${{\mathit f}_{{{4}}}{(2050)}}$ WIDTH

INSPIRE   PDGID:
M016W
VALUE (MeV) EVTS DOCUMENT ID TECN  COMMENT
$\bf{ 237 \pm18}$ OUR AVERAGE  Error includes scale factor of 1.9.  See the ideogram below.
$290$ $\pm20$
AMELIN
2006
VES 36 ${{\mathit \pi}^{-}}$ ${{\mathit p}}$ $\rightarrow$ ${{\mathit \omega}}{{\mathit \omega}}{{\mathit n}}$
$340$ $\pm80$ 1
BINON
2005
GAMS 33 ${{\mathit \pi}^{-}}$ ${{\mathit p}}$ $\rightarrow$ ${{\mathit \eta}}{{\mathit \eta}}{{\mathit n}}$
$395$ $\pm40$
ALDE
1998
GAM4 100 ${{\mathit \pi}^{-}}$ ${{\mathit p}}$ $\rightarrow$ ${{\mathit \pi}^{0}}{{\mathit \pi}^{0}}{{\mathit n}}$
$170$ $\pm60$
ALDE
1990
GAM2 38 ${{\mathit \pi}^{-}}$ ${{\mathit p}}$ $\rightarrow$ ${{\mathit \omega}}{{\mathit \omega}}{{\mathit n}}$
$304$ $\pm60$
AUGUSTIN
1987
DM2 ${{\mathit J / \psi}}$ $\rightarrow$ ${{\mathit \gamma}}{{\mathit \pi}^{+}}{{\mathit \pi}^{-}}$
$210$ $\pm63$
BALTRUSAITIS
1987
MRK3 ${{\mathit J / \psi}}$ $\rightarrow$ ${{\mathit \gamma}}{{\mathit \pi}^{+}}{{\mathit \pi}^{-}}$
$400$ $\pm100$
ALDE
1986D
GAM4 100 ${{\mathit \pi}^{-}}$ ${{\mathit p}}$ $\rightarrow$ ${{\mathit n}}$2 ${{\mathit \eta}}$
$240$ $\pm40$ 40k 2
BINON
1984B
GAM2 38 ${{\mathit \pi}^{-}}$ ${{\mathit p}}$ $\rightarrow$ ${{\mathit n}}$2 ${{\mathit \pi}^{0}}$
$190$ $\pm14$
DENNEY
1983
LASS 10 ${{\mathit \pi}^{+}}{{\mathit n}}/{{\mathit \pi}^{+}}{{\mathit p}}$
$186$ ${}^{+103}_{-58}$ 3
CASON
1982
STRC 8 ${{\mathit \pi}^{+}}$ ${{\mathit p}}$ $\rightarrow$ ${{\mathit \Delta}^{++}}{{\mathit \pi}^{0}}{{\mathit \pi}^{0}}$
$305$ ${}^{+36}_{-119}$
ETKIN
1982B
MPS 23 ${{\mathit \pi}^{-}}$ ${{\mathit p}}$ $\rightarrow$ ${{\mathit n}}$2 ${{\mathit K}_S^0}$
$180$ $\pm60$ 700
APEL
1975
NICE 40 ${{\mathit \pi}^{-}}$ ${{\mathit p}}$ $\rightarrow$ ${{\mathit n}}$2 ${{\mathit \pi}^{0}}$
$225$ ${}^{+120}_{-70}$
BLUM
1975
ASPK 18.4 ${{\mathit \pi}^{-}}$ ${{\mathit p}}$ $\rightarrow$ ${{\mathit n}}{{\mathit K}^{+}}{{\mathit K}^{-}}$
• • We do not use the following data for averages, fits, limits, etc. • •
$260$ $\pm40$ 4
ANISOVICH
2009
RVUE 0.0 ${{\overline{\mathit p}}}{{\mathit p}}$, ${{\mathit \pi}}{{\mathit N}}$
$453$ $\pm20$ ${}^{+31}_{-129}$ 5
UEHARA
2009
BELL 10.6 ${{\mathit e}^{+}}$ ${{\mathit e}^{-}}$ $\rightarrow$ ${{\mathit e}^{+}}{{\mathit e}^{-}}{{\mathit \pi}^{0}}{{\mathit \pi}^{0}}$
$182$ $\pm7$
ANISOVICH
2000J
SPEC 2.0 ${{\overline{\mathit p}}}$ ${{\mathit p}}$ $\rightarrow$ ${{\mathit \eta}}{{\mathit \pi}^{0}}{{\mathit \pi}^{0}}$, ${{\mathit \pi}^{0}}{{\mathit \pi}^{0}}$, ${{\mathit \eta}}{{\mathit \eta}}$, ${{\mathit \eta}}{{\mathit \eta}^{\,'}}$, ${{\mathit \pi}}{{\mathit \pi}}$
$\sim$$170$ 6
MARTIN
1998
RVUE ${{\mathit N}}$ ${{\overline{\mathit N}}}$ $\rightarrow$ ${{\mathit \pi}}{{\mathit \pi}}$
$\sim$$200$ 7
MARTIN
1997
RVUE ${{\overline{\mathit N}}}$ ${{\mathit N}}$ $\rightarrow$ ${{\mathit \pi}}{{\mathit \pi}}$
$\sim$$60$ 8
OAKDEN
1994
RVUE $0.36 - 1.55$ ${{\overline{\mathit p}}}$ ${{\mathit p}}$ $\rightarrow$ ${{\mathit \pi}}{{\mathit \pi}}$
$\sim$$80$ 9
OAKDEN
1994
RVUE $0.36 - 1.55$ ${{\overline{\mathit p}}}$ ${{\mathit p}}$ $\rightarrow$ ${{\mathit \pi}}{{\mathit \pi}}$
$243$ $\pm16$ 10
ALPER
1980
CNTR 62 ${{\mathit \pi}^{-}}$ ${{\mathit p}}$ $\rightarrow$ ${{\mathit K}^{+}}{{\mathit K}^{-}}{{\mathit n}}$
$140$ $\pm15$ 10
ROZANSKA
1980
SPRK 18 ${{\mathit \pi}^{-}}$ ${{\mathit p}}$ $\rightarrow$ ${{\mathit p}}{{\overline{\mathit p}}}{{\mathit n}}$
$263$ $\pm57$ 10
CORDEN
1979
OMEG 12$-$15 ${{\mathit \pi}^{-}}$ ${{\mathit p}}$ $\rightarrow$ ${{\mathit n}}$2 ${{\mathit \pi}}$
$100$ $\pm28$
EVANGELISTA
1979B
OMEG 10 ${{\mathit \pi}^{-}}$ ${{\mathit p}}$ $\rightarrow$ ${{\mathit K}^{+}}{{\mathit K}^{-}}{{\mathit n}}$
$107$ $\pm56$ 11
ANTIPOV
1977
CIBS 25 ${{\mathit \pi}^{-}}$ ${{\mathit p}}$ $\rightarrow$ ${{\mathit p}}$3 ${{\mathit \pi}}$
1  From the first PWA solution.
2  From a partial-wave analysis of the data.
3  From an amplitude analysis of the reaction ${{\mathit \pi}^{+}}$ ${{\mathit \pi}^{-}}$ $\rightarrow$ 2 ${{\mathit \pi}^{0}}$.
4  K matrix pole.
5  Taking into account the ${{\mathit f}_{{{2}}}{(1950)}}$. Helicity-2 production favored.
6  Energy-dependent analysis.
7  Single energy analysis.
8  From solution A of amplitude analysis of data on ${{\overline{\mathit p}}}$ ${{\mathit p}}$ $\rightarrow$ ${{\mathit \pi}}{{\mathit \pi}}$. See however KLOET 1996 who fit ${{\mathit \pi}^{+}}{{\mathit \pi}^{-}}$ only and find waves only up to $\mathit J = 3$ to be important but not significantly resonant.
9  From solution B of amplitude analysis of data on ${{\overline{\mathit p}}}$ ${{\mathit p}}$ $\rightarrow$ ${{\mathit \pi}}{{\mathit \pi}}$. See however KLOET 1996 who fit ${{\mathit \pi}^{+}}{{\mathit \pi}^{-}}$ only and find waves only up to $\mathit J = 3$ to be important but not significantly resonant.
10  $\mathit I(\mathit J{}^{P}) = 0(4{}^{+})$ from amplitude analysis assuming one-pion exchange.
11  Width errors enlarged by us to 4${}\Gamma /\sqrt {\mathit N }$; see the note with the ${{\mathit K}^{*}{(892)}}$ mass.

           ${{\mathit f}_{{{4}}}{(2050)}}$ width (MeV)
References