A Strategies for kinematics of a four-body decay?

  • A
  • Thread starter Thread starter Hepth
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Decay Kinematics
Hepth
Science Advisor
Gold Member
Messages
457
Reaction score
40
Does anyone have suggestions on the strategies for a four-body decay's kinematics? I'm just wondering what is out there. Last time I had to calculate something I just did it straightforward, but I know there must be other methods. (Like preferring to work in energies over invariants). I usually base it off of

preprint : http://ccdb5fs.kek.jp/cgi-bin/img/allpdf?198311072

But are there new strategies? Say for a four-lepton final state.

Thanks

edit: I should also add, that if you prefer analytic solutions there must be preferred methods. Numerically it probably doesn't matter due to the cuts being easy to implement.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Physics news on Phys.org
Strategies for what?

Experimentally, I think most analyses look at the invariant masses of 2 or sometimes 3 particles, especially if you expect resonances. There are 5 degrees of freedom in the decay, at least if we can ignore or do not know the initial spin of the decaying particle.
 
So assume a decaying pseudoscalar to 4 leptons (or neutrinos), and you want to calculate the partial width. I have calculated this before, and basically you get integrable divergences when you try to integrate (due to the denominator's energies) that can be removed by changes of coordinates of the invariants. This is seen in the preprint I posted, but the same paper is here if you have access http://journals.aps.org/prd/abstract/10.1103/PhysRevD.29.2027

On page 29, the replacements (3.6) are needed to be able to easily do the integral, this is because the denominator is divergent at the integration boundaries.

I guess I'm asking if there are any guides like the PDG's Kinematics, on different situations (2 massive, 2 massless; 4 massive; 4 massless; 2 resonances decaying; 0 resonances) etc. Each case has a scheme of invariants that are beneficial for the analytic integration, and problems that occur, mainly due to the boundaries.

When doing loop integrals there are a lot of guides for controlling your infrared and collinear divergences by looking at the matrices of coefficients of the feynman parameters, and doing certain situations differently. I was looking for something similar for kinematics.

Thank you.
 
No idea about the theoretical side, sorry.
 
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}...
Back
Top