4.7 Article

Bc → Bs(d) form factors from lattice QCD

期刊

PHYSICAL REVIEW D
卷 102, 期 1, 页码 -

出版社

AMER PHYSICAL SOC
DOI: 10.1103/PhysRevD.102.014513

关键词

-

资金

  1. MILC Collaboration [MILC-7.7.11]
  2. BEIS capital funding via STFC capital Grants [ST/P002307/1, ST/R002452/1]
  3. STFC [ST/P000681/1, ST/P000746/1, ST/R00689X/1]
  4. STFC [ST/P000681/1, ST/L000636/1, ST/T001348/1, ST/P003400/1, ST/V002376/1, ST/S003916/1, ST/S003762/1, ST/M007006/1, ST/M007065/1, ST/T001372/1, ST/R00689X/1, ST/K00333X/1, ST/R000832/1, ST/P000746/1, ST/T00049X/1, ST/M007618/1, ST/R001049/1, ST/J005673/1, ST/P000673/1, ST/P002307/1, ST/R002452/1, ST/P002447/1, ST/M006530/1, ST/R001006/1] Funding Source: UKRI

向作者/读者索取更多资源

We present results of the first lattice QCD calculations of B-c -> B-s and B-c -> B-d weak matrix elements. Form factors across the entire physical q(2) range are then extracted and extrapolated to the physical-continuum limit before combining with Cabbibo-Kobayashi-Maskawa (CKM) matrix elements to predict the semileptonic decay rates Gamma(B-c(+) -> B-s(0)(l) over bar nu(l)) = 52.4(2.5) x 10(9) s(-1) and Gamma(B-c(+) -> B-s(0)(l) over bar nu(l)) = 3.10(21) x 10(9) s(-1). The lattice QCD uncertainty is comparable to the CKM uncertainty here. Results are derived from correlation functions computed on MILC Collaboration gauge configurations with a range of lattice spacings including 2 + 1 + 1 flavors of dynamical sea quarks in the highly improved staggered quark (HISQ) formalism. HISQ is also used for the propagators of the valence light, strange, and charm quarks. Two different formalisms are employed for the bottom quark: nonrelativistic QCD (NRQCD) and heavy-HISQ. Checking agreement between these two approaches is an important test of our strategies for heavy quarks on the lattice. From chained fits of NRQCD and heavy-HISQ data, we obtain the differential decay rates d Gamma/d(q)(2) as well as integrated values for comparison to future experimental results.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据