AG-2026.04-1296·hep-ph
Next-to-leading order QCD and relativistic corrections to $Z \to J/ψ+Υ(nS)$
Authors
- Guang-Yu Wang
- Xu-Chang Zheng
- Guang-Zhi Xu
Abstract
In this paper, we calculate the decay widths and branching fractions for the decays $Z \to J/ψ+Υ(nS)$ ($n=1,2,3$) at future super $Z$ factory and at the CEPC/FCC-ee, including both the relativistic and QCD corrections within the framework of nonrelativistic QCD. Both the relativistic and QCD corrections are found to be large and negative. Compared to the leading-order results, the decay widths are significantly reduced by the higher-order corrections. Therefore, it is essential to take these corrections into account for a reliable estimation. For a high-luminosity electron positron collider running around the $Z$-pole, sizable event rates could be produced from these rare decay channels due to the $Z$-boson resonance effect.
Submitted
21 April 20261 month ago
Version
v1
License
CC-BY-4.0
DOI
10.48550/arXiv.2604.19439
Summary
Physicists calculated how often Z bosons decay into pairs of heavy particles (J/psi and Upsilon) at future electron-positron colliders, finding that quantum corrections substantially reduce the predicted decay rates and must be included for accurate predictions.
- Higher-order quantum chromodynamics (QCD) and relativistic corrections to this rare decay are surprisingly large and negative, cutting predicted rates by a significant amount compared to naive estimates.
- These corrections are essential to include for reliable theoretical predictions—ignoring them would overestimate how often this decay happens by a substantial margin.
- Future high-energy electron-positron colliders like CEPC and FCC-ee could still observe thousands of these events due to the Z boson resonance effect, making this a testable prediction of the Standard Model.
curious · generated by claude-haiku-4-5
Chat with this PDF
Ask questions, probe assumptions, request a plain-English summary. Answers cite sections from the preprint itself.
Community
Questions and answers about this paper from other readers. No formal peer review — just a place to think out loud.