1 / 24

Summary of Heavy Flavour Session

This summary includes discussions on HQ and QCD tests, charmonium in ep and pp, open charm and beauty in ep, HQ and nucleon structure, charm and beauty structure functions, HQ in heavy ion collisions and pp, top quark measurements, and first steps at the LHC.

keason
Download Presentation

Summary of Heavy Flavour Session

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Summary of the Heavy Flavour Session Joined HFL+PDF Session Katerina Lipka (DESY) Deep Inelastic Scattering 2010 Florence

  2. Heavy Flavour Session • HQ and QCD tests: H1 + ZEUS + CDF • charmonium in ep and pp • open charm and beauty in ep • HQ and nucleon structure: H1+ZEUS, NOMAD • charm and beauty structure functions • Joined Session PDF+HF: HQ in PDF fits • SM tests via HQ in e+e- : BaBar+ Belle • HQ in heavy ion collisions and pp: STAR, PHENIX • Top Quark: CDF, D0 • Cross section, mass, other properties • First steps at the LHC: ALICE, ATLAS, CMS, LHCb

  3. Talks: M. Steder, A. Bertolin Charmonium: Inelastic J/ production in ep Test QCD: Color Singlet vs Color Octet: Cross section measurement vs pT(J/) and z=E/E s=320 GeV CSM NLO: describes shape, not normalization NRQCD (CO): Recovers normalization Fails to describe shape of elasticity z

  4. Talks: M. Steder, A. Bertolin Charmonium: J/ Polarization in ep Additional test of the production models Polarization parameters extracted using angular measurements Goal: look for evidence of CO terms at HERA Various predictions show different deficits to describe the data Final conclusion needs higher order calculations

  5. T.Kuhr Upsilon polarization in pp J/ polarization not described by NRQCD! mc too low? transverse NRQCD longitudinal Trend to longitudinal polarization observed CDF disagrees with D0 Data disagree with NRQCD

  6. Z. Staykova, V. Aushev, M. Lysovy, P. Thompson, M. Brinkmann, P. Roloff Open charm, beauty at HERA Factorization: (HQ) = proton structure  hard ME • c, b (+ jets) in DIS and p: powerful test of pQCD • Structure functions F2c, F2b : direct test of g(x) c-, b- tagging methods: reconstruction of charmed mesons, vertex information different methods have orthogonal uncertainties

  7. Z. Staykova, V. Aushev, M. Lysovy, P. Thompson, M. Brinkmann, P. Roloff Open charm, beauty at HERA c, b (+ jets) in DIS and p: powerful test of pQCD Beauty production: Massive NLO pQCD describes the data reasonably well b in p

  8. Z. Staykova, V. Aushev, M. Lysovy, P. Thompson, M. Brinkmann, P. Roloff Open charm, beauty at HERA c, b (+ jets) in DIS and p: powerful test of pQCD Charm production: Above production threshold (pT>1.5 GeV) Massive NLO pQCD describes the data reasonably well At threshold! NLO underestimates data below the threshold

  9. K.Daum, M. Lysovy, P. Thompson, M. Brinkmann, P. Roloff Open charm, beauty at HERA Structure functions F2c, F2b : direct test of g(x) compare to NC~F2 Combined F2c: systematic correlations accounted for <F2c> ~ 10% Compared to HERAPDF1.0: Band: 1.35<mc<1.65

  10. A. Cooper-Sarkar HERAPDF1.0 vs HERA F2c : charm mass HERA PDF: additional uncertainty due to variation of 1.4 < mc< 1.65 GeV The choice of the mc influences -the gluon PDF, -most visible in charm PDF, -consequences for light quarks

  11. A. Cooper-Sarkar What does it mean for LHC choice of mc=1.65 raises W/Z cross-section predictions at the LHC by ~3% LHC@10 TeV More significant than other PDF uncertainties (exp.model, param.) Larger mc→ more gluons, less charm → more light quarks → larger σW Does matter for the Luminosity measurement @ LHC !

  12. A. Cooper-Sarkar PDF Fits using HERA F2c data usual cuts on data Q2 > 3.5 GeV2,formalism as for HERAPDF1.0 two values of charm mass mc=1.4 GeV and mc=1.65 GeV compared PDF Fit to charm data prefer mc=1.65 GeV

  13. R. Thorne, A. Cooper-Sarkar PDF Fits using HERA F2c data: test scheme MSTW prescription for HF treatment Test optimal MSTW standard optimal Q2 Smoother gluon: smaller F2c compensate by smaller mc: obvious effect Do we learn something? HQ treatment is crucial for PDF fits Use charm data to test different schemes @ fixed mc

  14. R. Petti Heavy quark production in N (NOMAD) (E 6 GeV) • Largest charm di- data sample close to charm threshold • most precise measurement σμμ/σCC Statistic uncertainty 3 - 6%, Systematic uncertainty 2%

  15. R. Petti Heavy quark production in N (NOMAD) (E 6 GeV) • Largest charm di- data sample close to charm threshold • most precise measurement σμμ/σCC • sensitivity to strange seeat high x NOMAD di- data in global PDF fits improves the accuracy of the strange sea and of the charm quark mass by a factor 2

  16. Youngjoon Kwon, D. Milanes Heavy Quarks in e+e- : test SM • BaBar, Belle: • D-Measurements: • Decay constant fDs: overlap between wave function of light and heavy quarks • BaBar: new measurement closer to Lattice QCD prediction • Charm mixing and CP in D0, D0 : BaBar: mixing parameters closer to SM • BaBar, Belle: many channels investigated, no evidence for CP violation in D-channel • No signal for T-violation in D0K+K-+- • B-Measurements: • BV+V polarization: longitudinal polarization fraction is not understood • disagreement between BaBar and Belle persists • first observation of 4-body charmless baryonic B decays

  17. Wei Xie, G. Odyniec, A. Sickles Heavy Quarks in heavy ion collisions Test collinear factorization Suppression or enhancement: study of quark-gluon plasma • STAR and PHENIX NPE result in 200GeV p+p collisionsconsistent • FONLL describes data well

  18. G. Compostella, S. Chevalier-Thery, Sung Park, J. Adelman G. Petrillo The heaviest quark: Top cross section Top at TEVATRON: all hadronic 46% Semi-leptonic 15% dileptons • Cross-section measurements: • Test NLO QCD calculations • Allow the extraction of top pole mass • Sample validation for other top properties measurements • Background for Higgs / SUSY search

  19. G. Compostella, S. Chevalier-Thery, Sung Park, J. Adelman G. Petrillo Top cross section Different channels are combined, systematic correlations taken into account Error systematic dominated, experimental uncertainty ~ model uncertainty

  20. G. Compostella, S. Chevalier-Thery, Sung Park, J. Adelman G. Petrillo Top pole mass tt prediction depends on mt: Measured cross section compared to (approximate) NNLO calculations: Pole top mass can be extracted D0 ”direct” (3.6 fb-1): mt=174.20.91.5 GeV

  21. G. Compostella, S. Chevalier-Thery, Sung Park, J. Adelman G. Petrillo Other top quark properties

  22. E. Polycarpo Macedo On the way to HQ at the LHC First D-mesons at LHCb with L=110 b-1 Charmonium @ L=160 b-1

  23. J. N. Donini, A. Rossi, R. Covarelli, T. Matsushita On the way to HQ at the LHC ALICE, ATLAS, CMS: K0s • Rich physics programm • First understand the detector 900 GeV DATA

  24. Thanks to all speakers! Those who made it to come Those who participated via EVO Those who agreed to spontaneously feature the talks only 1 cancelled experimental talk but many experts missing

More Related