A fresh look at eta2(1645), eta2(1870), eta2(2030) and f2(1910) in pbar-p -> eta + 3pizero

A.V. Anisovich; A.V. Sarantsev; C.J. Batty; D.V. Bugg; V.A. Nikonov

REVIEW

A fresh look at eta2(1645), eta2(1870), eta2(2030) and f2(1910) in pbar-p -> eta + 3pizero

Not yet reviewed by Pith; the record is open.

Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗

This paper has not been read by Pith yet. Machine review is queued; the pith claim, tier, and objections will appear here once it completes.

SPECIMEN: schema-true, not a live event

T0 review · schema-true

One-sentence machine reading of the paper's core claim.

pith:XXXXXXXX · record.json · timestamp

arxiv 1009.1781 v2 pith:KJTD74VA submitted 2010-09-09 hep-ex hep-ph

A.V. Anisovich , C.J. Batty , D.V. Bugg , V.A. Nikonov , A.V. Sarantsev This is my paper

classification hep-exhep-ph

keywords eta2wa102barrelbranchingconfirmscrystaldatadiscrepancy

verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

0 comments

read the original abstract

There is a large discrepancy between results of Crystal Barrel and WA102 for the branching ratio R = BR[eta2(1870)->a2(1320)pi]/ BR[eta2(1870)->f2(1270)eta]. An extensive re-analysis of the Crystal Barrel data redetermines branching ratios for decays of eta2(1870), eta2(1645), eta2(2030) and f2(1910). This re-analysis confirms a small value for R of 1.60+-0.39, inconsistent with the value 32.6+-12.6 of WA102. The likely origin of the discrepancy is that the WA102 data contain a strong f2(1910)->a2-pi signal as well as eta2(1870). There is strong evidence that the eta2(1870) has resonant phase variation. A peak in f2(1270)a0(980) confirms closely the parameters of the a2(2255) resonance observed previously. A peak in eta2(2030)-pi is interpreted naturally in terms of pi2(2245) with reduced errors for mass and width M=2285+-20(stat)+-25(syst) MeV, Gamma=250+-20(stat)+-25(syst) MeV.

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Pith tools