Signals for the minimal gauge-mediated supersymmetry-breaking model at the Fermilab Tevatron collider

Physical Review D - Particles, Fields, Gravitation and Cosmology

Volumn 55, Issue 7, 1997, Pages 4463-4474

  Baer, Howard ^a   Brhlik, Michal ^a   Chen, Chih hao ^a,b   Tata, Xerxes ^c  

^a Florida State University   (United States)

^b UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA   (United States)

^c UNIVERSITY OF HAWAII   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 0001613815     PISSN: 15507998     EISSN: 15502368     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1103/PhysRevD.55.4463     Document Type: Article

References (60)

1. H. P. Nilles, Phys. Rep.110, 1 (1984);
2. H. Haber and G. Kane, 117, 75 (1985);
3. X. Tata, in The Standard Model and Beyond, edited by J. E. Kim (World Scientific, Singapore, 1991), p. 304;
4. R. Arnowitt and P. Nath, presented at the VII J. A. Swieca Summer School, Campos do Jordao, Brazil, 1993, Report No. CTP-TAMU-52/93 (unpublished);
5. V. Barger and R. J. N. Phillips, in Recent Advances in the Superworld, edited by J. Lopez and D. Nanopoulos (World Scientific, Singapore, 1994);
6. in Properties of SUSY Particles, edited by L. Cifarelli and V. Khoze (World Scientific, Singapore, 1993);
7. J. Bagger, in QCD and Beyond, Proceedings of the Theoretical Advanced Study Institute, Boulder, Colorado, 1995, edited by D. Soper (World Scientific, Singapore, 1996), Report No. (unpublished);
8. X. Tata, Report No. (unpublished).
9. A phenomenological summary of the current experimental situation as well as a survey of the reach of various colliders may be found in H. Baer et al., in Electroweak Symmetry Breaking and New Physics at the TeV Scale, edited by T. Barklow, S. Dawson, H. Haber, and J. Seigrist (World Scientific, Singapore, 1995).
10. For a recent review, see M. Drees and S. Martin, in Electroweak Symmetry Breaking and New Physics at the TeV Scale 2;
11. for a rapid survey of other models, see J. Amundson, Report No., 1996(unpublished).
12. D. Buskulic et al., Z. Phys. C72, 549 (1996); ZPCFD2A. Lyon, presented at the 1996 Division of Particles and Fields Meeting, Minneapolis, MI, 1996 (unpublished).
13. R. Arnowitt, A. Chamseddine, and P. Nath, Phys. Rev. Lett.49, 970 (1982);
14. 50, 232 (1983);
15. R. Barbieri, S. Ferrara, and C. Savoy, Phys. Lett.119B, 343 (1982);
16. L. Hall, J. Lykken, and S. Weinberg, Phys. Rev. D27, 2359 (1983).
17. S. Deser and B. Zumino, Phys. Rev. Lett.381433 (1977);
18. E. Cremmer et al., Phys. Lett.79B, 231 (1978).
19. See, e.g., Bagger 1.
20. L. Ibañez and G. Ross, Phys. Lett.110B, 215 (1982);
21. L. Ibañez, 118B, 73 (1982);
22. K. Inoue et al., Prog. Theor. Phys.68, 927 (1982);
23. 71, 413 (1984);
24. J. Ellis, D. Nanopoulos, and K. Tamvakis, Phys. Lett.121B, 123 (1983);
25. L. Alvarez-Gaumé, J. Polchinski, and M. Wise, Nucl. Phys.B221, 495 (1983).
26. Some recent papers include M. Drees and M. Nojiri, Phys. Rev. D47, 376 (1993);
27. H. Baer and M. Brhlik, 53, 597 (1996);
28. for a recent review, see G. Jungman, M. Kamionkowski, and K. Griest, Phys. Rep.267, 195 (1996).
29. M. Dine and A. Nelson, Phys. Rev. D48, 1277 (1993);
30. M. Dine, A. Nelson, and Y. Shirman, 51, 1362 (1995);
31. M. Dine, A. Nelson, Y. Nir, and Y. Shirman, 53, 2658 (1996).
32. P. Fayet, Phys. Lett.70B, 461 (1977).
33. S. Dimopoulos, M. Dine, S. Raby, and S. Thomas, Phys. Rev. Lett.76, 3494 (1996);
34. S. Dimopoulos, S. Thomas, and J. Wells, Phys. Rev. D54, 3283 (1996).
35. S. Ambrosanio et al., Phys. Rev. Lett.76, 3498 (1996);
36. Phys. Rev. D54, 5395 (1996).
37. K. S. Babu, C. Kolda, and F. Wilczek, Phys. Rev. Lett.77, 3070 (1996).
38. S. Park, in Search for New Phenomena in CDF in 10th Topical Workshop on Proton-Antiproton Collider Physics, edited by R. Raha and G. Yodh (AIP, New York, 1995).
39. G. Dvali, G. Giudice, and A. Pomarol, Nucl. Phys.B478, 31 (1996).
40. F. Paige and S. Protopopescu, in Supercollider Physics, edited by D. Soper (World Scientific, Singapore, 1986), p. 41;
41. H. Baer, F. Paige, S. Protopopescu, and X. Tata, in Proceedings of the Workshop on Physics at Current Accelerators and Supercolliders, edited by J. Hewett, A. White, and D. Zeppenfeld (Argonne National Laboratory, Argonne, Illinois, 1993).
42. Future Electroweak Physics at the Tevatron,” edited by D. Amidei and C. Brock, Report No. FERMILAB-Pub-96/082, 1996 (unpublished).
43. If the messenger sector was strongly coupled, the gauginos would have obtained a large mass (Formula presented) while the scalars would have obtained masses given by (Formula presented), and the resulting phenomenology would have been quite different 12.
44. Radiative generation of gaugino masses was considered in M. Dine, W. Fischler, and M. Srednicki, Nucl. Phys.B189, 575 (1981);
45. S. Dimopoulos and S. Raby, B192, 353 (1982);
46. M. Dine and W. Fischler, B204, 346 (1982);
47. L. Alvarez-Guame, M. Claudson, and M. Wise, B207, 96 (1982).
48. Talk by J. Nachtmann (ALEPH Collaboration) at DPF96 meeting (unpublished).
49. M. S. Alam et al., Phys. Rev. Lett.74, 2885 (1995).
50. H. Baer and M. Brhlik, Phys. Rev. D55, 3201 (1997).
51. AMY Collaboration, Y. Sugimoto et al., Phys. Lett. B369, 86 (1996), in their search for single-photon events at KEK TRISTAN requires that the photon points to the interaction region. The resolution, which presumably improves with increasing photon energy, quoted in this analysis is 4.4 cm for 6 GeV photons, and is derived from the angular resolution of about 2.5°. Assuming that SUSY events can be triggered via jets or leptons, the fine calorimeter segmentation would allow for the determination of the photon impact parameter in the D0 experiment with a resolution of a few centimetes if (Formula presented) decays before, or within, the electromagnetic calorimeter; this resolution would be somewhat degraded for decays within the hadronic calorimeter. A measurement of photon energy would not be possible if (Formula presented) decayed in the muon chamber. We thank Mike Jones, Mike Peters, and Steve Olsen for discussions about this issue.
52. J. Botts et al., Phys. Lett. B304, 159 (1993).
53. We have checked, for example, that for (Formula presented) TeV the width for (Formula presented) decays into a gravitino varies between (Formula presented) and (Formula presented) eV for the four cases (a)–(d) and for the entire range of (Formula presented) that we have considered in Fig. 22. This is to be compared to the decay width into other SUSY modes which is typically ∼1 MeV (∼1 keV) for two-body (three-body) decays of (Formula presented).
54. See e.g., H. Baer, C-H. Chen, F. Paige, and X. Tata, Phys. Rev. D54, 5866 (1996).
55. S. Mrenna, G. Kane, G. D. Kribs, and J. D. Wells, Phys. Rev. D53, 1168 (1996).
56. T. Kamon, J. Lopez, P. McIntyre, and J. T. White, Phys. Rev. D50, 5676 (1994).
57. We have explicitly computed the sparticle production cross sections with RGE boundary conditions for the extreme case where there are four (Formula presented) messenger multiplets. Since (for the same choice of (Formula presented) sparticles are heavier than in the minimal case studied in the text, (Formula presented) values as small as 10 TeV are now consistent with the data. For (Formula presented) TeV which yields a production cross section (Formula presented) fb before any cuts, we find that the production of sleptons is comparable to or, at most, 2–3 times higher than (Formula presented) and (Formula presented) production. We have explicitly checked that for these scenarios, leptonic decays of charginos and neutralinos dominate, so that SUSY signals would indeed be dominated by events without any jet activity.
58. M. Peskin, in From the Standard Model to Grand Unified Theories, Proceedings of the Yukawa International Seminar, Kyoto, Japan, 1995, edited byM. Bando et al. [Prog. Theor. Phys. Suppl.123 (1996)], Report No. hep-ph/9609434, 1996 (unpublished).
59. S. Dimopoulos, S. Thomas, and J. Wells, SLAC Report No. SLAC-PUB-7237, 1996(unpublished).
60. J. Bagger, K. Matchev, D. Pierce, and R. Zhang, Phys. Rev. D55, 3188 (1997).