500 likes | 515 Views
This paper discusses the parameters of the Standard Model and various tests of the electroweak interactions at low and high Q^2. It also explores the consistency of these tests with the predictions of the Standard Model and constraints on the Higgs boson mass. The future prospects in this field are also presented.
E N D
Precision Tests of the Electroweak Interactions Frederic Teubert CERN, PH Department ICHEP04 - Frederic Teubert
Outline • Introduction Parameters of the SM. • Test of the EW interactions at low Q2 g-2 and the running of (Q2) sin2eff measurements • Test of the EW interactions at high Q2 Z mass/width and couplings W mass/width and couplings Top quark mass • Consistency with the SM predictions Consistency with the SM Constraints on mHiggs. • Future prospects • Outlook many thanks to many people, in particular: D.Alton, H.Burkhardt, M.Carena, R.Chierici, P.Cushman, J.G.DaCosta, M.Davier, C.DeClercq, A.Gurtu, M.Gruenewald, E.Halkiadiakis, C.Hays, R.Hawkings, A.Hoecker, P.Langacker, K. Nagano, L.Malgeri, B.Q.Ma, B.McKeown, M.Muehlleitner, R.Petti, B.Pietrzyk, G.Quast, B.Quayle, R.Ranieri, P.Renton, H.Ruiz, E.Sauvan, J.Stirling, J.Shan, A.Tapper, E.Torrence, G.Venanzoni, S.Yost, B.Zhang ICHEP04 - Frederic Teubert
Parameters of the SM Parameters of the Standard Model. In the context of the SM, any EW process can be computed at tree level from , mW , mZ. When higher orders are included, any observable can be predicted as Contrary to what happens with “exact gauge symmetry” theories, like QED or QCD, the effect of heavy particles do not decouple, and there is sensitivity to mtop and to less extend to mHiggs, or to any kind of “heavy new physics”. O(, mW, mZ, s, mHiggs, mtop) and the rest of mf which are known with adequate precision On-Shell renormalization scheme ICHEP04 - Frederic Teubert
Parameters of the SM The usual procedure has been to take G, the Fermi Constant measured in muon decay, to predict mW and use this more precise value to predict any other observable. Therefore, the input parameters are chosen to be: But… the relevant scale is q2 m2Z … -1(0) = 137.03599877(40) s(mZ) = 0.118(2) G (m)=1.16637(1) 10-5GeV-2 mZ = 91.1875(21) GeV 310-9 210-2 910-6 210-5 ICHEP04 - Frederic Teubert
Parameters of the SM: (Q2) The running of (Q2). Since vacuum polarization effects screen the electric charge, the coupling increases when evaluated at a high scale of the momentum transfer… The shift can be determined analytically for lepton loops and by a dispersion integral over the e+e- annihilation cross section for light quarks (u,d,s,c,b): (m2Z) = /(1-) a ~ (Q2)/2 Optical Theorem ICHEP04 - Frederic Teubert
Parameters of the SM: (Mz2) Using the latest experimental data from BESII: 5hadron = 0.02761 0.00036 (Burkhardt and Pietrzyk 2001) 5hadron = 0.02755 0.00023 (Hagiwara et al. 2003) These data has also confirm the validity of extending the use of perturbative QCD in the calculation of 5hadron. The most precise of these theory-driven calculations gives, 5hadron = 0.02747 0.00012 (Troconiz and Yndurain 2001) using CMD-2 and KLOE latest data, seem to cancel out using CMD-2 latest data is not anymore the limiting factor in the SM fits… thanks BES !!! hep-ph/0312250 ICHEP04 - Frederic Teubert
Parameters of the SM: (~M2) e+ τ- e- ν γ W π+ π0 π- π- (11658472.07± 0.11)10-10 (692.4 to 694.4 ± 7)10-10 [e+e- -based 04] (12.0 ± 3.5)10-10 [Melnikov & Vainshtein 03] ICHEP04 - Frederic Teubert
Comparison KLOE vs CMD-2 ampp = (375.6 0.8stat 4.8syst+theo) 10-10 KLOE 1.3% Error ampp = (378.6 2.7stat 2.3syst+theo) 10-10 CMD-2 0.9% Error |Fp | 2 CMD-2 KLOE only statistical errors are shown KLOE PRELIMINARY comparison with CMD-2 in the range 0.37 GeV2 < Mpp2 < 0.93 GeV2 Mpp2 (GeV2) evaluated using e+ e- data preferred, however more data needed: BaBar, Belle,KLOE … ICHEP04 - Frederic Teubert
Radiative Corrections Quantum loops generate corrections in three sectors: DEFINITION = 0 / (1-) a = I3 v = I3 (1 - 4|Q| sin2W) sin2W 1 - m2W/m2Z (1+r) r + rW (mTop, mHiggs) 0.06 - 0.014 (mTop, mHiggs) 0.005 sin2eff • 1 + QED + w (mTop, mHiggs) 1 + 0.038 + 0.002 ICHEP04 - Frederic Teubert
Tests of the EW interactions at low Q2 ICHEP04 - Frederic Teubert
(g-2) a B When=29.3(p=3.09 Gev/c), ais independent of E. B is determined by measuring the proton nuclear magnetic resonance (NMR) frequency p in the magnetic field. N(t)=Ne-t/[1-Acos(ωat+φ)] ICHEP04 - Frederic Teubert
(g-2) BNL01 m- (0.7 ppm) BNL00 m+ (0.7 ppm) New -data collected in 2001, confirms previous measurements using + (a+ - 11659000)x 10-10 = 203 ± (6 stat. 5 syst.) (a- - 11659000) x 10-10 = 214 ± (6 stat. 5 syst.) (a - 11659000)exp x 10-10 = 208 ± (5 stat. 4 syst.) (a - 11659000)th x 10-10 = 183 ± 7[e+e-] DEHZ04 including KLOE 2.7 from prediction (was 1.9 before inclusion of 2001 data) ICHEP04 - Frederic Teubert
sin2eff at low Q2 (E-158) sin2eff(Q2=0.026 GeV2) =0.2403±0.0010 (stat)±0.0009 (syst) (Run I + II + III, preliminary) Møller scattering : Scatter polarized (up to 80%) 50 GeV electrons off unpolarized atomic electrons, and measure the asymmetry However, (Q2) completely dominated by (Q2), hence mostly sensitive to new physics at born level (eg. Z’, LFV, Contact Interactions, …) ICHEP04 - Frederic Teubert
sin2eff at low Q2 (NuTeV) Uncertainties from modelling such as charm mass and strange sea… alternatively, measure CC and NC in both neutrinos and anti-neutrinos: Paschos-Wolfenstein method Large cancellation of uncertainties ! R= 0.3916 ± (0.0007 stat. 0.0011 syst.) SM: 0.3950 (-2.6 ) R= 0.4050 ± (0.0016 stat. 0.0022 syst.) SM: 0.4066 (-0.6 ) ICHEP04 - Frederic Teubert
sin2eff at low Q2 (NuTeV) The Strange Sea: The computation assumes that the strange sea is symmetric. New CTEQ analysis including the NuTeV dimuon data gives, while to explain the whole effect would require +0.006 Possible sources of discrepancy Electroweak corrections: New calculations: K.Diener et al. hep-ph/0310364, hep-ph/0311122 Kretzer, hep-ph/0405221, Arbuzov et al., hep-ph/0407203 Improved treatment of initial state mass singularities Could reduce the discrepancy by about 1 Isospin Violation: Could up(x) dn(x) ? Can account for about 1 of the effect. Before a careful re-assessment of all theoretical uncertainties, the 3 discrepancy with the SM cannot be taken at face value. ICHEP04 - Frederic Teubert
sin2eff at low Q2 (NOMAD) ICHEP04 - Frederic Teubert
Lepton Flavor Violationat BaBar/BELLE 220 Million +- ICHEP04 - Frederic Teubert
Tests of the EW interactions at high Q2 ICHEP04 - Frederic Teubert
p p Z/W production e,m e+, m+ q q Z0/g* W± n e-, m- Van Neerven, Matsuura q p q’ p Van Neerven, Matsuura Total Luminosity: 1000 pb-1 Run II Luminosity: 400 pb-1 since 2001 TeVatron Run II 200k leptonic Z’s 20 Million Z’s Precision: 0.1% 40,000 W+W- Energy: 1800 2000 GeV 1989-2000 LEP Run 2 Million leptonic W’s Energy: 88 209 GeV A few Higgses? ICHEP04 - Frederic Teubert
Polarized cross-sections at HERA II HERA II Luminosity: ~20 pb-1 HERA II e+ polarization: 32% and -40% Q2 > 400 GeV2 Y < 0.9 CC (P=-1)= -3.7 2.4 2.7 pbH1 ICHEP04 - Frederic Teubert
Multi-lepton events at HERA ICHEP04 - Frederic Teubert
Gauge Bosons at TeVatron CDF/D: • Measurement of many cross-sections • Limits on couplings in progress CDF/D Compare to Drell-Yan • Set limits on Z’, extra dimensions, etc. • Improve on Run I limits, test new models 95% CL, M(Z’/SM) > 735 GeV ICHEP04 - Frederic Teubert
Z lineshape at LEP Final results from LEP: mZ = 91.1875 0.0021 GeV Z = 2.49520.0023 GeV 0h =41.540 0.037 nb Rl = 20.767 0.025 (5.4 ) = 0.0054 0.0010 • The invisible width defined as inv Z - h - (3+) l = 499.0 1.5 MeV • allows to quote a limit on invisible non SM Z decays as: • Number of light neutrino species: N inv /l (l /)SM • (-1.9) inv < 2.1 MeV @ 95% c.l. N = 2.9841 0.0083 0.0054 (theor.) 0.0063 (exp.) ICHEP04 - Frederic Teubert
Z couplings to leptons The measurements of Asymmetries at the Z pole are determinations of the ratio: Average of LEP: AlFB , APOL SLC: ALR(2/dof = 1.6/2) Al = 0.1501 0.0016 and using the leptonic width, sin2eff = 1/4 (1-glV/glA) = sin2W sin2eff = 0.23113 0.00021 ICHEP04 - Frederic Teubert
Z couplings to quarks AFB The measurements of Asymmetries away from the Z pole measure the interference between and the Z. ICHEP04 - Frederic Teubert
Z couplings to quarks Flavour tagging allows precise measurements of the heavy quarks partial widths and asymmetries, Rc c/q ,Rb b/q , AcFB,AbFB Lifetime tagging: • Most efficient way of selecting b-hadrons from Z decays, Average b lifetime (1.5 ps) average path 3 mm. • Impact Parameter of b-decay products is about 300 m. • Mass information is used to discriminate between b-hadrons and c-hadrons (mb >> mc) With the lifetimetagging high purity b samples are selected (~95%) while keeping good efficiency(~30%). Impact parameter Invariant mass ICHEP04 - Frederic Teubert
Z couplings to quarks New combination from LEP and SLC, 2 = 53.0 / (105-14) New theoretical uncertainty in the Z interference added : 0.0005 AFB = 0.0998 ± 0.0017 (summer 04) AFB = 0.0997 ± 0.0016 (summer 03) ICHEP04 - Frederic Teubert
Z couplings to leptons/quarks sin2eff comparison : which corresponds to a 2.8 disagreement. 2.8 (it was 2.9)between the two most precise quantities (ALR vs AbFB) sin2eff = 0.23213 0.00029 (q-asym.) sin2eff = 0.23113 0.00021 (l-asym.) sin2eff = 1/4 (1-glV/glA) ICHEP04 - Frederic Teubert
W decays Tree level NNLO QCD calc (Van Neerven) SM EWK Calculation PDG(LEP) RUN II Preliminary CDF combined electron & muon channels LEP II A/D/L Final, O Preliminary combined electron & muon channels BR(Wl) = (10.63 0.12) % while from the tau channel (3) BR(W) = (11.41 0.22) % ICHEP04 - Frederic Teubert
Triple Gauge Boson Couplings AD prel. LO final g1Z = -0.009 0.022 = -0.016 0.044 = -0.016 0.022 Consistent with the SM with a precision of O(2-4%). ICHEP04 - Frederic Teubert
W mass at TeVatron Example of what can be achieved with Run II at CDF, using W decays: mW ( , RUN I)= 80.465 0.100 0.103 GeV mW ( , 200 pb-1 RUN II)= 80.xxx 0.050 0.069 GeV Final RUN I results mW (RUN I)= 80.454 0.033 0.050 GeV ICHEP04 - Frederic Teubert
W mass at LEP q W- e- _ q d~0.1 fm e+ W+ q _ q Expected final statistical error for LEP: ~ 25 MeV • Interconnection effects (not included in standard MC models): • Bose-Einstein correlations: momenta of identical bosons tend to be correlated. • Colour reconnection: hadronic interaction between W decays • d(W+,W-) < 1 fm ICHEP04 - Frederic Teubert
W mass at LEP:( exp. limits on BE/CR) CR: L3 A W- C W+ D B mW (BE)= ~15 MeV mW (CR)= ~100 MeV mW (4q) - mW (2q) = 22 ± 43 MeV ICHEP04 - Frederic Teubert
W mass at LEP: (Color Reconnection) • Proposed solution: modify clustering algorithm to dismiss information from those particles. K parameter • Good reduction factors are obtained for all available models • Example: Cone (R=0.5 rad), with a statistical loss of ~ 25%: ICHEP04 - Frederic Teubert
W mass mW (world average)= 80.425 0.034 GeV • Good consistency between LEP experiments • Good consistency LEP/TeVatron experiments • Consistency with Z data (LEP/SLD): • mW=mZ cosW world average leptons quarks mW= 80.414 0.026 GeV(cosW from leptons) mW= 80.290 0.042 GeV(cosW from quarks) mW (LEP)= 80.412 0.029 0.031 GeV ICHEP04 - Frederic Teubert
Top mass at TeVatron The previous value of the top mass was: July 2000, Run I: mtop (CDF)= 176.1 4.2 5.1 GeV mtop (D) = 172.1 5.2 4.9 GeV D has re-analized the Run I data with a much more detailed event-by-event likelihood: April 2004, Run I: mtop (D) = 180.1 3.6 3.9 GeV April 2004, Run I: mtop (CDF+D)= 178.0 2.7 3.3 GeV ICHEP04 - Frederic Teubert
Consistency with the SM predictions ICHEP04 - Frederic Teubert
Consistency with the SM Are we sensitive to radiative corrections other than ?: Rb: SM prediction with b = 0 Measurement (LEP+SLC) sin2eff: SM prediction with W = 0 Measurement (LEP+SLC) l: SM prediction with = 0 Measurement (LEP) mW: SM prediction with rW = 0 Measurement (LEP+TEVATRON) (2.8 ) b = -0.0045 0.0016 mtop = 155 20 GeV Rb = 0.2183 Rb = 0.21646 0.00065 (1.7 ) sin2eff = 0.23115 sin2eff = 0.23147 0.00017 W = 0.0014 0.0008 (4.7 ) glA = -0.5 glA = -0.50123 0.00026 = 0.005 0.001 (12 ) rW = -0.023 0.002 mW = 80.026 mW = 80.425 0.034 ICHEP04 - Frederic Teubert
Consistency with the SM mtop = 174±5.1 GeV178.0 4.3 GeV sin2eff (b-asym) = 0.23212±0.000290.23210 0.00030 All the high Q2 measurements are fitted as a function of: O( , G , mZ , s , mHiggs ,mtop) • Changes w.r.t. summer 03: • New measurement of mtop at TeVatron: • New HF average from LEP: • New version of ZFITTER v6.4 with two loop corrections to Mw and sin2eff ICHEP04 - Frederic Teubert
Consistency with the SM mtop (fit) = 179 ± 10 GeV (2/dof = 15.8/12) mtop (exp) = 178.0 ± 4.3 GeV mW (fit) = 80.379 ± 0.023 GeV (2/dof = 14.1/11) mW (exp) = 80.425 ± 0.034 GeV ICHEP04 - Frederic Teubert
Consistency with the SM SM fits: with a 2/d.o.f. = 15.8/13 and a 67% correlation between mtop and log(mHiggs). The largest contribution to the 2 is AbFBwith 2.4. It pulls for a large mHiggs in opposition to l, mW and leptonic asymmetries. 5hadron = 0.02769 0.00035 s(mZ) = 0.1186 0.0027 mtop = 178.2 3.9 GeV log(mHiggs) = 2.06 0.21 ICHEP04 - Frederic Teubert
Constraints on mHiggs log(mHiggs) = 2.06 0.21 mHiggs = 114 + 69- 45 GeV mHiggs < 260 GeV @95% c.l. mHiggs > 114 GeV @95% c.l. ICHEP04 - Frederic Teubert
Constraints on mHiggs Is there any chance to improve this constraints? [log(mHiggs)]2 = [exp]2 + [mt]2 + []2 + [s]2 Z asymmetries,sin2eff :[0.22]2 = [0.15]2 +[0.12]2+ [0.10]2 + [0.01]2 all high Q2 data:[0.21]2 = [0.12]2 +[0.13]2 + [0.10]2 + [0.04]2 [0.03] if theory-driven The reduction in mtop (5.1 4.3 GeV) has reduced the uncertainty on mHiggs , but still the TOP priority is to reduce the uncertainty on mtop ,which is limited by systematic uncertainties! ICHEP04 - Frederic Teubert
Future prospects ICHEP04 - Frederic Teubert
Future prospects What do we learn from all this impressive experimental effort is that something has to happen at energy scales ofO(1 TeV). It may be a light Higgs boson, it may be SUSY, or it may even be something else… but the scale is fixed by the precision EW measurements at LEP/SLC/TeVatron. ICHEP04 - Frederic Teubert
Future prospects CMS NOTE 2003/033 theory-driven log(mHiggs) 0.18 0.10 now 0.08 run II LHC 0.05 LC ICHEP04 - Frederic Teubert
Future prospects What could be better than an e+e- linear collider to complement with precision, the measurements at the hadron colliders at the TeV scale? ICHEP04 - Frederic Teubert
Outlook ICHEP04 - Frederic Teubert
Outlook The standard model of ElectroWeak interactions describes all precision measurements, O(0.1%). The precision is such that one needs to add pure EW radiative corrections sensitive to heavy particles: Any improvement on this indirect determination of mHiggs needs an improvement on the uncertainty on mTop. The largest contribution to the 2 is AbFBwith 2.4. It pulls for a large mHiggsin opposition tol, mW and leptonic asymmetries. mtop = 178.2 3.9 GeV mHiggs = 114 + 69- 45 GeV (2/dof = 16/13) mHiggs < 260 GeV @95% c.l. ICHEP04 - Frederic Teubert
Outlook The biggest discrepancy is on the interpretation of the ratio of NC and CC as measured by NuTeV as a determination of sin2eff. However this interpretation depends on theoretical uncertainties that must be reevaluated, before the 3 discrepancy is taken at face value. The biggest challenge to the SM is the deviation in the measurement of the anomalous magnetic moment of muons: which is 2.7 away from theory. The theoretical prediction is now much more robust, even though the discrepancy with tau data is not really understood. The medium-term future is bright in our field. The EW precision measurements tells us that something has to happen at energy scales of O(1 TeV)… which happen to be the energy scale of LHC and e+ e- linear colliders. (a - 11659000)exp x 10-10 = 208 ± 6 (a - 11659000)th x 10-10 = 183 ± 7 ICHEP04 - Frederic Teubert