1: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%% REVTEX FILE %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

2: %\documentstyle[preprint,eqsecnum,aps,epsf]{revtex}

3: \documentstyle[preprint,aps,epsf]{revtex}

4: %\documentstyle[eqsecnum,aps]{revtex}

5: %\def\bbt#1{{\tt$\backslash$#1}}

6: \newif\iftightenlines\tightenlinesfalse

7: \tightenlines\tightenlinestrue

8: \begin{document}

9: %

10: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

11: \def\pT{p_T^{\phantom{7}}}

12: \def\MW{M_W^{\phantom{7}}}

13: \def\ET{E_T^{\phantom{7}}}

14: \def\bh{\bar h}

15: \def\lm{\,{\rm lm}}

16: \def\tG{\tilde G}

17: \def\lo{\lambda_1}                                              

18: \def\lt{\lambda_2}

19: \def\ETC{E_T^c}

20: \def\pslt{p\llap/_T}

21: \def\eslt{E\llap/_T}

22: \def\etmiss{E\llap/_T}

23: \def\eslt{E\llap/_T}

24: \def\to{\rightarrow}

25: \def\Re{{\cal R \mskip-4mu \lower.1ex \hbox{\it e}}\,}

26: \def\Im{{\cal I \mskip-5mu \lower.1ex \hbox{\it m}}\,}

27: \def\SU{SU(2)$\times$U(1)$_Y$}

28: \def\te{\tilde e}

29: \def \tlam{\tilde{\lambda}}

30: \def\tl{\tilde l}

31: \def\tb{\tilde b}

32: \def\tst{\tilde t}

33: \def\tt{\tilde t}

34: \def\ttau{\tilde \tau}

35: \def\tmu{\tilde \mu}

36: \def\tg{\tilde g}

37: \def\tga{\tilde \gamma}

38: \def\tnu{\tilde\nu}

39: \def\tell{\tilde\ell}

40: \def\tq{\tilde q}

41: \def\tw{\widetilde W}

42: \def\tz{\widetilde Z}

43: \def\cmsec{{\rm cm^{-2}s^{-1}}}

44: \def\fb{{\rm fb}}

45: \def\sgn{\mathop{\rm sgn}}

46: \def\mhf{m_{\frac{1}{2}}}

47: 

48: \hyphenation{mssm}

49: \def\ds{\displaystyle}

50: \def\ts{${\strut\atop\strut}$}

51: %

52: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%% TITLE PAGE %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

53: %

54: %\draft

55: \preprint{\vbox{\hbox{FSU-HEP-000914}

56:                 \hbox{UH-511-973-00}}}

57: 

58: %\preprint{\vbox{\baselineskip=14pt%

59: %   \rightline{UH-XXXXX DRAFT 01}\break

60: %}}

61: %

62: \title{Analysis of Long-Lived Slepton NLSP in GMSB model at Linear

63: Collider} 

64: %

65: \author{Pedro G.\ Mercadante$^1$, J.\ Kenichi Mizukoshi$^2$, and Hitoshi 

66: Yamamoto$^{2}$}

67: %

68: %

69: \address{

70: $^1$Department of Physics,

71: Florida State University,

72: Tallahassee, FL 32306, USA

73: }

74: %

75: \address{

76: $^2$Department of Physics and Astronomy,

77: University of Hawaii,

78: Honolulu, HI 96822, USA

79: }

80: %

81: \date{\today}

82: \maketitle

83: \begin{abstract}

84: We performed an analysis on the detection of a long-lived slepton at a

85: linear collider with $\sqrt{s}=500$ GeV. In GMSB models a long-lived NLSP

86: is predicted for large value of the supersymmetry breaking scale 

87: $\sqrt{F}$.

88: Furthermore in a large portion of the

89: parameter space this particle is a stau. Such heavy charged particles

90: will leave a track in the tracking volume and hit the muonic detector. 

91: In order to

92: disentangle this signal from the muon background, we explore 

93: kinematics and particle identification tools: time of flight device, dE/dX

94: and Cerenkov devices. We show that a linear collider will be able to 

95: detect long-lived staus with masses up to the kinematical limit of the 

96: machine. We also present our estimation of the sensitivity to the stau 

97: lifetime.  

98: 

99: 

100: \end{abstract}

101: 

102: \medskip

103: \pacs{PACS numbers: 14.80.Ly, 13.85.Qk, 11.30.Pb}

104: 

105: 

106: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%% MAIN TEXT%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%% 

107: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

108: \section{Introduction}

109: In many supersymmetric models charged long-lived particle can exist. In models

110: with $R-$parity violation, this happens when the lightest supersymmetric 

111: particle (LSP) is a slepton and the $R-$parity violation term is small 

112: \cite{krasnikov}. Another class consist of models where the LSP is not the

113: usual (like in mSUGRA) $U(1)_Y$ gaugino but rather a $SU(2)$ gaugino; 

114: in this case 

115: the next-to-lightest supersymmetric particle (NLSP) is the lightest chargino, 

116: almost degenerate in mass with the neutralino LSP, and  will decay after 

117: traveling centimeters  or meters  into the LSP plus a soft 

118: lepton or pion \cite{su}. This type of model arises rather naturally in 

119: the anomaly mediated SUSY breaking scenario \cite{anomaly}, however in this 

120: scenario the mass splitting is typically larger then the pion mass, leading 

121: to decay length of the order of $c\tau\sim 10$ cm at most. Another class of 

122: models where long-lived charged particles occur is in gauge mediated 

123: supersymmetry breaking (GMSB) models~\cite{early,dine}. Depending on 

124: the value assumed for the SUSY breaking scale, $\sqrt{F}$, the gravitino

125: is the LSP. Moreover, due to the weak coupling of the gravitino to the 

126: SUSY fields, the NLSP could in principle be a long-lived massive particle. 

127: Throughout this paper we will concentrate on the detection of long-lived 

128: charged particles in the  GMSB framework. The techniques presented, 

129: however, are applicable to general non-strongly interacting 

130: heavy long-lived charged particles \footnote{In the Ref.~\cite{drees},

131: the authors raise the issue of hadronization effects for color-triplet

132: particles. Some of them will hadronize into neutral exotic 

133: mesons. Besides that, the inelastic hadronic reactions can change the 

134: charge of the mesons.}.

135: 

136: In GMSB an intermediate sector is responsible for communicating

137: Supersymmetry breaking to the MSSM sector. In these models the gravitino 

138: mass is given by,

139: 

140: \begin{eqnarray}

141: M_{\tilde{G}}=\frac{F}{\sqrt{3}M_{\rm pl}}=\left(\frac{\sqrt{F}}{100 

142: \;\mbox{TeV}}\right)^2 2.37 \; \mbox{eV}

143: \end{eqnarray}

144: where  $M_{\rm pl}$ is the reduced Planck mass. For 

145: the $\sqrt{F} \sim$ 100 TeV (to be compaired with $10^{11}$ GeV, a typical 

146: mSUGRA value of SUSY breaking scale), $M_{\tilde{G}} \sim$ eV, making the 

147: phenomenology quite interesting. 

148: 

149:  Moreover, because

150: of the very weak interaction of the gravitino, all supersymmetric

151: particles will decay into the NLSP and this will decay into the gravitino 

152: (which will escape

153: detection) and its standard model partner. Thus, the nature of the NLSP and

154: its decay length

155: will play a fundamental role in the phenomenology of the

156: model.

157: Because soft terms in GMSB models are generated by the gauge couplings,

158: the NLSP is usually either a neutralino or a stau. Many phenomenological 

159: studies have been made for Tevatron and

160: LEP in the context of this model~\cite{dim,gunion,rg}.

161: More recently some studies for LHC and Run II at Tevatron also have been 

162: addressed~\cite{bmtw,ambro2,tevrun2}.

163: For the next linear collider (NLC) the case for a  

164: neutralino NLSP,

165: both long- and short-lived, was considered by Ambrosanio~\cite{ambro}

166: and the case for a

167: stau  NLSP with prompt decay was considered by Kanaya~\cite{work}.

168:  

169: In this work we improve over our previous analyses~\cite{work,my} 

170: in the search for a long-lived stau at NLC, presenting 

171: here our estimations for a lifetime measurement. 

172: In the GMSB the  NLSP lifetime is given by,

173: \begin{eqnarray}

174: c\tau=16\pi\frac{F^2}{M^5_{\mbox{\tiny NLSP}}}\sim 

175: \left(\frac{\sqrt{F}}{10^7 \;\mbox{GeV}}\right)^4\left(\frac{100 \;\mbox{GeV}}

176: {M_{\mbox{\tiny NLSP}}}\right)^5 

177:  10 \; \mbox{km}.

178: \label{eq:ctau}

179: \end{eqnarray}

180: 

181: From this expression, one can see that  the  measurement of the NLSP mass and 

182: lifetime will determine the value  of the fundamental SUSY breaking 

183: scale $\sqrt{F}$. From perturbative 

184: arguments it is possible to set a lower limit in $\sqrt{F}$ for the complete

185: set of parameters in the GMSB framework. Nevertheless, for the range of stau

186: masses under consideration, it is always possible to find parameters which 

187: gives a $c\tau \sim \mu$m. On the other hand, there is no solid theoretical 

188: argument for an upper limit on $\sqrt{F}$. However,  a LSP gravitino with 

189: mass higher than few KeV is disfavored in some cosmological 

190: scenarios for over-closing the Universe \cite{cosmo}.  This translates to 

191: roughly $\sqrt{F} \lesssim 3000$ TeV.  

192: 

193: 

194: The rest of this  paper is organized as follows. In section II we describe 

195: our simulation using the program ISAJET \cite{isajet} to generate 

196: stau pairs with the effects of a time of flight device, dE/dX and a 

197: Cerenkov device to detect a heavy particle. In section III we use the 

198: stau pair production process to extract limits on the lifetime of 

199: stau which leads to limits on the  SUSY breaking scale  in a GMSB model. 

200: In section IV we present our conclusions.

201: 

202: \section{Selection criteria for stau pair production}

203: 

204: Stau pair production at a linear collider provides a clean search

205: environment. Furthermore, the production cross section is

206: model-independent,  depending  only on the mass of the

207: staus and on the mixing angle between the left- and right-handed 

208: superpartners.       

209: In Fig.~\ref{fig:1} we show the pair production cross section

210: (normalized to $\sigma_{\mu \mu}=450$ fb) for the left- and right-handed

211: states as a function of stau mass. We can see that

212: the stau pair cross section is smaller than $\sigma_{\mu \mu}$

213:  due to its scalar nature and it rapidly drops when we approach the 

214: kinematical limits of the

215: accelerator. Nevertheless, we note that for masses around $240$

216: GeV we still have cross section of ${\cal{O}} (10)$ fb, which  should be

217: observable provided that the background is manageable.

218: 

219: We will first describe the selection criteria without particle identification

220: which will be used in later sections to extend the range of sensitivity

221: to the full beam energy. The signal we are looking for is a back-to-back 

222: tracks with

223: corresponding hits in the muon chamber. With this requirement

224: tracks from $\pi, K, p$ and $e$ are removed.  To

225: reject the two photon process of 

226: $\gamma \gamma \rightarrow \mu^+ \mu^- $,

227: we note that the $\mu^+ \mu^-$ pair in this process tends to have a low 

228: invariant mass

229: and be boosted along the beam pipe. Thus, we require the following cuts:

230: \begin{enumerate}

231: \item{$\cos{\theta} < 0.8$, to guarantee good track quality;}

232: \item{$|p| > 0.5 E_{\mbox{beam}}$ and} 

233: \item{$|p^{\mbox{tot}}_z| < 0.25  E_{\mbox{beam}}$}.

234: \end{enumerate}

235: After these cuts, the two photon initiated muon pair

236: production is estimated to be 1.4 fb. We are then left with muon pair

237: production $e^+ e^- \rightarrow \mu^+ \mu^-$

238: as the main source of background.

239: 

240: 

241: In order to reduce the muon pair background we shall explore the heavy mass

242: of the staus.  In a $e^+ e^-$ collider the energy in the

243: center-of-mass is fixed, so in a pair production process the energy of

244: the final particles is also known. It is well known, however, that

245: in a high energy linear collider beamsstrahlung and initial state

246: radiation  effects become

247: important and the effective energy of the reaction is not fixed

248: but presents a spectrum. In ISAJET, these effects have been 

249: implemented using the  parameterization described in  Ref.~ \cite{psim}, 

250: where the

251: radiation spectrum is well approximated by one

252: photon emission from one of the initial state $e^{\pm}$. Assuming also

253: that the direction of the emission is along the beam line, 

254: the mass estimate for each track in the laboratory frame is given by:

255: 

256: \begin{eqnarray}           

257: \label{eq:m2}

258: M^2&=&\left( \frac{\sqrt{\hat{s}}}{2\gamma} + \beta p_z

259:  \right)^2 - |p|^2 \;,\\

260: \hat{s}&=&s(1-|\Delta|) \;,\\

261: \beta&=&\Delta/(2-|\Delta|) \;,

262: \end{eqnarray}

263: where $\Delta=p_z^{\mbox{tot}}/E_{\mbox{beam}}$ is the net momentum in the

264: beam line direction, $\beta$ is the boost parameter and $\sqrt{\hat{s}}$ is

265: the center-of-mass energy of the two tracks.

266: 

267: In Fig.~\ref{fig:2} is shown the cross section distribution as a function of

268: $M^2$ which is estimated according to Eq.~(\ref{eq:m2}). In this plot we 

269: can see the muon

270: distribution peaking at zero mass with a tail from beamsstrahlung. We

271: also see the distribution of staus  production for several values of 

272: masses. The momentum resolution is taken to be $\delta p_T/p_T=5

273: \times 10^{-5}

274: p_T$ (GeV). Based in this plot we use the following cut,

275: 

276: \begin{enumerate}

277: \setcounter{enumi}{3}

278: \item {$|M^2-M^2_{\tilde{\tau}}| < 3000 \;\; \mbox{GeV}^2$},

279: \end{enumerate}

280: where $M_{\tilde{\tau}}$ is a

281: variable parameter in the search. The resulting efficiency after this cut

282: is shown as  the dotted line of Fig.~\ref{fig:3}a. This is our basic 

283: strategy to reduce 

284: the muon background. To further improve the sensitivity, we study particle 

285: identification.

286: 

287: \subsection{Time of Flight}

288: 

289: A time of flight (TOF) device can be used to identify heavy tracks. In our

290: study we considered a linear collider with $1.4$ ns of bunch

291: separation. In the large detector  scenario ($r=2$ m) the mean time of

292: flight for a massless ($\beta=1$) particle is around $6.7$ ns. Assuming

293: that we do not  know which bunch crossing a given event is

294: coming from, every 1.4 ns of TOF delay is consistent with the

295: massless muon.  We

296: simulated the effect of a $50$ ps error in the time of flight

297: measurement, applying the following cut,

298: \begin{enumerate}

299: \setcounter{enumi}{4}

300: \item{$\Delta t > 0.13$ ns,}

301: \end{enumerate}

302: where $\Delta t$ is the time of flight difference between a $\beta=1$ and a

303: massive particle, modulo $1.4$ ns.

304: 

305: This cut corresponds to about

306: $2.5 \sigma$, so that about $1\%$ of the muon background  are kept.  

307: Applying this

308: cut to both tracks we can relax cuts 2 and 3 which extends the mass

309: range to the full beam energy. The

310: efficiency of this cut as a function of mass is shown in 

311: Fig.~\ref{fig:3}a as the dashed line. The corresponding sensitivity is

312: shown in Fig.~\ref{fig:3}b.

313: We see that for some values of the mass we have lower 

314: efficiency when the time delay with respect to $\beta = 1$ case becomes

315: equal to the bunch spacing. However, the efficiency is never below 0.3 

316: because the actual path

317: that the particle goes through depends on the angle (the detector has 

318: cylindrical, but not spherical, symmetry): for each angle we have a different

319: travel length.

320: 

321: \subsection{dE/dX}

322: 

323: When a charged particle goes through the detector it deposits

324: energy by ionization. The amount of energy deposited, dE/dX, is a function of 

325: $\beta \gamma$ of the particle~\cite{pdg}. We assumed that the charged particle

326: goes through argonne and dE/dX has 5\% resolution, which is a realistic 

327: value for a TPC tracking chamber. To remove muons, we 

328: use the following cut,

329: %

330: \begin{enumerate}

331: \setcounter{enumi}{5}

332: {\item  $\frac{dE/dX - dE/dX(\rm{muon})}{\sigma(dE/dX)} > 3 $}.

333: \end{enumerate}

334: %

335: The resulting efficiency is shown as

336: the solid line in Fig.~\ref{fig:3}a. We note a blind spot for masses around

337: $150$ GeV. We also note that for lower value of $\beta \gamma$ (for masses

338: below $150$ GeV) dE/dX will give a unique value for $\beta \gamma$, thus 

339: knowing the momentum we can get the stau mass. As the figure shows, we 

340: can apply cut 6 to cover the high mass range up to

341: the beam energy where the cuts 2 and 3 are not met.

342: 

343: In Fig.~\ref{fig:3}b we present, for each strategy, the minimum cross section

344: (beforee cuts) that will  be visible

345: at a $\sqrt{s}=500$ GeV linear collider with $L=50\;\; {\mbox

346: {fb}}^{-1}$.  Our criteria is based on a 3 sigma significance; namely,

347: $S\ge 3$ with

348: $S=\epsilon \sigma \sqrt{L/bg}$, where $\sigma$ is the

349:  signal cross

350: section (before cuts), $\epsilon$ is the efficiency to pass the cuts

351: and $bg$ is the

352: expected  background cross section after cuts. We require a minimum of

353: 5 signal events after cuts. 

354: 

355: 

356: A Cerenkov device can be used to measure $\beta \gamma$. With a device

357: similar to the BABAR detector~\cite{babar} it is

358: possible to reject particles with $\beta \gamma > 8$. 

359: Cerenkov devices, however, in general have a large impact on the

360: detector design due to its requirements on space and photon 

361: detection. If these requirements are met, a Cerenkov device can replace 

362: TOF or dE/dX discussed above.

363: 

364: 

365: A  comment on the nature of our results is in order. We have presented a

366: strategy based only on the pair production mechanism where particle 

367: identification had a relatively minor role to play. Nevertheless, in the 

368: models under consideration it is likely that others supersymmetric particles 

369: will be produced and end up in stau; in such decay chains the use of time of 

370: flight, dE/dX and Cerenkov devices would play a critical role in identifying 

371: staus \footnote{The kinematical

372: distribution, as proposed here, would be of no use in a process other

373: than pair production.}. We also note that the results presented so far in 

374: Fig.~\ref{fig:3} are rather independent of model; it depends only in the

375: pair production mechanism that will exist for any non-colored 

376: charged long-lived particle, provided that the cross section is not too small. 

377: The efficiency to pass the cuts depends only on the mass of the 

378: particle \footnote{There is a model dependent 

379: part in the angular distribution of the cross section that will have an effect

380:  in cut 1. But we note that the effect of this cut is small. One can also

381: read Fig.~\ref{fig:3} as the minimum cross section in the central region that 

382: will be observed at the NLC.}, 

383: so that Fig.~\ref{fig:3} can be read in a model independent way: we see 

384: the minimal 

385: cross section that would lead to an observable signal as a function of the

386: mass of a long-lived charged particle, regardless of the nature of this 

387: particle.   

388: 

389: 

390: \section{stau decay length}

391: 

392: Up to this point we supposed that the stau does not decay within

393: the detector; however, as mentioned

394: earlier, the lifetime can be viewed as a free parameter of the

395: model. We will now discuss a simple measurement of the stau lifetime

396: using the mode $e^+ e^- \rightarrow \tilde{\tau}^+  \tilde{\tau}^-$.

397: The case of a short-lived stau is to be studied elsewhere.

398: 

399: In order to ensure good measurement of momentum and dE/dX 

400:  we require that each event should have one central track longer than 1

401: meter, using the mass cut $4$ to select tracks consistent with a heavy

402: particle. We

403: believe that such events will be essentially background free: a well

404: reconstructed track, consistent kinematically with a

405: heavy particle, regardless of the decay pattern.

406: 

407: One way to get the lifetime is to consider the number of events that

408: decay before and after a certain length. With this method the error in

409: the lifetime is given by:

410: 

411: \begin{eqnarray}

412: \label{eq:6}

413: \frac{\sigma_{c\tau}}{c\tau}&=&\frac{1}{\sqrt{N}}

414: \frac{\sqrt{R}}{\log{(1+R)}} \\

415: R&=&\frac{N_1}{N_{\inf}}

416: \end{eqnarray}

417: where $N_1$ is the number of particles that decays between distance

418: $l_1$ 

419: and $l_2$, $N_{\inf}$ is the number of particles that

420: decays after

421: distance $l_2$ and $N=N_1 + N_{\inf}$ is the total number of particle

422: that  decay after

423: distance $l_1$. In practice, $l_1=1\rm{m}$, and $l_2$ is chosen such that

424: the statistical power is maximized, which is found to occur at $R=3.9$,

425: but not exceeding the outer radius of the tracking volume. When the 

426: lifetime is short enough the optimum value of $l_2$ occurs within the

427: tracking volume, and the error [Eq.~(\ref{eq:6})] is given by

428: $\frac{1.24}{\sqrt{N}}$. On the other hand, a large lifetime may lead to the

429: optimum $l_2$ outside of the tracking volume in which case the 

430: error is approximately $\frac{1}{\sqrt{N_1}}$. 

431: In both cases the relevant quantity to get a

432: precise measurement of the lifetime is the number

433: of particles that decay inside the detector.

434: 

435: In Fig.~\ref{fig:4}, the solid lines represent the  contour plot

436: of  the  lifetime resolution as a function of the stau mass and 

437: lifetime where minimum track length ($l_1$) of 1 m is required.

438: In many models, stau can be identified without using its own track. 

439: In order to take these cases into account, we also show the 

440: lifetime resolution for $l_1 = 1$ cm (the dashed lines). 

441: We see from this plot that in the optimistic case we would

442: be able to measure the lifetime with a $10 \%$ precision as long as $c\tau$

443: is lower (bigger) than $\sim$ 40 m ($\sim 0.01$ m), for masses up 

444: to $200$ GeV.    

445: A comparison with  the CERN LHC is in order \cite{ambro2}. In this

446: study Ambrosanio {\it et al.} show the capability of the CERN LHC to measure 

447: the stau lifetime

448: in several models within the GMSB context. Their numbers are parameter

449: space 

450: dependent as all possible reactions (that ended in staus at the end of the 

451: decay chain) are used to extract the stau lifetime. It is of fundamental 

452: importance for the LHC to consider all possible reaction in order to get 

453: enough statistics. Their analysis shows that for models that gives 

454: $M_{stau} \sim 100$ GeV they are able to get $10 \%$ precision 

455: (in a somewhat optimistic case) for $ 1<c\tau (\mbox{m}) <50$.

456:  Our analysis involves only the stau pair production,

457: being essentially model independent \footnote{We note that we used an almost

458: pure right-handed stau that indeed gives a somewhat lower cross section 

459: than a left-handed stau.}. For $M_{stau} \sim 100$ GeV we are able to get

460: $ 0.0013<c\tau (\mbox{m}) <50$  ($ 0.13<c\tau (\mbox{m}) <25$)  for the 

461: minimal track length of 1 cm (1 m) requirement. We also note that we 

462: are using a somewhat conservative  integral luminosity of $50$ fb$^{-1}$. 

463: 

464: Also in Fig.~\ref{fig:4} is shown in dotted lines a $90 \%$ confidence 

465: level upper limit for $c\tau$,  assuming  that stau decays outside

466: the detector. From Eq.~({\ref{eq:ctau}), we can see that this value

467: corresponds to a lower bound $\sqrt{F} \sim 1 \times 10^7$ GeV, which

468: is  slightly above cosmologically preferred  value.

469: 

470: 

471: \section{Conclusions}

472: 

473: In many supersymmetry scenarios a charged long-lived particle is 

474: predicted. For instance, in the GMSB scenario such particle would be a stau 

475: in a large portion of parameter space. 

476: We have studied the long-lived stau pair production in a linear collider

477: at $\sqrt{s}=500$ GeV. The linear collider will be able to study the 

478: stau pair where no other particles are produced in the event (except for 

479: beamsstrahlung, etc.), as opposed to the LHC where all supersymmetric

480: reactions should be taken into account \cite{ambro2,bmtw}, being in 

481: principle a good place to extract the parameters of the model. 

482: 

483: We presented in a model independent way the minimal cross section for the

484: pair production of stable non-strongly interacting charged particle 

485: that will be observed in the NLC,

486: considering just momentum measurement as well as  particle identification 

487: devices. When the predicted cross section for the stau pair production in 

488: the GMSB model is considered it is shown that the NLC will be able to detect

489: such reactions for stau masses up to $85 \%$ of the beam energy, with just

490: momentum measurement. Particle identification devices will extend the mass

491: range to essentially the full beam energy. Moreover, particle identification

492: devices will provide a sample of events essentially background free. 

493: 

494: We also presented a way to extract the stau lifetime using

495: the predicted cross section and a luminosity of $50$ fb$^{-1}$. The 

496: method presented is very straightforward and does not depend in any other

497: parameter of the model. For the range of masses that is possible to probe

498: in a $500$ GeV linear collider, the precision obtained is, in general, 

499: better then it will be possible to have from the LHC and it is mostly

500: model independent.

501: 

502:    

503: \acknowledgments

504: 

505: We thank X.~Tata for valuable discussions and a careful reading of the 

506: manuscript. This work was supported by the 

507: U.~S.~ Department of Energy under contract DE-FG02-97ER41022

508: and DE-FG03-94ER40833. During his stay at the University of Hawaii 

509: where this work was begun, P.~G.~M.~ was partially supported by 

510: Funda\c{c}\~ao de Amparo \`a Pesquisa do Estado de S\~ao Paulo (FAPESP).

511:  

512: 

513: %

514: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%% APPENDIX %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

515: 

516: %

517: %\appendix{\ \ SINGLE PHOTON BREMSSTRAHLUNG}

518: %\newpage

519: %

520: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%% REFERENCES %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

521: %

522: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%% REFERENCES %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

523: %

524: \begin{references}

525: \bibitem{krasnikov} N.~V.~Krasnikov, Phys. Lett. {\bf B386}, 161 (1996). 

526: %

527: \bibitem{su} J.~L.~Feng, T.~Moroi, L.~Randall, M.~Strassler and S.~Su, 

528: Phys. Rev. Lett. {83}, 1731 (1999). 

529: %

530: \bibitem{anomaly} L.~Randall and R.~Sundrum, Nucl. Phys. {\bf B557}, 

531: 79 (1999);

532: T.~Gherghetta, G.~F.~Giudice and J.~D.~Wells, Nucl. Phys. {\bf B559}, 

533: 27 (1999);

534: F.~E.~Paige and J.~D.~Wells, hep-ph/0001249.

535: %

536: \bibitem{early} M.~Dine, W.~Fischler and M.~Srednicki, Nucl. Phys. {\bf

537: B189}, 575 (1981); 

538: S.~Dimopoulos and S.~Raby, Nucl. Phys. {\bf B192}, 353 (1981); 

539: L.~Alvarez-Guam\'e, M.~Claudson and M.~Wise, Nucl. Phys. {\bf B207}, 96 (1982).

540: %

541: \bibitem{dine} M.~Dine and A.~Nelson, Phys. Rev. {\bf D48}, 1277 (1993);

542:  M.~Dine, A.~Nelson, Y.~Shirman, Phys. Rev. {\bf D51}, 1362 (1995);

543: M.~Dine, A.~Nelson, Y.~Nir and Y.~Shirman, Phys. Rev. {\bf D53}, 2658 (1996).

544: %

545: \bibitem{drees} M.~Drees and X.~Tata, Phys. Lett. {\bf B252}, 695 (1990).

546: %

547: \bibitem{dim} S.~Dimopoulos, M.~Dine, S.~Raby and S.~Thomas, Phys. Rev. Lett.

548: {\bf 76}, 3494 (1996); 

549: S.~Dimopoulos, S.~Thomas and J.~Wells, Phys. Rev. {\bf D54}, 3283 (1996) 

550: and Nucl. Phys. {\bf B488}, 39 (1997).

551: %

552: S.~Ambrosanio {\it et al.}, Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf 76}, 3498

553: (1996) and Phys. Rev. {\bf D54}, 5395 (1996).

554: %

555: K.~S.~Babu, C.~Kolda and F.~Wilczek,

556: Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf 77}, 3070 (1996).

557: %

558: H.~Baer, M.~Brhlik, C.~H.~Chen and X.~Tata,

559: Phys. Rev. {\bf D55}, 4463 (1997).

560: %

561: J.~Bagger, K.~Matchev and D.~Pierce, Phys. Rev. {\bf

562: D55}, 3188 (1997).

563: %

564: R.~Rattazzi and U.~Sarid, Nucl. Phys. {\bf B501}, 297 (1997).

565: %

566: D.~Dicus, B.~Dutta and S.~Nandi, Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf

567: 78}, 3055 (1997) and Phys. Rev. {\bf D56}, 5748 (1997); 

568: K.~Cheung, D.~Dicus, B.~Dutta and S.~Nandi,Phys. Rev. {\bf D58}, 015008 (1998);

569: B.~Dutta, D.~J.~Mueller and S.~Nandi, Nucl. Phys. {\bf B544}, 451 (1999); 

570: D.~J.~Mueller and S.~Nandi, Phys. Rev. {\bf D60}, 015008 (1999).

571: %

572: J.~Feng and T.~Moroi, Phys. Rev. {\bf D58}, 035001 (1998).

573: %

574: E.~Gabrielli and U.~Sarid,  Phys. Rev. {\bf D58}, 115003 (1998).

575: %

576: S.~Martin and J.~Wells, Phys. Rev. {\bf D59}, 035008 (1999). 

577: %

578: \bibitem{gunion} C.~H.~Chen and J.~F.~Gunion, Phys. Lett. {\bf B420}, 77

579: (1998) and Phys. Rev. {\bf D58}, 075005 (1998).

580: %

581: \bibitem{rg} See G.~Giudice and R.~Rattazzi, Phys. Rept. {\bf 322}, 419 

582: (1999) and {\bf 322}, 501 (1999) for a review.

583: %

584: \bibitem{bmtw} H.~Baer, P.~G.~Mercadante, F.~Paige, X.~Tata and Y.~Wang, 

585: Phys. Lett. {\bf B435}, 109 (1998). H.~Baer, P.~G.~Mercadante, 

586: X.~Tata and Y.~Wang, Phys. Rev. {\bf D60}, 055001 (1999) and 

587: {\bf D62}, 095007 (2000).

588: %

589: I.~Hinchliffe, F.~E.~ Paige, Phys. Rev.  {\bf D59}, 

590: 035008 (1999).

591: %

592: \bibitem{ambro2} S.~Ambrosanio {\it et al.}, hep-ph/0002191.

593: %

594: \bibitem{tevrun2}  R.~Culbertson {\it et al.}, hep-ph/0008070.

595: %

596: \bibitem{ambro} S.~Ambrosanio and G.~A.~Blair, Eur. Phys. J. C {\bf 12}, 

597: 287 (2000).

598: %

599: \bibitem{work} See the web page:

600: http://www.cern.ch/Physics/LCWS99/talks.html 

601: %

602: \bibitem{my}  P.~G.~Mercandante and H.~Yamamoto, hep-ph/9909280. 

603: %

604: \bibitem{cosmo} H.~Pagels and J.~R.~Primack, Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf

605: 48}, 223 (1982); 

606: T.~Moroy, H.~Murayama and M.~Yamaguchi,  Phys. Lett. {\bf B303}, 289 (1993); 

607: A.~Masiero and  M.~Yamaguchi, Phys. Lett. {\bf B386}, 189 (1996); 

608: A.~ de Gouveia,  T.~Moroy and H.~Murayama,  Phys. Rev. {\bf D56}, 1281 (1997).

609: %

610: \bibitem{isajet} H.~Baer, F.~Paige, S.~Protopopescu and X.~Tata,

611: hep-ph/9810440 (1998).

612: %

613: \bibitem{psim} P.~Chen, Phys. Rev. {\bf D46}, 1186 (1992). 

614: %

615: \bibitem{pdg} Particle Data Group, Eur. Phys. J. C {\bf 3}, 1 (1998).

616: %

617: \bibitem{babar} BABAR Technical Design Report, SLAC-R-95-457 (1995).

618: %

619: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

620: \end{references}

621: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%% FIGURE CAPTIONS %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

622: 

623: \iftightenlines\else\newpage\fi

624: \iftightenlines\global\firstfigfalse\fi

625: \def\dofig#1#2{\iftightenlines\epsfxsize=#1\centerline{\epsfbox{#2}}\bigskip\fi}

626: 

627: 

628: %FIG. 1

629: \begin{figure}

630: \dofig{5in}{fig1.eps}

631: \caption[]{Stau pair production cross section normalized by muon pair as a 

632: function of stau mass in $\sqrt{s}=500$ GeV linear collider. The full

633: (dotted) line is for the right- (left-) handed stau pair.}

634: \label{fig:1}

635: \end{figure}

636: 

637: 

638: %FIG. 1

639: \begin{figure}

640: \dofig{5in}{fig2.eps}

641: \caption[]{The mass square distribution for the muon and for 

642: several values of stau masses.}

643: \label{fig:2}

644: \end{figure}

645: 

646: 

647: 

648: %FIG.3

649: \begin{figure}

650: \dofig{5in}{fig3.eps}

651: \caption[]{a) The efficiency for the signal. The dotted line is the

652: efficiency for just kinematics cuts (cuts 1-4), the dashed line is for the

653: time of flight cut (cuts 1 and 5) and the solid line is for dE/dX

654: cuts (cuts 1 and 6). b) The reach in cross section for a 

655: linear collider with

656: luminosity of 50 $\mbox{fb}^{-1}$. The dotted line is using just

657: kinematics, the dashed line is using time of flight and the solid line

658: is using dE/dX.}

659: \label{fig:3}

660: \end{figure}

661: 

662: 

663: %FIG. 4

664: \begin{figure}

665: \dofig{5.5in}{fig4.eps}

666: \caption[]{Contours of constant error $\sigma_{c\tau}$ on the

667: measurement of $c\tau$. The solid lines stand for the case $l_1=1$ m

668: and dashed lines are for $l_1 = 0.01$ m. The dotted line on the top of

669: the figure indicates at 90\% CL the case stau is stable up to the detector.}

670: \label{fig:4}

671: \end{figure}

672: 

673: 

674: \vfil

675: 

676: \end{document}

677: 

678: 

679: 

680: 

681: 

682: 

683: 

684: 

685: