Semileptonic B decays into even parity charmed mesons

Vito, M. De; Santorelli, Pietro

doi:10.1140/epjc/s10052-006-0045-1

Cited by 5 publications

(3 citation statements)

References 53 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…In the B semi-leptonic decays, there is a long-lived puzzle, which is the '1/2 vs 3/2' puzzle [1][2][3][4][5][6]. That is, theoretical calculations predict that semi-leptonic B decays should have a substantially smaller rate to the 1 1,2 ν ) and inspires a lot of research interests [7][8][9][10][11][12]. Many efforts have been made to overcome this difficulty [13][14][15][16][17], and part of the theoretical-experimental differences, for example, the B → D 0 ν decay could be improved a e-mail: wgl@hbu.edu.cn (corresponding author) by adding relativistic corrections [18,19], while the puzzle regarding the two 1 + states D 1 and D 1 remains to this day.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

The solution to the ‘1/2 vs 3/2’ puzzle

Wang

et al. 2022

Eur. Phys. J. C

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Using an almost complete relativistic method based on the Bethe–Salpeter equation, we study the mixing angle $$\theta $$ θ , the mass splitting $$\bigtriangleup M$$ △ M , the strong decay widths $$\Gamma (D^{({\prime })}_1)$$ Γ ( D 1 ( ′ ) ) and the weak production rates $$Br(B\rightarrow D^{({\prime })}_1\ell \nu _{\ell })$$ B r ( B → D 1 ( ′ ) ℓ ν ℓ ) of the $$D_1(2420)$$ D 1 ( 2420 ) and $$D_1^{\prime }(2430)$$ D 1 ′ ( 2430 ) . We find there is the strong cancellation between the $$^1P_1$$ 1 P 1 and $$^3P_1$$ 3 P 1 partial waves in $$D_1^{\prime }(2430)$$ D 1 ′ ( 2430 ) with $$\theta \sim -\,35.3^{\circ }$$ θ ∼ - 35 . 3 ∘ , which leads to the ‘1/2 vs 3/2’ puzzle. The puzzle can not be overcome by adding only relativistic corrections since in a large parameter range where $$\bigtriangleup M$$ △ M is linear varying and not small, the $$\theta $$ θ , $$\Gamma (D^{({\prime })}_1)$$ Γ ( D 1 ( ′ ) ) and $$Br(B\rightarrow D^{({\prime })}_1\ell \nu _{\ell })$$ B r ( B → D 1 ( ′ ) ℓ ν ℓ ) remain almost unchanged but conflict with data. While in a special range around the mass inverse point where $$\bigtriangleup M=0$$ △ M = 0 and $$\theta =\pm \, 90^{\circ }$$ θ = ± 90 ∘ , they change rapidly but we find the windows where $$\bigtriangleup M$$ △ M , $$\Gamma (D^{({\prime })}_1)$$ Γ ( D 1 ( ′ ) ) and $$Br(B\rightarrow D^{({\prime })}_1\ell \nu _{\ell })$$ B r ( B → D 1 ( ′ ) ℓ ν ℓ ) are all consistent with data. The small $$\bigtriangleup M$$ △ M confirmed by experiment, is crucial to solve the ‘1/2 vs 3/2’ puzzle.

show abstract

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

The solution to the ‘1/2 vs 3/2’ puzzle

Wang

et al. 2022

Eur. Phys. J. C

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…In the B semi-leptonic decays, there is a long-lived puzzle, which is the '1/2 vs 3/2' puzzle [1][2][3][4][5][6]. That is, theoretical calculations predict that semi-leptonic B decays should have a substantially smaller rate to the 1,2 ℓν ℓ ) and inspires a lot of research interests [7][8][9][10][11][12]. Many efforts have been made to overcome this difficulty [13][14][15][16][17], and part of the theoreticalexperimental differences, for example, the B → D 0 ℓν ℓ decay could be improved by adding relativistic corrections [18,19], while the puzzle regarding the two 1 + states D 1 and D ′ 1 remains to this day.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

The solution to the `$1/2$ vs $3/2$' puzzle

Wang¹,

Li²,

Wang³

et al. 2022

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Using an almost complete relativistic method based on the Bethe-Salpeter equation, we study the mixing angle θ, the mass splitting △M , the strong decay widths Γ(D (′) 1 ) and the weak production rates Br(B → D (′) 1 ℓν ℓ ) of the D 1 (2420) and D ′ 1 (2430). We find there is the strong cancellation between the 1 P 1 and 3 P 1 partial waves in D ′ 1 (2430) with θ ∼ −35.3 • , which leads to the '1/2 vs 3/2' puzzle. The puzzle can not be overcome by adding only relativistic corrections since in a large parameter range where △M is linear varying and not small, the θ, Γ(D (′) 1 ) and Br(B → D (′) 1 ℓν ℓ ) remain almost unchanged but conflict with data. While in a special range around the mass inverse point where △M = 0 and θ = ±90 • , they change rapidly but we find the windows where △M , Γ(D (′) 1 ) and Br(B → D (′) 1 ℓν ℓ ) are all consistent with data. The small △M confirmed by experiment, is crucial to solve the '1/2 vs 3/2' puzzle.

show abstract

“…Employing constituent quark model or the light-cone sum rules to evaluate the B → D * 0 transition form factors, the decays of B → D * 0 lν have been studied in Refs. [30,31]. With the help of a chiral unitarity model, the ratio between the decay widths of B0 s → D * + s0 (2317)lν l and B0 → D * + 0 lν l was calculated in [32].…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Resonant state $D_0^\ast(2400)$ in the quasi-two-body $B$ meson decays

Wang

2018

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Semileptonic B decays into even parity charmed mesons

Cited by 5 publications

References 53 publications

The solution to the ‘1/2 vs 3/2’ puzzle

The solution to the ‘1/2 vs 3/2’ puzzle

The solution to the `$1/2$ vs $3/2$' puzzle

Resonant state $D_0^\ast(2400)$ in the quasi-two-body $B$ meson decays

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About