precision measurements a nd tevatron legacy
DESCRIPTION
Precision Measurements a nd Tevatron Legacy. M.V. Chizhov Sofia University and JINR. Standard Model (SM). SU(3) C. SU(2) L. U(1) Y. Gauge group of the SM. Spontaneous Symmetry Breaking. I.Khriplovich’68. …contains one more independent parameter: the Higgs mass. . - PowerPoint PPT PresentationTRANSCRIPT
Precision Measurementsand Tevatron Legacy
M.V. ChizhovSofia University and JINR
Standard Model (SM)
2
2 22 2
30
3
3
11 1 1
2 22
10
0 0
1 13 1
G G G
G G G
G G G
WH H
BH
W
WGH
SU(3)C SU(2)L U(1)Y
Z 00Im ReH H
RеL
eL
Rее
v
3
3 33
R RL
L
du
ud
22 2
2R R
L
L
du
ud
11 1
1R R
L
L
du
ud
R RL
L
v
3
3 33
R RL
L
sc
cs
22 2
2R R
L
L
sc
cs
11 1
1R R
L
L
sc
cs
R RL
L
v
3
3 33
R RL
L
bt
tb
22 2
2R R
L
L
bt
tb
11 1
1R R
L
L
bt
tb
3
Gauge group of the SM
C L Y SU(3) SU(2) ) U(1
3 si
g g ge e
n cosW W
3s
2 2
e
4 4
g
I.Khriplovich’68
2 222 sin cos 1ZW W
FGrM
Spontaneous Symmetry Breaking
QCD
…contains one more independent parameter: the Higgs mass Hr M
11/06/2012
11/06/2012 4
11/06/2012 5
The electron anomalous magnetic momentand the fine-structure constant measurements
exp 22 [ ] 0.001159 6521800.28 p 73p (28) [0.24 ppb]t
2e
gg a
D. Hanneke, S. Fogwell and G. Gabrielse, Phys. Rev. Lett. 100 (2008) 120801;D. Hanneke, S. Fogwell Hoogerheide and G. Gabrielse, Phys. Rev. A 83 (2011) 052122
1(Rb) 137.035 999 037(91) [0.66 ppb] R. Bouchendira, P. Clade, S. Guellati-Khelifa, F. Nez and F. Biraben, Phys. Rev. Lett. 106 (2011) 080801
10.001161
2
Rb10
11/06/2012 6
Fine-structure constant determinationarXiv:1205.5368v1 [hep-ph] 24 May 2012
11/06/2012 7
GF
11/06/2012 8
MuLanFAST
PDG
1 ppm
11/06/2012 9
Fermi constant determination
2 2
1 22 2
2 2 3 4 2
22 2 3
2 51
3
/ 2 21
ˆ ˆ( ) ( )31 1 ,
5
where and 1 8
8 12 ln 0.999813,
259 4 12ln 16 1.8
8
192
2
F
W
e
m m mF H H
m m F
G
H
m
M
O
2 4 2 22
1 PDG 5 21
079,
156815 518 895 67 53 5(3) ln 2 6.7,
5184 81 36 720 6 4
1ˆ( ) ln 135.9 . 1.166 364 (5) 10 GeV [4.3 pp
3]
m
FG
H
m
O
5
PDG
2
1.166 378 8 (7) 10 GeV [0.6 pp
0.97425(
m
2
]
0.97422) 3(2 ) 2ud
F
ud
G
VV
R. K. Behrends, R. J. Finkelstein, & A. Sirlin, Phys. Rev. 101 (1955) 866;T. Kinoshita & A. Sirlin, Phys. Rev. 113 (1959) 1652
T. van Ritbergen & R.G. Stuart, Phys. Rev. Lett. 82 (1999) 488 A. Pak & A. Czarnecki, Phys. Rev. Lett. 100 (2008) 241807
Theoretical uncertainty in the determination of GF is less than 0.3 ppm
11/06/2012 10
TWISTTRIUMF Weak Interaction Symmetry Test
2
IS AS
d~ ( , , ) ( , , ) cos
d dcos
ee
F E P F EE
L. Michel, Proc. Phys. Soc. A63, 514 (1950).
11/06/2012 11
0.009 0.0005TRRg
Phys. Rev. D 85 (2012) 092013
Phys. Rev. D 84 (2011) 032005
0.00156
0.000 711.00179 1P
TWIST final results
5 21.1663788(7)(
0.0036 0.006
781) 10 GeV
9
FG
C. A. Gagliardi, R. E. Tribble, and N. J. WilliamsPhys. Rev. D 84 (2011) 032005
M.V. Chizhov, Mod. Phys. Lett. A9 (1994) 2979
Choosing the third constant
2 eff
91.1876 0.0021 GeV
Journa
l of Physics
23 p
PDG 2010:
s
G 37, 075021 (2010)
in 0.23146 0.00012 518 p
pm
pmW
ZM
2
0.00025 ppm 0.6 ppm 46 ppmF ZG M
5 2
1 137.035 999 166 (34) 0.25 ppb
1.166 378 8 (7) 10 GeV 0.6 ppm
91.1876 (21) GeV 23 ppmF
Z
G
M
ˆ ( ) 1 127.916 (15) 117 ppm1 ( )Z
Z
MM
11/06/2012 12
For scales above a few hundred MeV extra uncertainty due to the low energy hadronic contribution to vacuum polarization is introduced.
Electroweak Quantum corrections (MW, mt and MH)
All coupling constants are functions of a scale (by the way, definition of the mass is also scale dependent). Therefore, different definitions of the sin2 qW, which are equivalent in the Born (tree) approximation, depend on the renormalization prescription. There are a number of popular schemes leading to values which differ by small factors depending on mt and MH.
2tm dependence?
2
W 2
0
2
0
22
2 2 sin :
2 1 (1 )
, where 1 / ( ) 0.06655(11)
On-shell s 1
chemeF Z
WW
WZ
Ht
W
Z
G M r
r r r
Ms
MM
M
r r M
2 2W
2
23 0.00231
8 2 tan
173.2 GeV
0.03617 0.00034 0.000
0.03269
t
F tt
t
H
m
G mr
m
r
r
( )11 ; 0.006
Z tWM M m
M. Awramik, M. Czakon, A. Freitas, and G. Weiglein, Phys. Rev. D 69 (2004) 053006
11/06/2012 13
What about Appelquist−Carazzone decoupling theorem?T. Appelquist & J. Carazzone, Phys. Rev. D 11 (1975) 2856
14
In QED and QCD the vacuum polarization contribution of a heavy fermion pair is suppressed by inverse powers of the fermion mass. At low energies, the information on the heavy fermions is then lost. This ‘decoupling’ of the heavy fields happens in theories with only vector couplings and an exact gauge symmetry, where the effects generated by the heavy particles can always be reabsorbed into a redefinition of the low-energy parameters.
The SM involves, however, a broken chiral gauge symmetry. Therefore, the electroweak quantum corrections offer the possibility to be sensitive to heavy particles, which cannot be kinematically accessed, through their virtual loop effect. The vacuum polarization contributions induced by a heavy top generate corrections to the W± and Z propagators, which increase quadratically with the top mass [M. Veltman, Nucl. Phys. B 123 (1977) 89]. Therefore, a heavy top does not decouple. For instance, with mt = 173 GeV, the leading quadratic correction to amounts to a sizeable 3% effect. The quadratic mass contribution originates in the strong breaking of weak isospin generated by the top and bottom quark masses, i.e., the effect is actually proportional to .
Owing to an accidental SO(3)C symmetry of the scalar sector (the so-called custodial symmetry), the virtual production of Higgs particles does not generate any quadratic dependence on the Higgs mass at one loop [M. Veltman]. The dependence on MH is only logarithmic. The numerical size of the corresponding correction to varies from a 0.1% to a 1% effect for MH in the range from 100 to 1000 GeV.
2 2btm m
2WM
2WM
11/06/2012 15
SM prediction versus data (PDG)
11/06/2012 16
Tevatron: mt = 173.18 ± 0.94 GeVarXiv:1107.5255
CDF 8.7 fb-1 !Conf Note 10761
ATLAS 1.04 fb-1 !arXiv:1203.5755
172.85 ± 0.71 ± 0.84
11/06/2012 17
SM prediction versus data & new mt
11/06/2012 18
Tevatron: MW = 80.387 ± 0.016 GeVarXiv:1204.0042
11/06/2012 19
SM prediction vs new Tevatron data
Higgs?
11/06/2012 20
SM, Tevatron and LHC
11/06/2012 21
11/06/2012 22Victor E. Bazterra
11/06/2012 23Victor E. Bazterra
11/06/2012 24
Lpeak=4.3 x 1032 cm-2 s-1
11/06/2012 25
11/06/2012 27
11/06/2012 28
11/06/2012 29
11/06/2012 30
11/06/2012 31
Single Top Production
CDF: 0.96 0.09(stat+syst) 0.05(theory)
0.78 at 95% C.L.
D0:
0.79 at 95% C.L
tb
tb
tb
V
V
V
.
11/06/2012 32
Higgs Search at the Tevatron
My guess(unpublished):MH ~ /2 123 GeV
11/06/2012 33
Tevatron Exclusion
11/06/2012 34
Tevatron Exclusion with LHC results
11/06/2012 35
Project X The Tevatron is shutting down, and a new project is on the horizon: Project X.
11/06/2012 36
Project X will open a path to discovery in neutrino science and in precision experiments with charged leptons and quarks.
Neutrino Physics
11/06/2012 37
>c
CERN23.11.2011
Mixing matrices
3
2
3 2
1
1
1
ud us ub
CKM cd cs cb
td ts tb
d s b
u V V V
V c V V V
t V V V
Cabibbo-Kobayashi-Maskawa
Pontecorvo-Maki-Nakagawa-Sakata
'
'
'CKM
d d
s V s
b b
1
2
3
e
PMNSU
1 2 3
1 2 3
1 2 3
1 2 3
2 1 3 3 2
1 1 2 1
6 3 21 1 2 1
6 3 2
e e e
PMNS
e U U U
U U UU
U U U
Wolfenstein parameterization
11/06/2012 38P. F. Harrison, D. H. Perkins and W. G. Scott, Phys. Lett. B 530 (2002) 167
11/06/2012 39
Oscillations
The two necessary conditions for neutrino oscillations:
UPMNS is non-identity matrix: the flavour states are different from the mass states m1 m2 m3: non-degeneracy of the mass states
22 2 2 31
3 3( ) 4 sin4e e
m LP U U
E
2 2 2 5 221 2 1
2 5 231
7.54(20) 10 eV
2.43(8) 10 eV
m m m
m
Oscillations!
11/06/2012 40
First indications of non-zero Ue3
T2KPhys.Rev.Lett. 107 (2011) 041801
arXiv:1106.2822 [hep-ex]
MINOSPhys.Rev.Lett. 107 (2011) 181802
arXiv:1108.0015 [hep-ex]
→ e
Appearance!
11/06/2012 41
Ue3 = sin 13 e-i
13
2 22 2 4 2 231 21
12131 sin 2 sin cos sin 2 sin4 4ee
m L m LP
E E
11/06/2012 42
11/06/2012 43
11/06/2012 44
Double Choozanti- νe disappearancesin2 213 < 0.15 at 90% C.L.Eur. Phys. J. C 27, 331 (2003)
Phys.Rev.Lett. 108 (2012) 131801e-Print: arXiv:1112.6353 [hep-ex]
sin2 213 = 0.086 ± 0.041(stat) ± 0.030(syst)sin2 213 = 0 is excluded at the 94.6% C.L.
NEUTRINO 2012 (June 4, 2012)
sin2 213 = 0.109 ± 0.030(stat) ± 0.025(syst)sin2 213 = 0 is excluded at the 99.9% C.L. (3.1)
11/06/2012 45
11/06/2012 46
11/06/2012 47
Daya Bay R=Far/Near
Phys.Rev.Lett.108 (2012) 171803e-Print: arXiv: 1203.1669 [hep-ex]
NEUTRINO 2012 (June 4, 2012)
R = 0.940 ± 0.011(stat) ± 0.004(syst) R = 0.944 ± 0.007(stat) ± 0.003(syst)
11/06/2012 48
Daya Bay sin2 213 fit
Phys.Rev.Lett.108 (2012) 171803e-Print: arXiv: 1203.1669 [hep-ex]
NEUTRINO 2012 (June 4, 2012)
sin2 213 = 0.092 ± 0.016(stat) ± 0.005(syst)sin2 213 = 0 is excluded at 5.2
sin2 213 = 0.089 ± 0.010(stat) ± 0.005(syst)sin2 213 = 0 is excluded at 8 !!!
Installation of final pair antineutrino detectors this year.
11/06/2012 50
RENOPhys.Rev.Lett.108 (2012) 191802e-Print: arXiv: 1204.0626 [hep-ex]
R = 0.920 ± 0.009(stat) ± 0.014(syst)
sin2 213 = 0.113 ± 0.013(stat) ± 0.019(syst)
No new RENO results on NEUTRINO 2012
11/06/2012 51
Mixing angles
G.L. Fogli, E. Lisi, A. Marrone, D. Montanino, A. Palazzo, A.M. RotunnoarXiv:1205.5254 [hep-ph] 25 May 2012
after Neutrino 2012 (beginning of June)
sin212 sin213 sin223
5.4% 10% 13%
11/06/2012 52
MEG + → e + Phys. Rev. Lett. 107 (2011) 171801; arXiv:1107.5547v4
[hep-ex]
BR(+ → e+ ) < 2.4 10-12
22*
2
* 2 * 22 2 21 3 3 314
55
3BR( )
32
3
32
(2.4 3.7) 10
i
i eii W
e eW
me U U
M
U U m U U mM
.
11/06/2012 53
L. Calibbi, A. Faccia, A. Masiero, and S. K. Vempati,Phys. Rev. D74 (2006) 116002, arXiv:hep-ph/0605139.
11/06/2012 54
IceCube CollaborationNature 484 (2012) 351; arXiv:1204.4219 [astro-ph.HE]
GRBs (γ-ray bursts) have been proposed as possible candidate sources for veryhigh energy (1018 eV) cosmic rays.
; e
p n
e
An upper limit on the flux of energetic ’sassociated with GRBs is at least a factor of 3.7 below the predictions!
11/06/2012 55
Thank you for your attention!
11/06/2012 56
Backup slides
2s 3
1 1 3s s 3
The strong coupling constant 4 :
11 2ln , where ,
2 3 3
3 is number of colors,
is number of quarks with 2.
Z C qZ
C
q q
g
b QQ M b N N
M
N
N m Q
11/06/2012
Running coupling “constants”
The Standard Model is based on the gauge group SU(3)C x SU(2)W x SU(1)Y with the corresponding
coupling constants g3, g2 = g and g’.
All further evaluations will be done in one-loop leadingorder radiative correction approximation.
57
11/06/2012
1 , 2 , 32 2
1 3222Evolution of the coupling constants , , ,
which correspond to proper normalization of the generators, can been found, for example
cos si
,
in D
n
. Kazakov, hep-ph/0012288
5
4 3 4
:
5
3
W Ws
g g
1 1
1
2 Hi
1 1
g
12
gs
3
1
ln , 2
0 1 102
where = = 22 3 + 1 6 .3
11 0
It is clear, that we can get evolutions of and5
3
ii i Z
Z
i f
bM
M
b
b b N N
b
2
2
1
53
si1
, an s well.1
W
1/1
1/2
1/3
58
2 ˆsin ( )W
[GeV]
msmcmb
MW
11/06/2012 59
Evolution of the mixing angle
11/06/2012
PDG plot
[TeV]
Electroweak coupling constants
2
2
sin (10TeV)1.088
sin (100GeV)W
W
Instead of g and g’, PYTHIA is using em and sin2W .
“The coupling structure within the electroweak sector is usually (re)expressed in terms of gauge boson masses, em and sin2W…Having done that, em is allowed to run [Kle89], and is evaluated at the s scale. … Currently sin2W is not allowed to run.”
sin2W is fixed. It is nonsense in TeV region!!!
60
11/06/2012
Fine structure constant em evolution
em-1
[GeV]
W± t
2mt2mW
Was not included in PYTHIA
PYTHIA6(on-shell)
ZFITTER (thanks to A. Arbuzov)PYTHIA8(MS)
61
11/06/2012
Evolution of SU(2)W weak coupling constant 2
[GeV]
PYTHIA
1/2 running 2
The PYTHIA result versus my calculations with properly running coupling constant
62
11/06/2012
Z’SSM total width
Rela
tive w
idth
/
MZ
’
MZ’ [GeV]
PYTHIA
The PYTHIA result versus my calculations with properly running coupling constants
63