Electro-Weak Interactions

Total Page:16

File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb

Electro-Weak Interactions Electro-weak interactions Marcello Fanti Physics Dept. | University of Milan M. Fanti (Physics Dep., UniMi) Fundamental Interactions 1 / 36 The ElectroWeak model M. Fanti (Physics Dep., UniMi) Fundamental Interactions 2 / 36 Electromagnetic vs weak interaction Electromagnetic interactions mediated by a photon, treat left/right fermions in the same way g M = [¯u (eγµ)u ] − µν [¯u (eγν)u ] 3 1 q2 4 2 1 − γ5 Weak charged interactions only apply to left-handed component: = L 2 Fermi theory (effective low-energy theory): GF µ 5 ν 5 M = p u¯3γ (1 − γ )u1 gµν u¯4γ (1 − γ )u2 2 Complete theory with a vector boson W mediator: g 1 − γ5 g g 1 − γ5 p µ µν p ν M = u¯3 γ u1 − 2 2 u¯4 γ u2 2 2 q − MW 2 2 2 g µ 5 ν 5 −−−! u¯3γ (1 − γ )u1 gµν u¯4γ (1 − γ )u2 2 2 low q 8 MW p 2 2 g −5 −2 ) GF = | and from weak decays GF = (1:1663787 ± 0:0000006) · 10 GeV 8 MW M. Fanti (Physics Dep., UniMi) Fundamental Interactions 3 / 36 Experimental facts e e Electromagnetic interactions γ Conserves charge along fermion lines ¡ Perfectly left/right symmetric e e Long-range interaction electromagnetic µ ) neutral mass-less mediator field A (the photon, γ) currents eL νL Weak charged current interactions Produces charge variation in the fermions, ∆Q = ±1 W ± Acts only on left-handed component, !! ¡ L u Short-range interaction L dL ) charged massive mediator field (W ±)µ weak charged − − − currents E.g. weak decays, n ! pe ν¯e , µ ! e ν¯eνµ Weak neutral current interactions νµ νµ Conserves fermion charge, ∆Q = 0 Acts on both left-handed and right-handed components ¡Z (but with different strengths!) e e Short-range interaction weak neutral µ ) neutral massive mediator field Z currents − − E.g. neutrino scattering, νµe ! νµe M. Fanti (Physics Dep., UniMi) Fundamental Interactions 4 / 36 Seeking a symmetry group 4 gauge fields: 2 neutral (γ; Z) and 2 charged (W ±) ) symmetry group must have 4 parameters Cannot be just one group (e.g. U(2)), because electromagnetic interaction couples to uL; uR; vL; vR with same strength, while weak charged current only couples to uL; vR g0 P3 k Easiest way is a composition of two groups, SU(2) ⊗ U(1) : ! ei 2 θ0Y · eig k=1 θk T (note different couplings g; g 0 for groups SU(2); U(1)) Naively one could think at U(1) as the group for electromagnetism and at a SU(2) for weak (charged and neutral) interactions, but this again does not work, because weak charged currents couples only to uL; vR, while weak neutral currents also couple with uR; vL | despite with different strength ) The gauge boson of the U(1) group cannot be the photon! U(1) group: g0 i θ0Y µ e 2 ) one parameter θ0 ) one gauge field B Y is the weak hypercharge operator | each particle is an eigenstate of Y SU(2) group: P3 k ig k=1 θk T µ e ) 3 parameters θk ) 3 gauge fields Wk (k = 1; 2; 3) 2 2 2 2 2 T k are the weak isospin operators | each particle is an eigenstate of T and T 3 (T ≡ T 1 + T 2 + T 3) M. Fanti (Physics Dep., UniMi) Fundamental Interactions 5 / 36 Weak isospin and weak hypercharge for fermions T = weak isospin, Y = weak hypercharge : must commute with each other Weak charged currents couple to L, not to R ) treat L; R differently. uL L are isospin doublets: L ≡ with same hypercharge YL dL τ k ) T k ≡ ; L 2 0 1 0 −i 1 0 recall Pauli's matrices: τ = ; τ = ; τ = 1 1 0 2 i 0 3 0 −1 k R are isospin singlets: uR , dR ) T R = 0, no coupling to W -fields | and different hypercharge eigenvalues, Yu;R; Yd;R T 3 QY Here uL; dL stay for generic \up" or \down" states in isospin space, ν +1=2 0 u νe e can be e.g. up-/down-quarks, or leptons: ≡ − −1 d e− e −1=2 −1 L L L On the opposite, uR ; dR are their chiral counterparts, but they (νe)R 0 0 0 don't belong to doublets. However, uL; uR have same electric (e)R 0 −1 −2 charge, and likewise for dL; dR T3 eigenvalues are quantized (as from SU(2) algebra) u +1=2 +2=3 1=3 d −1=2 −1=3 Y eigenvalues are free ) chosen such to fulfill L Y = 2(Q − T 3) (u)R 0 +2=3 4=3 (d)R 0 −1=3 −2=3 M. Fanti (Physics Dep., UniMi) Fundamental Interactions 6 / 36 Weak hypercharge and weak isospin for gauge bosons 3 Extend the relation Y = 2(Q − T ) to any particle | i.e. also to vector bosons. U(1) and SU(2) are separate groups The B-boson has T = 0 and Y = 0 ) has charge Q = 0 ) no B-Wk interactions in L ) TB = 0 and YW = 0 (if B had Y 6= 0, it'd couple to itself: not foreseen since U(1)Y is abelian) The 3 W-bosons are assigned Y = 0( ) have charge Q = T3) 0 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 are in the adjoint representation of SU(2) W1 = @ 0 A ; W2 = @ 1 A ; W3 = @ 0 A ) dimension 3 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 T = −i 0 0 1 δW µ = −g θ W µ 1 @ A a abc b c 0 −1 0 0 0 0 −1 1 µ µ ) [Tb] = −ibac T = −i 0 0 0 δWa = igθb [TbW ]a ac 2 @ A µ 1 0 0 = igθb [Tb]ac Wc 0 0 1 0 1 T3 = −i @ −1 0 0 A ) T3 W3 = 0 ; T3 W1 = iW2 ; T3 W2 = −iW1 0 0 0 T 3 QY B 0 0 0 ± 1 Define W = p (W1 ± iW2) W 0 0 0 2 3 ± ± W + +1 +1 0 ) T3 W3 = 0 and T3 W = ± W W − −1 −1 0 M. Fanti (Physics Dep., UniMi) Fundamental Interactions 7 / 36 Interaction Lagrangian 0 0 g P3 k g X k µ ! ei 2 θ0Y · eig k=1 θk T )L EW = − ¯γ Y Bµ − g ¯γ T W k int 2 µ µ | {zY } k | {zk } Jµ Jµ Recall: k uL k τ L-fermions: L ≡ , with T L ≡ and one common YL dL 2 0 1 0 −i 1 0 recall Pauli's matrices: τ = ; τ = ; τ = 1 1 0 2 i 0 3 0 −1 k R-fermions: separate uR; dR , with T R ≡ 0 and different Yu;R; Yd;R g 0 g g 0 g 0 g LEW = − ¯γ BµY − ¯ γ W k,µτ k = − ¯ Y B= − ¯ Y B= − ¯ τ kW= k int 2 µ 2 L µ L 2 R R 2 L L 2 L L ! g 0 g 0 1 g 0Y B= + gW= 3 g(W= 1 − iW= 2) u = − u¯ Y B= u − d¯ Y B= d − u¯ d¯ L L R u;R R R d;R R L L 1 2 0 3 2 2 2 g(W= + iW= ) g Y B= − gW= dL | {z } L R-couplings | {z } L-couplings k def ¯ k Y def ¯ fermionic currents: Jµ = γµT and Jµ = γµY Y 1 Q = + T 3 ) electromagnetic current: Jem def= ¯γ Q = JY + J3 2 µ µ 2 µ µ M. Fanti (Physics Dep., UniMi) Fundamental Interactions 8 / 36 Physical electroweak fields g 0 Recall: LEW = − JY · B − g J1 · W 1 + J2 · W 2 + J3 · W 3 int 2 Weak charged currents: ± 1 2 + − ¯ ± 1 1 2 define J = J ± iJ (explicitely, J =u ¯LγµdL and J = dLγµuL) and W = p W ± iW µ µ 2 ! = − 1 1 2 2 1 + − − + 1 ¯ 0 W uL ) J · W + J · W = p W · J + W · J = p u¯L dL + 2 2 W= 0 dL NOTE: W= ∓ change isospin by ∆T 3 = ±1 and keep Y unchanged ) change fermion charge by ∆Q = ±1 Y 1 Electromagnetic currents: (recall: Q = + T 3 ) Jem = JY + J3 ) 2 2 1 1 we need a term −e Jem · A ≡ −e JY + J3 · A , can we extract it from − g 0JY · B + gJ3 · W 3 ? 2 2 Yes, if A is a \mixture" of B; W 3 ) introduce a rotation (B; W 3) ! (A; Z) B = A cos θW − Z sin θW 3 W = A sin θW + Z cos θW θW is the \Weinberg" electroweak mixing angle M. Fanti (Physics Dep., UniMi) Fundamental Interactions 9 / 36 Physical electroweak fields 1 g 0 g 0JY · B + gJ3 · W 3 = (A cos θ − Z sin θ ) JY + g (A sin θ + Z cos θ ) J3 2 2 W W W W g 0 g 0 = JY cos θ + gJ3 sin θ A + gJ3 cos θ − JY sin θ Z 2 W W W 2 W 0 Jem 1 z }| { 0 B1 Y 3C g cos θW = e ) can recover the e B J + J C · A term if: @2 A g sin θW = e e e Useful relations: B = 0 A − Z = A cos θW − Z sin θW 0 g g e = g sin θW = g cos θW e e 0 2 2 W 3 = A + Z = A sin θ + Z cos θ gg e e g g 0 W W e = | to enforce + = 1 pg 2 + g 02 g 0 g Then the part coupled to Z becomes: 0 3 g Y e cos θW 3 e sin θW em 3 e 3 2 em gJ cos θW − J sin θW = J − J − J = J − sin θW J 2 sin θW cos θW sin θW cos θW Electroweak interactions: 2 weak charged weak neutral 3 z }| { e.m.
Recommended publications
  • Searches for Electroweak Production of Supersymmetric Gauginos and Sleptons and R-Parity Violating and Long-Lived Signatures with the ATLAS Detector
    Searches for electroweak production of supersymmetric gauginos and sleptons and R-parity violating and long-lived signatures with the ATLAS detector Ruo yu Shang University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign (for the ATLAS collaboration) Supersymmetry (SUSY) • Standard model does not answer: What is dark matter? Why is the mass of Higgs not at Planck scale? • SUSY states the existence of the super partners whose spin differing by 1/2. • A solution to cancel the quantum corrections and restore the Higgs mass. • Also provides a potential candidate to dark matter with a stable WIMP! 2 Search for SUSY at LHC squark gluino 1. Gluino, stop, higgsino are the most important ones to the problem of Higgs mass. 2. Standard search for gluino/squark (top- right plots) usually includes • large jet multiplicity • missing energy ɆT carried away by lightest SUSY particle (LSP) • See next talk by Dr. Vakhtang TSISKARIDZE. 3. Dozens of analyses have extensively excluded gluino mass up to ~2 TeV. Still no sign of SUSY. 4. What are we missing? 3 This talk • Alternative searches to probe supersymmetry. 1. Search for electroweak SUSY 2. Search for R-parity violating SUSY. 3. Search for long-lived particles. 4 Search for electroweak SUSY Look for strong interaction 1. Perhaps gluino mass is beyond LHC energy scale. gluino ↓ 2. Let’s try to find gauginos! multi-jets 3. For electroweak productions we look for Look for electroweak interaction • leptons (e/μ/τ) from chargino/neutralino decay. EW gaugino • ɆT carried away by LSP. ↓ multi-leptons 5 https://cds.cern.ch/record/2267406 Neutralino/chargino via WZ decay 2� 3� 2� SR ɆT [GeV] • Models assume gauginos decay to W/Z + LSP.
    [Show full text]
  • Theoretical and Experimental Aspects of the Higgs Mechanism in the Standard Model and Beyond Alessandra Edda Baas University of Massachusetts Amherst
    University of Massachusetts Amherst ScholarWorks@UMass Amherst Masters Theses 1911 - February 2014 2010 Theoretical and Experimental Aspects of the Higgs Mechanism in the Standard Model and Beyond Alessandra Edda Baas University of Massachusetts Amherst Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarworks.umass.edu/theses Part of the Physics Commons Baas, Alessandra Edda, "Theoretical and Experimental Aspects of the Higgs Mechanism in the Standard Model and Beyond" (2010). Masters Theses 1911 - February 2014. 503. Retrieved from https://scholarworks.umass.edu/theses/503 This thesis is brought to you for free and open access by ScholarWorks@UMass Amherst. It has been accepted for inclusion in Masters Theses 1911 - February 2014 by an authorized administrator of ScholarWorks@UMass Amherst. For more information, please contact [email protected]. THEORETICAL AND EXPERIMENTAL ASPECTS OF THE HIGGS MECHANISM IN THE STANDARD MODEL AND BEYOND A Thesis Presented by ALESSANDRA EDDA BAAS Submitted to the Graduate School of the University of Massachusetts Amherst in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of MASTER OF SCIENCE September 2010 Department of Physics © Copyright by Alessandra Edda Baas 2010 All Rights Reserved THEORETICAL AND EXPERIMENTAL ASPECTS OF THE HIGGS MECHANISM IN THE STANDARD MODEL AND BEYOND A Thesis Presented by ALESSANDRA EDDA BAAS Approved as to style and content by: Eugene Golowich, Chair Benjamin Brau, Member Donald Candela, Department Chair Department of Physics To my loving parents. ACKNOWLEDGMENTS Writing a Thesis is never possible without the help of many people. The greatest gratitude goes to my supervisor, Prof. Eugene Golowich who gave my the opportunity of working with him this year.
    [Show full text]
  • Physics at the Tevatron
    Top Physics at Hadron Colliders Sandra Leone INFN Pisa Gottingen HASCO School 2018 1 Outline . Motivations for studying top . A brief history t . Top production and decay b ucds . Identification of final states . Cross section measurements . Mass determination . Single top production . Study of top properties 2 Motivations for Studying Top . Only known fermion with a mass at the natural electroweak scale. Similar mass to tungsten atomic # 74, 35 times heavier than b quark. Why is Top so heavy? Is top involved in EWSB? -1/2 (Does (2 2 GF) Mtop mean anything?) Special role in precision electroweak physics? Is top, or the third generation, special? . New physics BSM may appear in production (e.g. topcolor) or in decay (e.g. Charged Higgs). b t ucds 3 Pre-history of the Top quark 1964 Quarks (u,d,s) were postulated by Gell-Mann and Zweig, and discovered in 1968 (in electron – proton scattering using a 20 GeV electron beam from the Stanford Linear Accelerator) 1973: M. Kobayashi and T. Maskawa predict the existence of a third generation of quarks to accommodate the observed violation of CP invariance in K0 decays. 1974: Discovery of the J/ψ and the fourth (GIM) “charm” quark at both BNL and SLAC, and the τ lepton (also at SLAC), with the τ providing major support for a third generation of fermions. 1975: Haim Harari names the quarks of the third generation "top" and "bottom" to match the "up" and "down" quarks of the first generation, reflecting their "spin up" and "spin down" membership in a new weak-isospin doublet that also restores the numerical quark/ lepton symmetry of the current version of the standard model.
    [Show full text]
  • Particle Physics Dr Victoria Martin, Spring Semester 2012 Lecture 12: Hadron Decays
    Particle Physics Dr Victoria Martin, Spring Semester 2012 Lecture 12: Hadron Decays !Resonances !Heavy Meson and Baryons !Decays and Quantum numbers !CKM matrix 1 Announcements •No lecture on Friday. •Remaining lectures: •Tuesday 13 March •Friday 16 March •Tuesday 20 March •Friday 23 March •Tuesday 27 March •Friday 30 March •Tuesday 3 April •Remaining Tutorials: •Monday 26 March •Monday 2 April 2 From Friday: Mesons and Baryons Summary • Quarks are confined to colourless bound states, collectively known as hadrons: " mesons: quark and anti-quark. Bosons (s=0, 1) with a symmetric colour wavefunction. " baryons: three quarks. Fermions (s=1/2, 3/2) with antisymmetric colour wavefunction. " anti-baryons: three anti-quarks. • Lightest mesons & baryons described by isospin (I, I3), strangeness (S) and hypercharge Y " isospin I=! for u and d quarks; (isospin combined as for spin) " I3=+! (isospin up) for up quarks; I3="! (isospin down) for down quarks " S=+1 for strange quarks (additive quantum number) " hypercharge Y = S + B • Hadrons display SU(3) flavour symmetry between u d and s quarks. Used to predict the allowed meson and baryon states. • As baryons are fermions, the overall wavefunction must be anti-symmetric. The wavefunction is product of colour, flavour, spin and spatial parts: ! = "c "f "S "L an odd number of these must be anti-symmetric. • consequences: no uuu, ddd or sss baryons with total spin J=# (S=#, L=0) • Residual strong force interactions between colourless hadrons propagated by mesons. 3 Resonances • Hadrons which decay due to the strong force have very short lifetime # ~ 10"24 s • Evidence for the existence of these states are resonances in the experimental data Γ2/4 σ = σ • Shape is Breit-Wigner distribution: max (E M)2 + Γ2/4 14 41.
    [Show full text]
  • 7. Gamma and X-Ray Interactions in Matter
    Photon interactions in matter Gamma- and X-Ray • Compton effect • Photoelectric effect Interactions in Matter • Pair production • Rayleigh (coherent) scattering Chapter 7 • Photonuclear interactions F.A. Attix, Introduction to Radiological Kinematics Physics and Radiation Dosimetry Interaction cross sections Energy-transfer cross sections Mass attenuation coefficients 1 2 Compton interaction A.H. Compton • Inelastic photon scattering by an electron • Arthur Holly Compton (September 10, 1892 – March 15, 1962) • Main assumption: the electron struck by the • Received Nobel prize in physics 1927 for incoming photon is unbound and stationary his discovery of the Compton effect – The largest contribution from binding is under • Was a key figure in the Manhattan Project, condition of high Z, low energy and creation of first nuclear reactor, which went critical in December 1942 – Under these conditions photoelectric effect is dominant Born and buried in • Consider two aspects: kinematics and cross Wooster, OH http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arthur_Compton sections http://www.findagrave.com/cgi-bin/fg.cgi?page=gr&GRid=22551 3 4 Compton interaction: Kinematics Compton interaction: Kinematics • An earlier theory of -ray scattering by Thomson, based on observations only at low energies, predicted that the scattered photon should always have the same energy as the incident one, regardless of h or • The failure of the Thomson theory to describe high-energy photon scattering necessitated the • Inelastic collision • After the collision the electron departs
    [Show full text]
  • The Nobel Prize in Physics 1999
    The Nobel Prize in Physics 1999 The last Nobel Prize of the Millenium in Physics has been awarded jointly to Professor Gerardus ’t Hooft of the University of Utrecht in Holland and his thesis advisor Professor Emeritus Martinus J.G. Veltman of Holland. According to the Academy’s citation, the Nobel Prize has been awarded for ’elucidating the quantum structure of electroweak interaction in Physics’. It further goes on to say that they have placed particle physics theory on a firmer mathematical foundation. In this short note, we will try to understand both these aspects of the award. The work for which they have been awarded the Nobel Prize was done in 1971. However, the precise predictions of properties of particles that were made possible as a result of their work, were tested to a very high degree of accuracy only in this last decade. To understand the full significance of this Nobel Prize, we will have to summarise briefly the developement of our current theoretical framework about the basic constituents of matter and the forces which hold them together. In fact the path can be partially traced in a chain of Nobel prizes starting from one in 1965 to S. Tomonaga, J. Schwinger and R. Feynman, to the one to S.L. Glashow, A. Salam and S. Weinberg in 1979, and then to C. Rubia and Simon van der Meer in 1984 ending with the current one. In the article on ‘Search for a final theory of matter’ in this issue, Prof. Ashoke Sen has described the ‘Standard Model (SM)’ of particle physics, wherein he has listed all the elementary particles according to the SM.
    [Show full text]
  • The Algebra of Grand Unified Theories
    The Algebra of Grand Unified Theories John Baez and John Huerta Department of Mathematics University of California Riverside, CA 92521 USA May 4, 2010 Abstract The Standard Model is the best tested and most widely accepted theory of elementary particles we have today. It may seem complicated and arbitrary, but it has hidden patterns that are revealed by the relationship between three ‘grand unified theories’: theories that unify forces and particles by extend- ing the Standard Model symmetry group U(1) × SU(2) × SU(3) to a larger group. These three are Georgi and Glashow’s SU(5) theory, Georgi’s theory based on the group Spin(10), and the Pati–Salam model based on the group SU(2)×SU(2)×SU(4). In this expository account for mathematicians, we ex- plain only the portion of these theories that involves finite-dimensional group representations. This allows us to reduce the prerequisites to a bare minimum while still giving a taste of the profound puzzles that physicists are struggling to solve. 1 Introduction The Standard Model of particle physics is one of the greatest triumphs of physics. This theory is our best attempt to describe all the particles and all the forces of nature... except gravity. It does a great job of fitting experiments we can do in the lab. But physicists are dissatisfied with it. There are three main reasons. First, it leaves out gravity: that force is described by Einstein’s theory of general relativity, arXiv:0904.1556v2 [hep-th] 1 May 2010 which has not yet been reconciled with the Standard Model.
    [Show full text]
  • – 1– LEPTOQUARK QUANTUM NUMBERS Revised September
    {1{ LEPTOQUARK QUANTUM NUMBERS Revised September 2005 by M. Tanabashi (Tohoku University). Leptoquarks are particles carrying both baryon number (B) and lepton number (L). They are expected to exist in various extensions of the Standard Model (SM). The possible quantum numbers of leptoquark states can be restricted by assuming that their direct interactions with the ordinary SM fermions are dimensionless and invariant under the SM gauge group. Table 1 shows the list of all possible quantum numbers with this assumption [1]. The columns of SU(3)C,SU(2)W,andU(1)Y in Table 1 indicate the QCD representation, the weak isospin representation, and the weak hypercharge, respectively. The spin of a leptoquark state is taken to be 1 (vector leptoquark) or 0 (scalar leptoquark). Table 1: Possible leptoquarks and their quan- tum numbers. Spin 3B + L SU(3)c SU(2)W U(1)Y Allowed coupling c c 0 −2 311¯ /3¯qL`Loru ¯ReR c 0 −2 314¯ /3 d¯ReR c 0−2331¯ /3¯qL`L cµ c µ 1−2325¯ /6¯qLγeRor d¯Rγ `L cµ 1 −2 32¯ −1/6¯uRγ`L 00327/6¯qLeRoru ¯R`L 00321/6 d¯R`L µ µ 10312/3¯qLγ`Lor d¯Rγ eR µ 10315/3¯uRγeR µ 10332/3¯qLγ`L If we do not require leptoquark states to couple directly with SM fermions, different assignments of quantum numbers become possible [2,3]. The Pati-Salam model [4] is an example predicting the existence of a leptoquark state. In this model a vector lepto- quark appears at the scale where the Pati-Salam SU(4) “color” gauge group breaks into the familiar QCD SU(3)C group (or CITATION: S.
    [Show full text]
  • Structure of Matter
    STRUCTURE OF MATTER Discoveries and Mysteries Part 2 Rolf Landua CERN Particles Fields Electromagnetic Weak Strong 1895 - e Brownian Radio- 190 Photon motion activity 1 1905 0 Atom 191 Special relativity 0 Nucleus Quantum mechanics 192 p+ Wave / particle 0 Fermions / Bosons 193 Spin + n Fermi Beta- e Yukawa Antimatter Decay 0 π 194 μ - exchange 0 π 195 P, C, CP τ- QED violation p- 0 Particle zoo 196 νe W bosons Higgs 2 0 u d s EW unification νμ 197 GUT QCD c Colour 1975 0 τ- STANDARD MODEL SUSY 198 b ντ Superstrings g 0 W Z 199 3 generations 0 t 2000 ν mass 201 0 WEAK INTERACTION p n Electron (“Beta”) Z Z+1 Henri Becquerel (1900): Beta-radiation = electrons Two-body reaction? But electron energy/momentum is continuous: two-body two-body momentum energy W. Pauli (1930) postulate: - there is a third particle involved + + - neutral - very small or zero mass p n e 휈 - “Neutrino” (Fermi) FERMI THEORY (1934) p n Point-like interaction e 휈 Enrico Fermi W = Overlap of the four wave functions x Universal constant G -5 2 G ~ 10 / M p = “Fermi constant” FERMI: PREDICTION ABOUT NEUTRINO INTERACTIONS p n E = 1 MeV: σ = 10-43 cm2 휈 e (Range: 1020 cm ~ 100 l.yr) time Reines, Cowan (1956): Neutrino ‘beam’ from reactor Reactions prove existence of neutrinos and then ….. THE PREDICTION FAILED !! σ ‘Unitarity limit’ > 100 % probability E2 ~ 300 GeV GLASGOW REFORMULATES FERMI THEORY (1958) p n S. Glashow W(eak) boson Very short range interaction e 휈 If mass of W boson ~ 100 GeV : theory o.k.
    [Show full text]
  • Detection of a Hypercharge Axion in ATLAS
    Detection of a Hypercharge Axion in ATLAS a Monte-Carlo Simulation of a Pseudo-Scalar Particle (Hypercharge Axion) with Electroweak Interactions for the ATLAS Detector in the Large Hadron Collider at CERN Erik Elfgren [email protected] December, 2000 Division of Physics Lule˚aUniversity of Technology Lule˚a, SE-971 87, Sweden http://www.luth.se/depts/mt/fy/ Abstract This Master of Science thesis treats the hypercharge axion, which is a hy- pothetical pseudo-scalar particle with electroweak interactions. First, the theoretical context and the motivations for this study are discussed. In short, the hypercharge axion is introduced to explain the dominance of matter over antimatter in the universe and the existence of large-scale magnetic fields. Second, the phenomenological properties are analyzed and the distin- guishing marks are underlined. These are basically the products of photons and Z0swithhightransversemomentaandinvariantmassequaltothatof the axion. Third, the simulation is carried out with two photons producing the axion which decays into Z0s and/or photons. The event simulation is run through the simulator ATLFAST of ATLAS (A Toroidal Large Hadron Col- lider ApparatuS) at CERN. Finally, the characteristics of the axion decay are analyzed and the crite- ria for detection are presented. A study of the background is also included. The result is that for certain values of the axion mass and the mass scale (both in the order of a TeV), the hypercharge axion could be detected in ATLAS. Preface This is a Master of Science thesis at the Lule˚a University of Technology, Sweden. The research has been done at Universit´edeMontr´eal, Canada, under the supervision of Professor Georges Azuelos.
    [Show full text]
  • Deep Inelastic Scattering
    Particle Physics Michaelmas Term 2011 Prof Mark Thomson e– p Handout 6 : Deep Inelastic Scattering Prof. M.A. Thomson Michaelmas 2011 176 e– p Elastic Scattering at Very High q2 ,At high q2 the Rosenbluth expression for elastic scattering becomes •From e– p elastic scattering, the proton magnetic form factor is at high q2 Phys. Rev. Lett. 23 (1969) 935 •Due to the finite proton size, elastic scattering M.Breidenbach et al., at high q2 is unlikely and inelastic reactions where the proton breaks up dominate. e– e– q p X Prof. M.A. Thomson Michaelmas 2011 177 Kinematics of Inelastic Scattering e– •For inelastic scattering the mass of the final state hadronic system is no longer the proton mass, M e– •The final state hadronic system must q contain at least one baryon which implies the final state invariant mass MX > M p X For inelastic scattering introduce four new kinematic variables: ,Define: Bjorken x (Lorentz Invariant) where •Here Note: in many text books W is often used in place of MX Proton intact hence inelastic elastic Prof. M.A. Thomson Michaelmas 2011 178 ,Define: e– (Lorentz Invariant) e– •In the Lab. Frame: q p X So y is the fractional energy loss of the incoming particle •In the C.o.M. Frame (neglecting the electron and proton masses): for ,Finally Define: (Lorentz Invariant) •In the Lab. Frame: is the energy lost by the incoming particle Prof. M.A. Thomson Michaelmas 2011 179 Relationships between Kinematic Variables •Can rewrite the new kinematic variables in terms of the squared centre-of-mass energy, s, for the electron-proton collision e– p Neglect mass of electron •For a fixed centre-of-mass energy, it can then be shown that the four kinematic variables are not independent.
    [Show full text]
  • ELECTROWEAK PHYSICS Theory for the Experimentalist
    ELECTROWEAK PHYSICS Theory for the experimentalist Chris Hays Oxford University CONTENTS Introduction vii 1 The geometry of forces 1 1.1 The fiber bundle of the universe 2 1.2 Spacetime metric 3 1.3 Connections 5 1.4 Curvature 6 1.5 Principle of least action 7 1.6 Conservation laws 9 2 Path integrals and fields 11 2.1 Non-relativistic path integral 12 2.2 Perturbation theory 13 2.2.1 Green’s functions 14 2.3 Path integral of a scalar field 15 2.3.1 Free-field transition amplitude 16 2.3.2 Interacting-field transition amplitude 17 2.4 Path integral of a fermion field 18 2.5 Path integral of a gauge field 19 2.5.1 Free-field generating functional 21 3 The Higgs mechanism 23 iii iv CONTENTS 3.1 Self-interacting scalar field theory 23 3.1.1 Real scalar field 23 3.1.2 Complex scalar field 24 3.2 Gauged scalar field theory 25 3.2.1 U(1)-charged scalar field 25 3.2.2 SU(2)-charged scalar field 26 3.2.3 Propagators after symmetry breaking 27 4 The Electroweak theory 29 4.1 The Electroweak Lagrangian 29 4.2 Electroweak symmetry breaking 30 4.2.1 Scalar field Lagrangian 31 4.2.2 Fermion field Lagrangian 33 4.3 Electroweak propagators 34 5 Cross sections and Feynman diagrams 37 5.1 Scattering matrix 37 5.2 Cross sections and lifetimes 38 5.3 Feynman rules 40 6 Scalar renormalization 47 6.1 Renormalized Lagrangian 47 6.2 Regularization 49 6.2.1 Propagator loop corrections 49 6.2.2 Vertex loop correction 50 6.3 The renormalization group 51 7 QED renormalization 55 7.1 QED divergences 55 7.2 Fermion self energy 56 7.3 Vacuum polarization 57 7.4 Vertex correction 61
    [Show full text]