Antiproton stopping inH2andH2O

Abstract

Stopping powers of antiprotons in H2 and H2O targets are calculated using a semiclassical timedependent convergent close-coupling method. In our approach the H2 target is treated using a twocenter molecular multiconfiguration approximation, which fully accounts for the electron-electron correlation. Double ionization and dissociative ionization channels are taken into account using an independent-event model. The vibrational excitation and nuclear scattering contributions are also included. The H2O target is treated using a neonization method proposed by Montanari and Miraglia [J. Phys. B 47 015201 (2014)], whereby the ten-electron water molecule is described as a dressed Ne-like atom in a pseudo-spherical potential. Despite being the most comprehensive approach to date, the results obtained for H2 only qualitatively agree with the available experimental measurements.

Semileptonic decays and |Vxb| determinations

“…It yields η EW |V cb | = (41.10 ± 1.14) × 10 −3 which translates into [26] |V cb | = (40.83 ± 1.13) × 10 −3 (13) assuming once again η EW ≃ 1.0066. The latest lattice results, as well as [23,24], Belle [26] and Babar [25] data, have been used in a global fit in the BGL parametrization which gives, in agreement with previous results [9] |V cb | = (40.49 ± 0.97) × 10 −3 (14) In [9] differences on BGL, CLN, and BCL parameterizations are discussed.…”

“…For B → D ℓ ν decay, the FNAL/MILCcollaboration has calculated in 2015 the form factors in the unquenched lattice-QCD approximation [23] for a range of recoil momenta. By parameterizing their dependence on momentum transfer using the BGL z-expansion, they determine |V cb | from the relative normalization over the entire range of recoil momenta, which reads [23] |V cb | = (39.6 ± 1.7 exp+QCD ± 0.2 QED ) x 10 −3…”

“…In 2015 the decay B → D ℓ ν has also been measured in fully reconstructed events by the Belle collaboration [26], They have performed a fit to the CLN parametrization, which has two free parameters, the form factor at zero recoil G(1) and the linear slope ρ 2 . The fit has been used to determine η EW G(1)|V cb |, that, divided by the form-factor normalization G(1) found by the FNAL/MILC Collaboration [23], gives η EW |V cb | = (40.12 ± 1.34) × 10 −3 [26]. Assuming η EW ≃ 1.0066, it translates into [26] |V cb | = (39.86 ± 1.33) × 10 −3…”

$B_s\to D^{(*)}_s l\nu$ form factors using heavy HISQ quarks

“…For example there are persistent discrepancies between experimentally observed values and SM predictions for the ratios R(D ( * ) ) = B(B → D ( * ) τ −ν τ )/B(B → D ( * ) l −ν l ) (l = e or µ) [1]. Previous calculations have determined B → D ( * ) form factors [2,3,4,5] along with B s → D ( * ) s form factors [2,6]. B (s) → D * (s) results have all been limited to the zero recoil point.…”

Measuring CP violation in b→cτ−ν¯τ using excited charm

“…SM predictions have been calculated in Refs. [9][10][11][12][13] (for consistency, we follow the predictions considered in Ref. [8]), R SM (D) = 0.299 ± 0.011 [9] , R SM (D) = 0.300 ± 0.008 [10] ,…”