DOCSLIB.ORG

Search for Direct Production of Supersymmetric Partners of the Top Quark in the All-Jets Final State in Proton-Proton Collisions

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Search for Direct Production of Supersymmetric Partners of the Top Quark in the All-Jets Final State in Proton-Proton Collisions EUROPEAN ORGANIZATION FOR NUCLEAR RESEARCH (CERN) CERN-EP-2017-129 2017/10/11 CMS-SUS-16-049 Search for direct production of supersymmetric partners of the top quark in the all-jetsp final state in proton-proton collisions at s = 13 TeV The CMS Collaboration∗ Abstract A search for direct production of top squark pairs in events with jets and large trans- verse momentum imbalance is presented. The data are based on proton-proton colli- sions at a center-of-mass energy of 13 TeV, collected with the CMS detector in 2016 at the CERN LHC, and correspond to an integrated luminosity of 35.9 fb−1. The search considers a variety of R-parity conserving supersymmetric models, including ones for which the top squark and neutralino masses are nearly degenerate. Specialized jet reconstruction tools are developed to exploit the unique characteristics of the signal topologies. With no significant excess of events observed above the standard model expectations, upper limits are set on the direct top squark pair production cross sec- tion in the context of simplified supersymmetric models for various decay hypothe- ses. Models with larger differences in mass between the top squark and neutralino are probed for masses up to 1040 and 500 GeV, respectively, whereas models with a more compressed mass hierarchy are probed up to 660 and 610 GeV, respectively. The smallest mass difference probed is for masses near to 550 and 540 GeV, respectively. arXiv:1707.03316v2 [hep-ex] 10 Oct 2017 Published in the Journal of High Energy Physics as doi:10.1007/JHEP10(2017)005. c 2017 CERN for the benefit of the CMS Collaboration. CC-BY-3.0 license ∗See Appendix A for the list of collaboration members 1 1 Introduction Although the standard model (SM) of particle physics provides a remarkably accurate descrip- tion of phenomena associated with the known elementary particles and their interactions, it leaves significant problems unresolved. It cannot, for instance, explain how the Higgs boson [1–6] can evade divergent quantum corrections, without very significant fine tuning [7, 8] of SM parameters, to allow it to have its mass at the weak scale [9–14]. Moreover, an abundance of cosmological observations, including the existence of dark matter, cannot be explained within the context of the SM alone [15–17]. Supersymmetry (SUSY) provides a theoretical framework that can address these questions. At its core, SUSY is a symmetry between fermions and bosons. In SUSY, a “sparticle” (generally referred to as a superpartner) is proposed for each SM particle with the same gauge quantum numbers but differing by one half-unit of spin and potentially in mass. The superpartners of the electroweak vector W and Z bosons and scalar Higgs boson mix to produce charged and ± 0 neutral fermions referred to as charginos (ce ) and neutralinos (ce ), respectively. For a given fermion f, there are two superpartners corresponding to the fermion’s left- and right-handed states. The superpartners mix to form two mass eigenstates, ef1 and ef2, with ef1 being the lighter of the two. The quantum corrections to the value of the Higgs boson mass (mH) from sparticles could cancel the otherwise problematic SM contributions. In this way, SUSY can protect the value of mH [18–21], provided that the mass differences between the SM particles and their superpartners are not too large. This is particularly important for superpartners of third gen- eration SM particles, because they have the largest couplings to the Higgs boson, and there- fore produce the largest corrections. Furthermore, a combination of precision measurements and null search results indicate that the superpartners of the light quarks may have very large masses [22]. In view of these considerations, the superpartners of the top and bottom quarks, the et and eb squarks, respectively, are expected to be among the lightest sparticles, potentially light enough to be produced at the CERN LHC [23]. An important point to note is that SUSY models with R-parity conservation [24, 25] require sparticles to be produced in pairs, with the lightest SUSY particle (LSP) therefore stable on cosmological time scales. This means that if the 0 lightest neutralino, denoted ce1, is the LSP, then it is also a very promising dark matter candi- date [26] that would remain at the end of all R-parity conserving sparticle cascade decays. The two motivating principles above place the search for pair production of top squarks (etet) among the highest priorities of the LHC program. The most recent searches for directetet production were carried out by thep ATLAS and CMS Col- laborations in proton-proton (pp) collisions at center-of-mass energies s of 7, 8, and 13 TeV at the LHC [27–47]. The searches have provided no evidence for sparticle production in models 0 with et masses up to ∼900 GeV and ce1 masses up to ∼400 GeV. This paper presents a searchp for direct etet production in R-parity conserving SUSY using data collected in pp collisions at s = 13 TeV by the CMS experiment at the LHC in 2016, and cor- responding to an integrated luminosity of 35.9 fb−1. The search is based on methods presented in Ref. [44], and represents an extension of that search to larger sparticle masses by means of a significantly larger dataset and the development of more sensitive search tools. This search focuses on all-hadronic final states, defined as those events whose visible content is made up solely of hadronic jets, as would be expected for signal processes in which all W bosons de- cay to quarks. These final states have the largest accessible branching fraction. In many SUSY models, the favored et decay modes depend strongly on the mass hierarchy of the sparticles. In 0 particular, different ranges of mass difference Dm between the et and ce1 correspond to very dif- 2 1 Introduction the2 basis for our searches are displayed in Fig. 1. 1 Introduction t(∗) b b + e e W W+∗ p t1 e0 p t e χ1 1 p t1 e+ 0 + χ1 χe χe e0 1 1 χ1 − e0 0 e0 χe χ1 χe p e χ1 p 1 p 1 t1 et et 1 W− 1 (∗) t b t (a) (b) (c) b c b f f ′ +∗ p e W ′ e t1 f p e f p t1 χe0 0 t1 1 χe + e0 1 χe χ1 1− χe0 e 0 1 χ1 χe p ′ 1 e0 e p e¯ ′ p e χ1 t1 f t1 −∗ t W f 1 f f b b¯ c (d) (e) (f) FigureFigure 1: 1: Feynman Diagrams diagrams for the decay for pairmodes production of pair-produced of top squarks top squarks with studied the decay in this modes analysis. of the simplifiedThe decay models cascades that are are denoted: studied (a) in T2tt, this (b) analysis. T2bW, (c) An T2tb, asterisk (d) T2ttC, indicates (e) T2bWC, the particle and (f) mayT2cc. be producedAn asterisk off-shell. indicates that the particle may be produced off-shell. Theferent search final-state regions signatures. (SR) are optimized Only the lightest for differentet massmodels eigenstate, andet1, ranges is assumed of Dm to. be The involved simplest in the models considered in this paper,(∗) 0 although the results are expected± to be equivalent± 0 for decays that we consider are et1 ! t ce1, denoted “T2tt”, and et1 ! bce1 ! bW ce1, denoted the heavier eigenstate. The et1 decay modes± of the simplified models [48–50] that are used0 as “T2bW”, under the assumption that the ce1 mass lies halfway between the et1 and ce1 masses. the basis for our searches± are displayed in Fig. 1. The choice of moderate ce1 mass in the latter model permits high momentum objects in the ± 0 finalThe state. search The regionsce1 represents (SR) are optimized the lightest for different chargino, models and ce and1 is ranges the stable of Dm LSP,. In which models escapes with detectionDm larger to than produce the W a bosonlarge transverse mass mW (“high momentumDm models”), imbalance the simplest in the event. decays Another that we model, con- (∗) 0 ± ± 0 denotedsider are “T2tb”,et1 ! t is consideredce1, denoted under “T2tt”, the and assumptionet1 ! bce1 ! ofbW equalce1 branching, denoted “T2bW”, fractions under of the the two ± 0 aforementionedassumption that decay the ce modes.1 mass lies This halfway model, between however, the assumeset1 and ce a1 compressedmasses. The mass choice spectrum of mod- in ± ± 0 ± whicherate thece1 mass inof the latterce1 is model only 5 permits GeV greater high momentum than that of objects the ce1. in As the a finalresult, state. the W The bosonsce1 0 fromrepresents chargino the decays lightest are chargino, produced and farce1 off-shell.is the stable LSP, which escapes detection to produce a large transverse momentum imbalance in the event. Another model, denoted “T2tb”, is con- Insidered models under with theDm assumptionless than the of W equal boson branching mass m fractionsW, the et1 ofcan the decay two aforementioned through the T2tt decay decay modemodes. with This off-shell model, t however, and W, throughassumes athe compressed same decay mass chain spectrum as in thein which T2bW the model, mass of via the off- 0 shell± W bosons, or decay through a flavor changing0 neutral current process (et1 ! cc , where ce1 is only 5 GeV greater than that of the ce1. As a result, the W bosons from charginoe decays1 c isare the produced charm quark). far off-shell. These will be referred to as the “T2ttC”, “T2bWC”, and “T2cc” models, respectively, where C denotes the hypothesis of a compressed mass spectrum in the first two cases.In models Observations with Dm less in such than lowmW D(“lowm modelsDm models”), are experimentally the et1 can decay challenging through sincethe T2tt the decay visible mode with off-shell t and W, through the same decay chain as in the T2bW model, via off- decay products are typically very soft (low-momentum), and therefore often evade identifi- shell W bosons, or decay through a flavor changing neutral current process (t ! cc0, where cation.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Arxiv:Astro-Ph/0010112 V2 10 Apr 2001
    View metadata, citation and similar papers at core.ac.uk brought to you by CORE provided by CERN Document Server NYU-TH-00/09/05 Preprint typeset using LATEX style emulateapj v. 14/09/00 NEUTRON STARS WITH A STABLE, LIGHT SUPERSYMMETRIC BARYON SHMUEL BALBERG1,GLENNYS R. FARRAR2 AND TSVI PIRAN3 NYU-TH-00/09/05 ABSTRACT ¼ If a light gluino exists, the lightest gluino-containing baryon, the Ë , is a possible candidate for self-interacting ¼ ª =ª 6 ½¼ Ñ dÑ b dark matter. In this scenario, the simplest explanation for the observed ratio is that Ë ¼ ¾ Ë 9¼¼ MeVc ; this is not at present excluded by particle physics. Such an could be present in neutron stars, with hyperon formation serving as an intermediate stage. We calculate equilibrium compositions and equation of ¼ state for high density matter with the Ë , and find that for a wide range of parameters the properties of neutron ¼ stars with the Ë are consistent with observations. In particular, the maximum mass of a nonrotating star is ¼ ½:7 ½:8 Å Ë ¬ , and the presence of the is helpful in reconciling observed cooling rates with hyperon formation. Subject headings: dark matter–dense matter–elementary particles–equation of state–stars: neutron 1. INTRODUCTION also Farrar & Gabadadze (2000) and references therein. The lightest supersymmetric “Ê-hadrons” are the spin-1/2 The interiors of neutron stars offer a unique meeting point ¼ gg Ê ~ bound state ( or glueballino) and the spin-0 baryon between astrophysics on one hand and nuclear and particle ¼ ¼ g~ Ë Ë Ùd× bound state, the .The is thus a boson with baryon physics on the other.
    [Show full text]
  • 1. Discovery of the W and Z Boson 1983 at CERN Spps Accelerator, √S≈540 Gev, UA-1/2 Experiments 1.1 Boson Production in Pp Interactions
    Experimental tests of the Standard Model • Discovery of the W and Z bosons • Precision tests of the Z sector • Precision tests of the W sector • Electro-weak unification at HERA • Radiative corrections and prediction of the top and Higgs mass • Top discovery at the Tevatron • Higgs searches at the LHC 1. Discovery of the W and Z boson 1983 at CERN SppS accelerator, √s≈540 GeV, UA-1/2 experiments 1.1 Boson production in pp interactions − − p , q p ,q u W u Z ˆ ˆ d s ν u s +,q p , q p → → ν + → → + pp W X pp Z ff X σ (σ ) 10 nb W Z Similar to Drell-Yan: (photon instead of W) 1nb = ≈ sˆ xq xq s mit xq 12.0 2 1.0 nb = ≈ = 2 sˆ xq s .0 014 s 65( GeV ) → Cross section is small ! sˆ M 1 10 100 W ,Z 1.2 UA-1 Detector 1.3 Event signature: pp → Z → ff + X + p p − High-energy lepton pair: 2 2 2 m = (p + + p − ) = M Z ≈ MZ 91 GeV → → ν + 1.4 Event signature: pp W X Missing p T vector Undetected ν − ν Missing momentum p p High-energy lepton – Large transverse momentum p t How can the W mass be reconstructed ? W mass measurement In the W rest frame: In the lab system: • = = MW p pν • W system boosted 2 only along z axis T ≤ MW • p • p distribution is conserved 2 T −1 2 dN 2p M 2 Jacobian Peak: T ⋅ W − 2 ~ pT pT MW 4 dN dp T • Trans.
    [Show full text]
  • Introduction to Supersymmetry
    Introduction to Supersymmetry Pre-SUSY Summer School Corpus Christi, Texas May 15-18, 2019 Stephen P. Martin Northern Illinois University [email protected] 1 Topics: Why: Motivation for supersymmetry (SUSY) • What: SUSY Lagrangians, SUSY breaking and the Minimal • Supersymmetric Standard Model, superpartner decays Who: Sorry, not covered. • For some more details and a slightly better attempt at proper referencing: A supersymmetry primer, hep-ph/9709356, version 7, January 2016 • TASI 2011 lectures notes: two-component fermion notation and • supersymmetry, arXiv:1205.4076. If you find corrections, please do let me know! 2 Lecture 1: Motivation and Introduction to Supersymmetry Motivation: The Hierarchy Problem • Supermultiplets • Particle content of the Minimal Supersymmetric Standard Model • (MSSM) Need for “soft” breaking of supersymmetry • The Wess-Zumino Model • 3 People have cited many reasons why extensions of the Standard Model might involve supersymmetry (SUSY). Some of them are: A possible cold dark matter particle • A light Higgs boson, M = 125 GeV • h Unification of gauge couplings • Mathematical elegance, beauty • ⋆ “What does that even mean? No such thing!” – Some modern pundits ⋆ “We beg to differ.” – Einstein, Dirac, . However, for me, the single compelling reason is: The Hierarchy Problem • 4 An analogy: Coulomb self-energy correction to the electron’s mass A point-like electron would have an infinite classical electrostatic energy. Instead, suppose the electron is a solid sphere of uniform charge density and radius R. An undergraduate problem gives: 3e2 ∆ECoulomb = 20πǫ0R 2 Interpreting this as a correction ∆me = ∆ECoulomb/c to the electron mass: 15 0.86 10− meters m = m + (1 MeV/c2) × .
    [Show full text]
  • Beyond the Standard Model
    Beyond the Standard Model Mihoko M. Nojiri Theory Center, IPNS, KEK, Tsukuba, Japan, and Kavli IPMU, The University of Tokyo, Kashiwa, Japan Abstract A Brief review on the physics beyond the Standard Model. 1 Quest of BSM Although the standard model of elementary particles(SM) describes the high energy phenomena very well, particle physicists have been attracted by the physics beyond the Standard Model (BSM). There are very good reasons about this; 1. The SM Higgs sector is not natural. 2. There is no dark matter candidate in the SM. 3. Origin of three gauge interactions is not understood in the SM. 4. Cosmological observations suggest an inflation period in the early universe. The non-zero baryon number of our universe is not consistent with the inflation picture unless a new interaction is introduced. The Higgs boson candidate was discovered recently. The study of the Higgs boson nature is extremely important for the BSM study. The Higgs boson is a spin 0 particle, and the structure of the radiative correction is quite different from those of fermions and gauge bosons. The correction of the Higgs boson mass is proportional to the cut-off scale, called “quadratic divergence". If the cut-off scale is high, the correction becomes unacceptably large compared with the on-shell mass of the Higgs boson. This is often called a “fine turning problem". Note that such quadratic divergence does not appear in the radiative correction to the fermion and gauge boson masses. They are protected by the chiral and gauge symmetries, respectively. The problem can be solved if there are an intermediate scale where new particles appears, and the radiative correction from the new particles compensates the SM radiative correction.
    [Show full text]
  • Supersymmetry: What? Why? When?
    Contemporary Physics, 2000, volume41, number6, pages359± 367 Supersymmetry:what? why? when? GORDON L. KANE This article is acolloquium-level review of the idea of supersymmetry and why so many physicists expect it to soon be amajor discovery in particle physics. Supersymmetry is the hypothesis, for which there is indirect evidence, that the underlying laws of nature are symmetric between matter particles (fermions) such as electrons and quarks, and force particles (bosons) such as photons and gluons. 1. Introduction (B) In addition, there are anumber of questions we The Standard Model of particle physics [1] is aremarkably hope will be answered: successful description of the basic constituents of matter (i) Can the forces of nature be uni® ed and (quarks and leptons), and of the interactions (weak, simpli® ed so wedo not have four indepen- electromagnetic, and strong) that lead to the structure dent ones? and complexity of our world (when combined with gravity). (ii) Why is the symmetry group of the Standard It is afull relativistic quantum ®eld theory. It is now very Model SU(3) ´SU(2) ´U(1)? well tested and established. Many experiments con® rmits (iii) Why are there three families of quarks and predictions and none disagree with them. leptons? Nevertheless, weexpect the Standard Model to be (iv) Why do the quarks and leptons have the extendedÐ not wrong, but extended, much as Maxwell’s masses they do? equation are extended to be apart of the Standard Model. (v) Can wehave aquantum theory of gravity? There are two sorts of reasons why weexpect the Standard (vi) Why is the cosmological constant much Model to be extended.
    [Show full text]
  • Supersymmetry Min Raj Lamsal Department of Physics, Prithvi Narayan Campus, Pokhara Min [email protected]
    Supersymmetry Min Raj Lamsal Department of Physics, Prithvi Narayan Campus, Pokhara [email protected] Abstract : This article deals with the introduction of supersymmetry as the latest and most emerging burning issue for the explanation of nature including elementary particles as well as the universe. Supersymmetry is a conjectured symmetry of space and time. It has been a very popular idea among theoretical physicists. It is nearly an article of faith among elementary-particle physicists that the four fundamental physical forces in nature ultimately derive from a single force. For years scientists have tried to construct a Grand Unified Theory showing this basic unity. Physicists have already unified the electron-magnetic and weak forces in an 'electroweak' theory, and recent work has focused on trying to include the strong force. Gravity is much harder to handle, but work continues on that, as well. In the world of everyday experience, the strengths of the forces are very different, leading physicists to conclude that their convergence could occur only at very high energies, such as those existing in the earliest moments of the universe, just after the Big Bang. Keywords: standard model, grand unified theories, theory of everything, superpartner, higgs boson, neutrino oscillation. 1. INTRODUCTION unifies the weak and electromagnetic forces. The What is the world made of? What are the most basic idea is that the mass difference between photons fundamental constituents of matter? We still do not having zero mass and the weak bosons makes the have anything that could be a final answer, but we electromagnetic and weak interactions behave quite have come a long way.
    [Show full text]
  • Measurement of the W-Boson Mass in Pp Collisions at √ S = 7 Tev
    EUROPEAN ORGANISATION FOR NUCLEAR RESEARCH (CERN) Eur. Phys. J. C 78 (2018) 110 CERN-EP-2016-305 DOI: 10.1140/epjc/s10052-017-5475-4 9th November 2018 Measurementp of the W-boson mass in pp collisions at s = 7 TeV with the ATLAS detector The ATLAS Collaboration A measurement of the mass of the W boson is presented based on proton–proton collision data recorded in 2011 at a centre-of-mass energy of 7 TeV with the ATLAS detector at the LHC, and corresponding to 4.6 fb−1 of integrated luminosity. The selected data sample consists of 7:8 × 106 candidates in the W ! µν channel and 5:9 × 106 candidates in the W ! eν channel. The W-boson mass is obtained from template fits to the reconstructed distributions of the charged lepton transverse momentum and of the W boson transverse mass in the electron and muon decay channels, yielding mW = 80370 ± 7 (stat.) ± 11 (exp. syst.) ± 14 (mod. syst.) MeV = 80370 ± 19 MeV; where the first uncertainty is statistical, the second corresponds to the experimental system- atic uncertainty, and the third to the physics-modelling systematic uncertainty. A meas- arXiv:1701.07240v2 [hep-ex] 7 Nov 2018 + − urement of the mass difference between the W and W bosons yields mW+ − mW− = −29 ± 28 MeV. c 2018 CERN for the benefit of the ATLAS Collaboration. Reproduction of this article or parts of it is allowed as specified in the CC-BY-4.0 license. 1 Introduction The Standard Model (SM) of particle physics describes the electroweak interactions as being mediated by the W boson, the Z boson, and the photon, in a gauge theory based on the SU(2)L × U(1)Y symmetry [1– 3].
    [Show full text]
  • Super Symmetry
    MILESTONES DOI: 10.1038/nphys868 M iles Tone 1 3 Super symmetry The way that spin is woven into the in 1015. However, a form of symmetry very fabric of the Universe is writ between fermions and bosons called large in the standard model of supersymmetry offers a much more particle physics. In this model, which elegant solution because the took shape in the 1970s and can quantum fluctuations caused by explain the results of all particle- bosons are naturally cancelled physics experiments to date, matter out by those caused by fermions and (and antimatter) is made of three vice versa. families of quarks and leptons, which Symmetry plays a central role in are all fermions, whereas the physics. The fact that the laws of electromagnetic, strong physics are, for instance, symmetric in and weak forces that act on these time (that is, they do not change with particles are carried by other time) leads to the conservation of particles, such as photons and gluons, energy. These laws are also symmetric The ATLAS experiment under construction at the which are all bosons. with respect to space, rotation and Large Hadron Collider. Image courtesy of CERN. Despite its success, the standard relative motion. Initially explored in model is unsatisfactory for a number the early 1970s, supersymmetry is a of reasons. First, although the less obvious kind of symmetry, which, graviton. Searching for electromagnetic and weak forces if it exists in nature, would mean that supersymmetric particles will be a have been unified into a single force, the laws of physics do not change priority when the Large Hadron a ‘grand unified theory’ that brings when bosons are replaced by Collider comes into operation at the strong interaction into the fold fermions, and fermions are replaced CERN, the European particle-physics remains elusive.
    [Show full text]
  • Quantum Universe
    QUANTUM UNIVERSE THE REVOLUTION IN 21ST CENTURY PARTICLE PHYSICS DOE / NSF HIGH ENERGY PHYSICS ADVISORY PANEL QUANTUM UNIVERSE COMMITTEE QUANTUM UNIVERSE THE REVOLUTION IN 21ST CENTURY PARTICLE PHYSICS What does “Quantum Universe” mean? To discover what the universe is made of and how it works is the challenge of particle physics. Quantum Universe presents the quest to explain the universe in terms of quantum physics, which governs the behavior of the microscopic, subatomic world. It describes a revolution in particle physics and a quantum leap in our understanding of the mystery and beauty of the universe. DOE / NSF HIGH ENERGY PHYSICS ADVISORY PANEL QUANTUM UNIVERSE COMMITTEE QUANTUM UNIVERSE CONTENTS COMMITTEE MEMBERS ANDREAS ALBRECHT EDWARD KOLB CONTENTS University of California at Davis Fermilab University of Chicago SAMUEL ARONSON Brookhaven National Laboratory JOSEPH LYKKEN Fermilab iii EXECUTIVE SUMMARY KEITH BAKER Hampton University HITOSHI MURAYAMA 1 I INTRODUCTION Thomas Jefferson National Accelerator Facility Institute for Advanced Study, Princeton University of California, Berkeley 2 II THE FUNDAMENTAL NATURE OF JONATHAN BAGGER MATTER, ENERGY, SPACE AND TIME Johns Hopkins University HAMISH ROBERTSON University of Washington 4 EINSTEIN’S DREAM OF UNIFIED FORCES NEIL CALDER Stanford Linear Accelerator Center JAMES SIEGRIST 10 THE PARTICLE WORLD Stanford University Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory University of California, Berkeley 15 THE BIRTH OF THE UNIVERSE PERSIS DRELL, CHAIR Stanford Linear Accelerator Center SIMON
    [Show full text]
  • Particle Physics: Problem Sheet 5 Weak, Electroweak and LHC Physics
    2010 — Subatomic: Particle Physics 1 Particle Physics: Problem Sheet 5 Weak, electroweak and LHC Physics 1. Draw a quark level Feynman diagram for the decay K+ → π+π0. This + is a weak decay. K has strange quark number, Ns = −1. The final state has no strange quarks so Ns = 0. The number of strange quarks can only change when a W boson is exchanged. 2. Write down all possible decay modes of the W − boson into quarks and leptons. What is the strength of each of these vertices? Decay Strength − − W → e ν¯e gW − − W → τ ν¯τ gW − − W → µ ν¯µ gW − W → ¯us gW Vus − W → ¯ud gW Vud − W → ¯ub gW Vub − W → ¯cd gW Vcd − W → ¯cs gW Vcs − W → ¯cb gW Vcb − W → ¯t d gW Vtd − W → ¯t s gW Vts − W → ¯t b gW Vtb 3. By drawing the lowest order Feynman diagrams, show that both charged (W ± exchange) and neutral current (Z0 exchange) contribute to neutrino − − electron scattering: νe + e → νe + e . 2010 — Subatomic: Particle Physics 2 Charged current means exchange of the W ± boson, neutral current means exchange of the Z0 boson. Because we can draw both diagrams, whilst obeying all the conservation laws, it means that both are able to happen. When we observe an electron-neutrino scat- tering event we can never tell, on an event-by-event basis, whether the Z-boson or the W -boson was responsilbe. However by measuring the total cross section and comparing with predictions, we can show that both charged and neutral currents are involved.
    [Show full text]
  • The Discovery of the W and Z Particles
    June 16, 2015 15:44 60 Years of CERN Experiments and Discoveries – 9.75in x 6.5in b2114-ch06 page 137 The Discovery of the W and Z Particles Luigi Di Lella1 and Carlo Rubbia2 1Physics Department, University of Pisa, 56127 Pisa, Italy [email protected] 2GSSI (Gran Sasso Science Institute), 67100 L’Aquila, Italy [email protected] This article describes the scientific achievements that led to the discovery of the weak intermediate vector bosons, W± and Z, from the original proposal to modify an existing high-energy proton accelerator into a proton–antiproton collider and its implementation at CERN, to the design, construction and operation of the detectors which provided the first evidence for the production and decay of these two fundamental particles. 1. Introduction The first experimental evidence in favour of a unified description of the weak and electromagnetic interactions was obtained in 1973, with the observation of neutrino interactions resulting in final states which could only be explained by assuming that the interaction was mediated by the exchange of a massive, electrically neutral virtual particle.1 Within the framework of the Standard Model, these observations provided a determination of the weak mixing angle, θw, which, despite its large experimental uncertainty, allowed the first quantitative prediction for the mass values of the weak bosons, W± and Z. The numerical values so obtained ranged from 60 to 80 GeV for the W mass, and from 75 to 92 GeV for the Z mass, too large to be accessible by any accelerator in operation at that time.
    [Show full text]
  • The Quantum Vacuum and the Cosmological Constant Problem
    The Quantum Vacuum and the Cosmological Constant Problem S.E. Rugh∗and H. Zinkernagely To appear in Studies in History and Philosophy of Modern Physics Abstract - The cosmological constant problem arises at the intersection be- tween general relativity and quantum field theory, and is regarded as a fun- damental problem in modern physics. In this paper we describe the historical and conceptual origin of the cosmological constant problem which is intimately connected to the vacuum concept in quantum field theory. We critically dis- cuss how the problem rests on the notion of physically real vacuum energy, and which relations between general relativity and quantum field theory are assumed in order to make the problem well-defined. 1. Introduction Is empty space really empty? In the quantum field theories (QFT’s) which underlie modern particle physics, the notion of empty space has been replaced with that of a vacuum state, defined to be the ground (lowest energy density) state of a collection of quantum fields. A peculiar and truly quantum mechanical feature of the quantum fields is that they exhibit zero-point fluctuations everywhere in space, even in regions which are otherwise ‘empty’ (i.e. devoid of matter and radiation). These zero-point fluctuations of the quantum fields, as well as other ‘vacuum phenomena’ of quantum field theory, give rise to an enormous vacuum energy density ρvac. As we shall see, this vacuum energy density is believed to act as a contribution to the cosmological constant Λ appearing in Einstein’s field equations from 1917, 1 8πG R g R Λg = T (1) µν − 2 µν − µν c4 µν where Rµν and R refer to the curvature of spacetime, gµν is the metric, Tµν the energy-momentum tensor, G the gravitational constant, and c the speed of light.
    [Show full text]