq(2)/vertical bar V-ub vertical bar(2) = 15.3 +/- 4.2 ps(-1). Combined with future experimental data, this will give a novel determination of vertical bar V-ub vertical bar with about 15% theoretical uncertainty. The uncertainty is dominated by the use of the static approximation for the b quark, and can be reduced further by performing the lattice calculation with a more sophisticated heavy-quark action.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available