A preamble to the CDF results on Z to bb decays February 13, 2007
Posted by dorigo in news, personal, physics, science.add a comment
I have been searching for Z decays to b-quark pairs in proton-antiproton collider data for the last 11 years. Of course that was not the only thing I did research-wise in this long time span, but it has been some sort of trademark of my research activity.
During my whole career I almost exclusively dealt with the reconstruction of particle decays in jet final states. I saw top quarks, W bosons, and Z bosons decays to jets -and in two cases, these were first-time observations. Let me describe what this is about in a few lines.
The heaviest known particles - W and Z bosons, plus of course the top quark, or the still-to-be-seen Higgs boson - can decay to quarks pairs (triplets, the top) carrying so much energy that the latter fragment into collimated streams of hadrons - particles themselves composed of quarks.
Hadronic jets are complicated objects. Their efficient reconstruction and precise measurement in present-day experimental apparata is not trivial. And the measurement of the mass of the originating particle, which disintegrated to yield the quarks and eventually the jets we observe, is very challenging.
I begun my career as a particle physicist in 1992, when I started collaborating with a group of physicists in Padova that was looking for the decay of top quark pairs into six hadronic jets - a final state apparently doomed by a huge background of QCD processes. Despite skepticism from our collaborators, my group eventually found a signal of that decay (you can see the top quark decay contribution as a white area in the plot, best fitting the black points if added on top of the yellow distribution describing the background shape), and in 1997 we published a “first observation” paper describing our result.
From 1996 to 1998, as a PhD student, I decided I would search for the decay of the Z boson to pairs of b-quark jets. As hard as finding six-jet decays of top-antitop pairs had been, this is even more difficult: you only have two jets in the event, and your background is more than 1000 times larger than the expected signal, and almost impossible to tell apart. In fact, at the outset most people in my collaboration believed I was wasting my time -a few experts had tried and failed before I even started. But I was confident in myself, and I also knew that finding Z->bb decays was of paramount importance: even failure would not be a waste of time!
In fact, most of our hopes to find the Higgs boson at the Tevatron rely in the identification of its decay to pairs of b-quark jets, the very same final state of Z decay. And the Z is only slightly lighter than the Higgs is expected to be. But the Higgs has a much lower production rate! How, then, can we hope to see a Higgs if we do not first find the Z in the same final state ?
Moreover, a well-defined Z signal allows one to tune the response of our detector to b-jets. We can test whether our jet energy is measured correctly, because we KNOW what the Z mass is (the LEP experiments measured it with extreme accuracy), and what we reconstruct in the detector can be brought to match that knowledge, improving our measurements with b-jets - the top quark mass, or the Higgs mass if the latter is found.
Finally, the Z signal becomes a testing ground for any algorithm that attempts to increase the resolution of the b-jet energy - again, an issue of paramount importance in the search for the Higgs: if you are looking for a tiny little bump in a mass distribution, the better your resolution the higher your bump will stand on top of a flat background - so your discovery reach on the Higgs is a linear function of your energy resolution!
In 1998 I blessed the result shown on the left. I found a small signal, about 90 events (you can see the excess of red points over the blue histogram in the inset, shown as a function of the reconstructed Z boson mass, and a background-subtracted distribution in the main plot): not altogether so significant by itself, but an important assertion about the capability of hadronic colliders to use that signal to learn how to measure b-jets and search for a light Higgs boson.
Then, in 2005 Julien and I, together with other members of a small, dedicated group were able to bless the “public-relation” plot shown here, using four times more statistics and a much more efficient triggering procedure from Run II data. The green Z decay signal shown here amounts to about 3000 Z decays, but we did not use it in the determination of the b-jet energy scale, nor did we obtain a precise estimate of the production cross section.
Last year it was D0’s turn to show what they could do in this department. They found a signal of about 1200 events (see plot on the left), but they did not venture in a full measurement of the energy scale or the Z cross section either.
Ok, that was the past. Now, in little less than two weeks, my work of ten years will reach a significant milestone. The search for Z bosons in CDF Run II data will be made public by CDF via what is called a formal “blessing” - an internal meeting where the results of a full-blown analysis are carefully scrutinized and approved for public consumption. After that happens, you will see here the new plots and the results we obtain.
This post is becoming too long, so I will describe the analysis - still without giving out any classified details yet! - in another post tomorrow.
More on neutrino mass in the SM February 13, 2007
Posted by dorigo in Blogroll, books, internet, physics, science.add a comment
Quite unusually, my last instantiation of the periodic posting of “The Say of the Week” resulted in some constructive criticism and in some insightful comments. Due to the usual care in documenting his comments, Tony Smith deserves to be quoted here - to the benefit of whomever wants to read more on the subject, and to the intrigue of who wants to know about Tony’s own “unconventional” model of neutrino masses:
In his book Journeys Beyond the Standard Model (Perseus 1999) Pierre Ramond says: “… the standard model must be extended to accommodate massive neutrinos … the extensions do not put in question the nature of the standard model, but rather add more parameters to it … To preserve lepton number and massive neutrinos we need to introduce new fermions to serve as the Dirac partners of the left handed neutrinos. These new fermion degrees of freedom can have any electroweak quantum numbers … Electroweak breaking then generates a neutrino Dirac mass of the order of 245 x Y(0) GeV …
The experimental limits on neutrino masses imply that the Y(0) cuopling constants must themselves be very small, in the range of Y(0) less than or equal to ( 10^(-10) - 10^(-4) ). If one accepts such tiny couplings (after all, we already have m_e = 10^(-6) M_W …), this represents a viable extension of the standard model …”.
To me, that sounds like Dirac mass for neutrinos would indeed be much like Tommaso’s “say of the week”: “… a rearrangement of the furniture in the kids’ room forced by the arrival of a new baby”. To verify the “say” in that way, the question is: Are neutrino mass states Dirac mass states?
In a Particle Data Group review NEUTRINO MASS, MIXING, AND FLAVOR CHANGE, Revised September 2005, B. Kayser (Fermilab) says: “… In the Standard Model (SM), neutrinos are assumed to be massless. Now that we know they do have masses, it is straightforward to extend the SM to accommodate these masses in the same way that this model accommodates quark and charged lepton masses. … if the cosmological assumptions … are correct, then 0.04 eV is less than …[ the mass of the heaviest neutrino ]… is less than (0.2 - 0.4) eV … To accommodate the nu mass in the same manner as quark masses are accommodated, we add nu_R to the Model. Then we may construct the “Dirac mass term” … Suppose the right-handed neutrinos required by Dirac mass terms have been added to the SM. If we insist that this extended SM conserve …[lepton number]… L, then, of course, Majorana mass terms are forbidden. … One approach that shows great promise is the search for neutrinoless double beta decay ( 0 nu beta beta ). … This process manifestly violates L conservation, so we expect it to be suppressed. … Are the neutrino mass eigenstates Majorana particles? The confirmed observation of neutrinoless double beta decay would establish that the answer is “yes.” If there are only three nu_i, knowledge that the spectrum is inverted and a definitive upper bound on … the “effective Majorana mass for neutrinoless double beta decay” … that is well below 0.01 eV would establish that it is “no” …”.
In hep-ph/0611243 ( Lecture notes at TASI2006, Boulder, CO, June 2006 ) Petr Vogel says: “…[in]… the Heidelberg-Moscow experiment … no obvious peak at the …[ 0 nu beta beta ]… expected position can be seen … Nevertheless, a subset of members of the Heidelberg-Moscow collaboration reanalyzed the data (and used additional information, e.g. the pulse-shape analysis and a different algorithm in the peak search) and claimed to observe a positive signal corresponding to the effective mass of … 0.39 +0.17 -0.28 eV … That report has been followed by a lively discussion … the next generation of experiments … will, among other things, test this recent claim. … let me briefly comment on the most advanced of the forthcoming … experiments CUORE, GERDA, EXO, and MAJORANA … These four experiments are in various stages of funding and staging. First results are expected in about 3 years, and substantial results within 3-5 years in all of them …”.
So here too we have a drama of a collaboration with one view of experimental results and a subgroup of the collaboration holding a very different view, and the prospect that bigger/better experiments may resolve the matter within 3 to 5 years. This is the sort of thing that, to me, is the heart of physics, and what makes physics fun.
Tony Smith
PS - Based on my own (unconventional) physics model, my bet is on no Majorana masses, and for Dirac masses of two of the three neutrino states nu_2 and nu_3, at around 0.009 eV and 0.054 eV, with nu_1 being massless. Very roughly my physical picture is of a 4+4=8-dim Kaluza-Klein structure in which the higher (massive neutrino) generations have interactions related to all 8 dimensions while the first (massless neutrino) generation lives in 4-dim physical spacetime. It is somewhat like the overall structure of the model of Arkani-Hamed, Cheng, Dobrescu and Hall in hep-ph/0006238 (Phys. Rev. D62, 096006 (2000)), but differing in details.