Prospects of searches for neutral, long-lived particles that decay to photons using timing at CDF

Physical Review D - Particles, Fields, Gravitation and Cosmology

Volumn 70, Issue 11, 2004, Pages

  Toback, David ^a   Wagner, Peter ^a  

^a TEXAS A AND M UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ARTICLE; CALORIMETER; ELECTROMAGNETIC FIELD; ENERGY; MONTE CARLO METHOD; PARTICULATE MATTER; PHOTON;

EID: 13544272813     PISSN: 15507998     EISSN: 15502368     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1103/PhysRevD.70.114032     Document Type: Article

References (35)

1. CDF II Collaboration, F. Abe et al., FERMILAB-Pub-96/390-E.
2. S. Kuhlmann et al., Nucl. Instrum. Methods Phys. Res., Sect. A 518, 39 (2004); CDF Collaboration, P. T. Lukens, FERMILAB-TM-2198; for more details, see http://hepr8. physics.tamu.edu/hep/emtiming/.
3. S. Kuhlmann et al., Nucl. Instrum. Methods Phys. Res., Sect. A 518, 39 (2004); CDF Collaboration, P. T. Lukens, FERMILAB-TM-2198; for more details, see http://hepr8. physics.tamu.edu/hep/emtiming/.
4. See, for example, CDF Collaboration, F. Abe et al., Phys. Rev. D 59, 092002 (1999); Phys. Rev. Lett. 81, 1791 (1998).
5. See, for example, CDF Collaboration, F. Abe et al., Phys. Rev. D 59, 092002 (1999); Phys. Rev. Lett. 81, 1791 (1998).
6. Note that in principle the System can be used in conjunction with the time of flight system to search for charged particles as well. This becomes especially interesting for events in which the charged particle decays in flight and no track is reconstructed.
7. See, for example, S. Ambrosanio, G. L. Kane, G. D. Kribs, S. P. Martin, and S. Mrenna, Phys. Rev. D 54, 5395 (1996); C. H. Chen and J. F. Gunion, Phys. Rev. D 58, 075005 (1998).
8. See, for example, S. Ambrosanio, G. L. Kane, G. D. Kribs, S. P. Martin, and S. Mrenna, Phys. Rev. D 54, 5395 (1996); C. H. Chen and J. F. Gunion, Phys. Rev. D 58, 075005 (1998).
9. f is the time of arrival of the photon from the EMTiming system.
10. M. Goncharov (private communication). Note that with more data the system will be better understood, possibly leading to even lower resolution.
11. DO Collaboration, S. Abachi et al., Nucl. Instrum. Methods Phys. Res., Sect. A 338, .185 (1994).
12. DO Collaboration, S. Abachi et al., Phys. Rev. Lett. 78, 2070 (1997); B. Abbott et al., Phys. Rev. Lett. 80, 442 (1998).
13. DO Collaboration, S. Abachi et al., Phys. Rev. Lett. 78, 2070 (1997); B. Abbott et al., Phys. Rev. Lett. 80, 442 (1998).
14. CDF Collaboration, D. Acosta et al., Phys. Rev. Lett. 89, 281801 (2002).
15. DO Collaboration, B. Abbott et al., Phys. Rev. Lett. 82, 29 (1999).
16. Note that we do not assume that any search for long-lived particles analysis without EMTiming at CDF is robust enough since there are no current collider experiments which have results without an additional handle such as photon pointing as done at LEP or D0. For a discussion of photon pointing, see, for example, ALEPH Collaboration, D. Decamp et al., Nucl. Instrum. Methods Phys. Res., Sect. A 294, 121 (1998); D. Cults and G. Landsberg, hep-ph/9904396.
17. Note that we do not assume that any search for long-lived particles analysis without EMTiming at CDF is robust enough since there are no current collider experiments which have results without an additional handle such as photon pointing as done at LEP or D0. For a discussion of photon pointing, see, for example, ALEPH Collaboration, D. Decamp et al., Nucl. Instrum. Methods Phys. Res., Sect. A 294, 121 (1998); D. Cults and G. Landsberg, hep-ph/9904396.
18. ALEPH Collaboration, A. Heister et al., Eur. Phys. J. C 25, 339 (2002); A. Garcia-Bellido, Ph.D. thesis, Royal Holloway University of London, 2002, hep-ex/0212024.
19. ALEPH Collaboration, A. Heister et al., Eur. Phys. J. C 25, 339 (2002); A. Garcia-Bellido, Ph.D. thesis, Royal Holloway University of London, 2002, hep-ex/0212024.
20. H. Pagels and J. R. Primack, Phys. Rev. Lett. 48, 223 (1982); T. Moroi, H. Murayama, and M. Yamaguchi, Phys. Lett. B 303, 289 (1993).
21. H. Pagels and J. R. Primack, Phys. Rev. Lett. 48, 223 (1982); T. Moroi, H. Murayama, and M. Yamaguchi, Phys. Lett. B 303, 289 (1993).
22. Grav (gravitino mass factor) and Δ (supersymmetry breaking scale) are allowed to vary.
23. T. Sjöstrand, L. Lönnblad, and S. Mrenna, hep-ph/0108264. We used version 6.158 and use only leading order production cross sections to be conservative.
24. F. Paige and S. Protopopescu, BNL Report No. BNL38034, 1986; F. Paige, S. Protopopescu, H. Baer, and X. Tata, hep-ph/0001086. We used version 7.64 to generate the SUSY masses.
25. F. Paige and S. Protopopescu, BNL Report No. BNL38034, 1986; F. Paige, S. Protopopescu, H. Baer, and X. Tata, hep-ph/0001086. We used version 7.64 to generate the SUSY masses.
26. J. Conway, "Pretty Good Simulation" (PGS), http://www.physics. rutgers.edu/jconway/research/software/pgs/pgs.html. We used version 3.21. The CDF detector is described as a cylinder, with length 3.5 m and radius 1.7 m.
27. E. Boos, A. Vologdin, D. Toback, and J. Gaspard, Phys. Rev. D 66, 013011 (2002). We use Eq. 3 therein.
28. Following Ref. [3], we have neglected the contribution from cosmic ray backgrounds. The probability of an event with a real photon and a fake photon from a cosmic ray is small, and can be removed with simple topology cuts with very high efficiency. Similar arguments hold for the case of two fake photons from cosmic ray background sources which is even more unlikely.
29. T.
30. R. Culbertson et al., hep-ph/0008070 (especially Fig. 18 therein).
31. L. Balka et al., Nucl. Instrum. Methods Phys. Res., Sect. A 267, 272 (1988); CDF Collaboration, F. Abe et al., Phys. Rev. Lett. 73, 2662 (1994); D. Partos, Ph.D. thesis, Brandeis University, 2001.
32. L. Balka et al., Nucl. Instrum. Methods Phys. Res., Sect. A 267, 272 (1988); CDF Collaboration, F. Abe et al., Phys. Rev. Lett. 73, 2662 (1994); D. Partos, Ph.D. thesis, Brandeis University, 2001.
33. L. Balka et al., Nucl. Instrum. Methods Phys. Res., Sect. A 267, 272 (1988); CDF Collaboration, F. Abe et al., Phys. Rev. Lett. 73, 2662 (1994); D. Partos, Ph.D. thesis, Brandeis University, 2001.
34. K. Hagiwara et al., Phys. Rev. D 66, 010001 (2002).
35. Note that Fig. 14 shows the ALEPH exclusion for this GMSB model line instead of the exclusion from the general scan in [13]. Comparison shows that there is no visible difference.