Pion Two Body Decay Simulation: Efficiency and Impurity Analysis

  • Thread starter Thread starter spaghetti3451
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Simulation
spaghetti3451
Messages
1,311
Reaction score
31
Hi I had to write a program to simulate the pion branching fraction in a pion two body decay.

To begin with, the pion decays either to a positron or to a muon which again decays to a positron.

So, the pion beam hits a target and decays at rest to positrons. Then the positrons fly off in random directions. I have written a piece of code that randomises the direction of the momentum of the positrons.

The positrons then hit a spherical shell (the detector) which extends in theta from 40 degrees to 140 degrees and in phi from -pi to pi.

I have been told that in a real experiment, there is no way to know if the pion decayed originally to a muon or a positron except from the measured positron energy, but that in this simulation, we can “cheat” and see how well we would be able to do in the real experiment.

So, I had to choose ranges of the measured energy that selected relatively pure samples of the two different sources of positrons.

Then I had to find the efficiencies for selecting each type of decay(what fractions of events of the correct type are selected).

Then I had to assume that the pion decays to equal numbers of muons and positrons and find the impurity of my selections (how many of the decays ascribed to each type are not actually
correct).

I don't understand why I have done the above.

Also, there is this extra question:

The actual decay rate of the pion to a positron is approximately only 10^−4 of the rate to the muon; what extra difficulties would this cause?

Any hep would ve greatly appreciated.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
spaghetti3451 said:
Then I had to assume that the pion decays to equal numbers of muons and positrons and find the impurity of my selections (how many of the decays ascribed to each type are not actually
correct).
Use a pure sample of decays to muons, get the fraction that is misreconstructed as positron decays.
Use a pure sample of decays to positrons, get the fraction that is misreconstructed as muon decays.

Based on that you can get the purity of each selection (in data) for every possible ratio of branching fractions. For 1:1 you'll see that you get a nice separation in both cases, but with 10-4 the same approach will make a mess out of the positron selection: It is possible that you now have more muon decays than positron decays in it!
 
Toponium is a hadron which is the bound state of a valance top quark and a valance antitop quark. Oversimplified presentations often state that top quarks don't form hadrons, because they decay to bottom quarks extremely rapidly after they are created, leaving no time to form a hadron. And, the vast majority of the time, this is true. But, the lifetime of a top quark is only an average lifetime. Sometimes it decays faster and sometimes it decays slower. In the highly improbable case that...
I'm following this paper by Kitaev on SL(2,R) representations and I'm having a problem in the normalization of the continuous eigenfunctions (eqs. (67)-(70)), which satisfy \langle f_s | f_{s'} \rangle = \int_{0}^{1} \frac{2}{(1-u)^2} f_s(u)^* f_{s'}(u) \, du. \tag{67} The singular contribution of the integral arises at the endpoint u=1 of the integral, and in the limit u \to 1, the function f_s(u) takes on the form f_s(u) \approx a_s (1-u)^{1/2 + i s} + a_s^* (1-u)^{1/2 - i s}. \tag{70}...

Similar threads

Back
Top