radioactive ion traps and high energy physics n.
Skip this Video
Download Presentation
Radioactive Ion traps and High energy physics

Loading in 2 Seconds...

play fullscreen
1 / 31

Radioactive Ion traps and High energy physics - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

  • Uploaded on

Radioactive Ion traps and High energy physics. Fun-Traps 2012- and the “Higgs” discovery at the LHC. Ion Traps: Operate at mili-Kelvin LHC: operates at 7 TeV i.e at an energy Higher by 10^20!. IT see 10^6 radioactive decays.

I am the owner, or an agent authorized to act on behalf of the owner, of the copyrighted work described.
Download Presentation

PowerPoint Slideshow about 'Radioactive Ion traps and High energy physics' - calder

Download Now An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation

Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author.While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - E N D - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Presentation Transcript
radioactive ion traps and high energy physics

Radioactive Ion traps and High energy physics

Fun-Traps 2012- and the “Higgs” discovery at the LHC

ion traps operate at mili kelvin lhc operates at 7 tev i e at an energy higher by 10 20

Ion Traps: Operate at mili-KelvinLHC: operates at 7 TeV i.e at an energy Higher by 10^20!

IT see 10^6 radioactive decays.

LHC found the O( 100) Higgs decay events after ~ 10^15 pp collisions!

a high precision low intensity experiments vs b high intensity high energy experiments
A)High precision low intensity experiments vs. B) high intensity& high energy experiments
  • The ultimate example of A- measuring the g-2 of the electron with a precision of 1 in 10^12 in agreement with Kinoshita’s QED calculation.

A related g-2 measurement for the muon suggests a 3 standard deviations from the QED and QCD based calculation-

indicates new particles in the triangle loop??!!

The searches for Dark matter and for proton decay or for neutrino-less double beta decays under-ground experiments - a yet different class where a signal of vey few events is expected .

an intermediate class high intensity not so high energy
An intermediate class: High intensity not so high energy
  • In passing recall experiments of just high intensity: monitoring up to 10^15 decays of positive muons in order to extract G(Fermi) to high precision or to limit the branching of muon  electron + gamma by 10 ^{-12}.

Also in KATRIN ~ 10^23 Tritium decays need to be monitored to extract from the endpoint spectrum sub eV neutrino masses!

plan of talk
Plan of talk:
  • How certain rare particle decays e.g. Second class cur.

tau  neutrino + pion + eta (or eta’) with rates limited by BABAR and BELL complement precision measurements of beta decay spectra in IT’s

( Based on joint works with AvnerSoffer at TAU estimating the expected SM decay rates and subsequent discussions with Danny Ashery) .

  • Some comments about the new 125 GeV “ Higgs” particle discovered at the LHC .
  • And finally:

Can the Higgs discovery be relevant to IT physics

precision weak decays tests of the s m v a form some general background
Precision weak decays tests of the S.M V-A form- some general background .
  • New scalar ( or pseudo-scalar) particles of mass M and with couplings g’ to e-nu(e) and to u-d quarks add S , P decay amplitudes

~ r= [g’M(W)/gM(S)]^2

this will:

a) modify beta decay spectra which IT using also nuclear recoils can measure with high precision , and

b)modify the rate or other features of certain weak decays- a stronger effect when the standard V-A amplitude for this process is supressed .

two examples
Two examples
  • The small Br{pi  e nu / (pi  mu nu)} ~1.4 10^{-4} is measured with a precision of 4.10^{-3} [similar to the E.M. correction) follows from the SM . Hence:
  • r(P)^2 < 6.10 ^{-7} ( there is NO A-P interference since the lepton trace vanishes)
  • The Br{ tau pi +eta+nu } is small { estimated within the S.M. to be ~ 10^{-5} by Xiralpertrubation and by us ( AvnerSoffer and me)…

unfortunately the experimental bounds from BABAR and BELL are ~ 10^{-4} which may be a bit inferior to the IT bounds –but will greatly improve at S.B factories

limits on new physics
Limits on New Physics
  • B(t-hp-n) can be used to put bounds on new scalar interactions up to the SM expectation B(t-hp-n) ~ 10-5
  • A limit B(t-hp-n) < 3  10-5 implies

for the same couplings as in the SM.

  • Competitive with limits from angular distributions in nuclear b decay, ~4 (expected to improve to ~7 and then to ~15)
  • The two limits are complementary:
    • b-decay: 1st-generation couplings
    • t-hp-n: 3rd-generation couplings
back to the future the higgs
Back to the Future - the “Higgs”
  • A narrow state at ~ 125 GeVwas discovered by ATLAS and CMS at the LHC BOTH in the gamma-gamma AND the Z-Z^*,W-W^* channels. Most likely it couples strongly also to the top quark.
  • Most likely it is the S.M “Higgs” particle whose

main role is to generate the vector boson masses m(W) ,m(Z) and to ensure renormalize-ability .

This role can be fulfilled by a fundamental, point-like scalar particle or in dynamical schemes with composite Higgs. ( Technicolor – but…)

is the new h 125 particle the sm higgs or does it suggest new physics
Is the new H(125) particle THE SM Higgs-or does it suggest new physics?
  • Since NO N.P. ( new SUSY, KK, Z’, DM or any other beyond the SM particles ) have been discovered yet(!) at the LHC- this is a key for the future of HE physics…..
  • An equally important related question is:

If indeed J(H)=0 is it composite or FUNDAMENTAL??

NO elementary J=0 particles have been seen - may be for a good reason….

Suggested answer : If the H has even/odd parity it is (un) likely to be FUNDAMENTAL.

The argument presented uses only the low m(H) mass relative to the scale up to which there is no N.P

the u nbearable lightness of a composite scalar h particle s n r s
The Unbearable Lightness of a Composite, Scalar H particle.(S.N &R.S)
  • Assume that H is related to the EWSB then it has E.W. Charges. It then can be composed only of a fermion ( Q(i) )and an anti-fermion \bar Q(j) and a \bar Q-Q condensate generates SEW SB. The size < Q-Q(bar) > ~ (½ TeV)^3 is fixed by the W and Z masses it needs to generate.
  • A DEFINITE parity is measured for the H particle.
  • A non-Abelian gauge theory provides the underlying dynamics which binds and confines the new fermions and the lack of N.P at the LHC implies Lambda’ >~ ½ TeV. THEN:
the claimed result
The claimed result:
  • The light ( relative to 2\Lambda’) H particle is extremely unlikely to be composite if it is a scalar, but can be a composite pseudo- scalar.
  • Outline of arguments:
  • 1) using ‘Constituent fermions” of mass O(1/2 TeV) which the \bar Q-Q condensate generates along with a smooth confining potential and the strong H.F. Interactions required to bind a 0^- S wave state to ~0, we show that 0^+ ,P wave state is NOT strongly bound.
  • 2) we use the QCD mass inequalities.
qcd inequalities lightening review
QCD Inequalities-Lightening Review
  • All the information in QCD is encoded in the Euclidean many point functions: <B(x) C(y) D(z) ..>= F(xyz..). In a two point function Let
  • C=B^+(x)= \bar \psi(x) \Gamma(i) \ psi(x)
  • with \Gamma(i) the 16 Dirac matrices When acting on the vacuum it creates all the sates with the corresponding quantum numbers : S(0^+) ,P(0^-) , V (1^-), A(1^+). The states propagate from x to y where they are annihilated back by B^+(y). Taking x-y to be imaginary Euclidean time the propagation involves a factor exp {- m (x-y) } with m the mass of the state in interest . Summing over states  spectral decomposition.
qcd inequalities cont
QCD Inequalities Cont
  • The T.P. corellatorsF(|x-y|) can be expressed as a functional integral over gauge fields A configurations weighed with exp {-S(A) } (and a determinant which also is positive for Vectorial underlying gauge theories ( Xiral G. theories will lead to H with no definite parity)
  • the integrands are:

Tr(\Gamma(i) S_{A}(x,y} \Gamma(i) S_{A}(y,x) and for \Gamma(i) = \gamma(5) become the positive Tr( S^+ (x,y) S (x,y))

final result of inequalities
Final Result of inequalities:
  • F_P(x-y) > all other correllators.

Using the asymptotic form we then conclude m^0 (0^-) < all other m^0(i) namely the lightest pseudo scalar is the lightest hadron.

In particular m(0^-) < m (0^+)  VW theorem. But we can argue further that the scalars are indeed a LOT heavier by say 2 Lambda’  a composite light scalar is impossible. Hence

If H=scalar than it is most likely Fundamental no difficulty for a S.M Higgs due to the relatively small lambda H^4 coupling}

a brave new scalar world
A Brave New Scalar World?
  • Interesting consequences of just a 125 GeV SM Higgs:
  • i) Possible new “Fatal” scalar attraction of top quarks not just t-t(bar) but t^N ( Bar.GenShur)
  • ii) excluding 4 th heavy generation ( loop) etc.
  • Q: consequences for beta Spectrain Ion Traps?
  • Not for a neutral H. But In SUSY extensions two Higgs doublets give masses to the up/down sectors leaving five scalars including H^+ , H^- !
yet s susy higgs cut no ice even in cool ion traps
Yet S-SUSY Higgs cut no ice even in cool ion traps!
  • In S.M Yukawa H couplings , proportional to the fermion masses - are tiny for the first u,d,enu(e) generation. ( The rational for a muon collider) But there could be other charged scalars with different patterns of couplings, say three Higgs doublets for the three generations…
  • So who wins? Can Ion Traps be more sensitive to new charged scalars than the LHC ??
yes you can
Yes , You CAN !
  • If you measure via the (V-A).S Interference in the shape of spectra the amplitude of S –so as to be sensitive to r= (g’/g)^2 (M(W)/{M(S)})^2 (  #6) of 10 ^ -2 or even 10^{-3}. Take g~g’ than the reach of Ion traps is up to

M(S) = 0.8 – 2.5 TeV !

vector contribution
Vector contribution
  • Note: B(t-p-p0nt) is large (25.5%) and completely dominated by r-contribution
  • So expect r-to also dominate the vector contribution to t-hp-nt, with branching fraction

1 power from phase space,

2 from vector amplitude

obtaining g rhp coupling
Obtaining grhp Coupling
  • r-hp- has not been observed, but we can obtain grhp from the Dalitz-plot distribution of h p+p-p0
    • Method used by Ametller & Bramon, PRD 24, 1325 (1981)
    • Now more precise data, access to more terms in Dalitz-plot distribution
  • Assume the decay has 3 contributions: scalar, r+ and r-:
    • (r0isforbidden due to C conservation)
  • Scalar part has flat distribution in the p+p-p0 Dalitz plot, and is also the only contribution to h3p0

Q  mh – 3mp

Dalitz plot variables

Write vector part as:

The coupling we are after

Expand squared amplitude to 3rd order in
  • Obtain total rate relative to scalar part:
  • Where

Taken to be real

  • Comparing the Y coefficients, get:
  • Extract grpp from rpp width:
  • So the vector contribution to B(thpn) is

Consistent w. Ametller & Bramon

cross checks
  • The other coefficients are a test of the model:
  • Compare with KLOE measurement:
  • Floating arg(MS) = 15 improves agreement only slightly
  • Also check ratio of BR’s::
scalar contribution to b t hp n t
Scalar Contribution to B(t-hp-nt)
  • Chiral perturbation theory calculates assumed a0(980) is a qq state and are complicated
  • We conduct a simpler estimate and arrive at a similar result:
  • Vector current is conserved up to md- mu:
  • We estimate the scalar matrix element by relating the P-wave states a0(980) & a1(1260):

Phase space

~1, since fixed by quark-model wave functions

BL=0 ~ 10-5

  • Our estimates
    • BL=0(t-hp-n) ~ 10-5
    • BL=1(t-hp-n) 3  10-6

imply the following for the measured value of BL=0(t-hp-n):

  •  3  10-6, especially with a r-(770) peak 
    • No surprises
  •  10  10-6, especially with a a0-(980) peak 
    • a0-(980) is a qq state after all
  • > ~30  10-6,especially with scalar dominance 
    • Possibly new scalar interactions, MS ~ 13 MW for weak coupling
  • Note that BaBar has limit B(t-h’p-n) < 7.2  10-6
    • Contributions from additional intermediate resonances