pdgLive Home   >   ${\mathit {\mathit b}}$ ${\mathit {\overline{\mathit b}}}$ MESONS (including possibly non-${\mathit {\mathit q}}$ ${\mathit {\overline{\mathit q}}}$ states)   >   ${{\mathit \Upsilon}{(10860)}}$   >   ${{\mathit \Upsilon}{(10860)}}$ MASS

${{\mathit \Upsilon}{(10860)}}$ MASS

INSPIRE   JSON  (beta) PDGID:

M092M

VALUE (MeV) DOCUMENT ID TECN  COMMENT $\bf{ 10885.2 {}^{+2.6}_{-1.6}}$ OUR AVERAGE $10885.3$ $\pm1.5$ ${}^{+2.2}_{-0.9}$ 1 MIZUK 2019 BELL ${{\mathit e}^{+}}$ ${{\mathit e}^{-}}$ $\rightarrow$ ${{\mathit \Upsilon}{(nS)}}{{\mathit \pi}^{+}}{{\mathit \pi}^{-}}$ $10884.7$ ${}^{+3.6}_{-3.4}$ ${}^{+8.9}_{-1.0}$ 2 MIZUK 2016 BELL ${{\mathit e}^{+}}$ ${{\mathit e}^{-}}$ $\rightarrow$ ${{\mathit h}_{{{b}}}{(1P,2P)}}{{\mathit \pi}^{+}}{{\mathit \pi}^{-}}$ • • We do not use the following data for averages, fits, limits, etc. • • $10882$ $\pm1$ 3 DONG 2020 A ${{\mathit e}^{+}}$ ${{\mathit e}^{-}}$ $\rightarrow$ ${{\mathit b}}{{\overline{\mathit b}}}$ $10881.8$ ${}^{+1.0}_{-1.1}$ $\pm1.2$ 4, 5 SANTEL 2016 BELL ${{\mathit e}^{+}}$ ${{\mathit e}^{-}}$ $\rightarrow$ hadrons $10891.1$ $\pm3.2$ ${}^{+1.2}_{-2.0}$ 6, 7 SANTEL 2016 BELL ${{\mathit e}^{+}}$ ${{\mathit e}^{-}}$ $\rightarrow$ ${{\mathit \Upsilon}{(1S,2S,3S)}}{{\mathit \pi}^{+}}{{\mathit \pi}^{-}}$ $10879$ $\pm3$ 8, 9 CHEN 2010 BELL ${{\mathit e}^{+}}$ ${{\mathit e}^{-}}$ $\rightarrow$ hadrons $10888.4$ ${}^{+2.7}_{-2.6}$ $\pm1.2$ 10 CHEN 2010 BELL ${{\mathit e}^{+}}$ ${{\mathit e}^{-}}$ $\rightarrow$ ${{\mathit \Upsilon}{(1S,2S,3S)}}{{\mathit \pi}^{+}}{{\mathit \pi}^{-}}$ $10876$ $\pm2$ 8 AUBERT 2009 E BABR ${{\mathit e}^{+}}$ ${{\mathit e}^{-}}$ $\rightarrow$ hadrons $10869$ $\pm2$ 11 AUBERT 2009 E BABR ${{\mathit e}^{+}}$ ${{\mathit e}^{-}}$ $\rightarrow$ hadrons $10868$ $\pm6$ $\pm5$ 12 BESSON 1985 CLEO ${{\mathit e}^{+}}$ ${{\mathit e}^{-}}$ $\rightarrow$ hadrons $10845$ $\pm20$ 13 LOVELOCK 1985 CUSB ${{\mathit e}^{+}}$ ${{\mathit e}^{-}}$ $\rightarrow$ hadrons 1  From a simultaneous fit to the ${{\mathit \Upsilon}{(nS)}}{{\mathit \pi}^{+}}{{\mathit \pi}^{-}}$, $\mathit n$ = 1, 2, 3, cross sections at 28 energy points within $\sqrt {s }$ = $10.6 - 11.05$ GeV, including the initial-state radiation at ${{\mathit \Upsilon}{(10860)}}$. 2  From a simultaneous fit to the ${{\mathit h}_{{{b}}}{(nP)}}{{\mathit \pi}^{+}}{{\mathit \pi}^{-}}$, $\mathit n$ = 1, 2 cross sections at 22 energy points within $\sqrt {s }$ = $10.77 - 11.02$ GeV to a pair of interfering Breit-Wigner amplitudes modified by phase space factors, with eight resonance parameters (a mass and width for each of ${{\mathit \Upsilon}{(10860)}}$ and ${{\mathit \Upsilon}{(11020)}}$, a single relative phase, a single relative amplitude, and two overall normalization factors, one for each $\mathit n$). The systematic error estimate is dominated by possible interference with a small nonresonant continuum amplitude. 3  From a fit to the dressed cross sections of AUBERT 2009E by BaBar and SANTEL 2016 by Belle above 10.68 GeV with a coherent sum of a continuum amplitude and three Breit-Wigner functions with constant widths. 4  From a fit to the total hadronic cross sections measured at 60 energy points within $\sqrt {s }$ = $10.82 - 11.05$ GeV to a pair of interfering Breit-Wigner amplitudes and two floating continuum amplitudes with 1/$\sqrt {s }$ dependence, one coherent with the resonances and one incoherent, with six resonance parameters (a mass, width, and an amplitude for each of ${{\mathit \Upsilon}{(10860)}}$ and ${{\mathit \Upsilon}{(11020)}}$, one relative phase, and one decoherence coefficient). 5  Not including uncertain and potentially large systematic errors due to assumed continuum amplitude 1/$\sqrt {s }$ dependence and related interference contributions. 6  From a simultaneous fit to the ${{\mathit \Upsilon}{(nS)}}{{\mathit \pi}^{+}}{{\mathit \pi}^{-}}$, $\mathit n$ = 1, 2, 3, cross sections at 25energy points within $\sqrt {s }$ = $10.6 - 11.05$ GeV to a pair of interfering Breit-Wigner amplitudesmodified by phase space factors, with fourteen resonance parameters (a mass, width, and threeamplitudes for each of ${{\mathit \Upsilon}{(10860)}}$ and ${{\mathit \Upsilon}{(11020)}}$, a single universal relativephase, and three decoherence coefficients, one for each $\mathit n$). Continuum contributions weremeasured (and therefore fixed) to be zero. 7  Superseded by MIZUK 2019. 8  In a model where a flat non-resonant ${{\mathit b}}{{\overline{\mathit b}}}$-continuum is incoherently added to a second flat component interfering with two Breit-Wigner resonances. Systematic uncertainties not estimated. 9  The parameters of the ${{\mathit \Upsilon}{(11020)}}$ are fixed to those in AUBERT 2009E. 10  In a model where a flat nonresonant ${{\mathit \Upsilon}{(1S,2S,3S)}}{{\mathit \pi}^{+}}{{\mathit \pi}^{-}}$ continuum interferes with a single Breit-Wigner resonance. 11  In a model where a non-resonant ${{\mathit b}}{{\overline{\mathit b}}}$-continuum represented by a threshold function at $\sqrt {s }=2{\mathit m}_{{{\mathit B}}}$ is incoherently added to a flat component interfering with two Breit-Wigner resonances. Not independent of other AUBERT 2009E results. Systematic uncertainties not estimated. 12  Assuming four Gaussians with radiative tails and a single step in $\mathit R$. 13  In a coupled-channel model with three resonances and a smooth step in $\mathit R$.

References