1: \documentstyle[a4,12pt,epsfig,here]{article}
2: \begin{document}
3:
4: \title{\bf Anomalous single production of the fourth SM
5: family quarks at Tevatron}
6:
7: \author{E. Arik$^{a}$, O. Cak\i r$^{b}$, S. Sultansoy$^{c,d}$ \\
8: $a$) Bo\u{g}azi\c{c}i University, Faculty of Arts and Sciences,
9: Department of Physics, \\
10: 80815, Bebek, Istanbul, Turkey \\
11: $b$) Ankara University, Faculty of Science, Department of Physics, \\
12: 06100 Tando\u gan, Ankara, Turkey \\
13: $c$) Gazi University, Faculty of Arts and Sciences, Department of Physics,\\
14: 06500, Teknikokullar, Ankara, Turkey \\
15: $d$) Azerbaijan Academy of Sciences, Institute of Physics, \\
16: H. Cavid Av., 33, Baku, Azerbaijan }
17:
18:
19: \date{ }
20:
21: \maketitle
22: \vspace*{2.5cm}
23:
24: \begin{abstract}
25: Possible single productions of fourth family $u_4$ and $d_4$ quarks via
26: anomalous $q_4qV$ interactions at Tevatron are studied. Signature of such processes are
27: discussed and compared with the recent results from Tevatron.
28: \end{abstract}
29: \vskip 1.0cm
30:
31: The flavor democracy enforces the existence of the fourth Standard Model (SM)
32: family {\cite{datta, celikel}}. The masses of the fourth family quarks are
33: expected to be degenerate and lie between $300$ GeV and $700$ GeV (see {\cite{saleh}} and references therein). \\
34:
35: It is clear that the pair production of the fourth family quarks will be
36: copious at CERN LHC {\cite{prd1,tdr}}. In addition, extra SM generations
37: will yield an essential enhancement in Higgs production at LHC and Tevatron
38: {\cite{prd2,sn,prd3}}.
39: Furthermore, the future lepton colliders will be the best place to observe
40: the fourth SM family leptons {\cite{prd4,clic}}.\\
41:
42: Together with the indirect manifestation of the fourth SM family via
43: enhancement of the Higgs boson production, the fourth family quarks can also
44: be observed at Tevatron if anomalous $q_4qV$ interactions exist. The
45: arguments given in {\cite{frit}} for anomalous interactions of the top quark
46: are more valid for $u_4$ and $d_4$ since they are expected to be heavier
47: than the top quark.\\
48:
49: In this work, we present a preliminary analysis of the anomalous single
50: production of $u_4$ and $d_4$ quarks at Tevatron. The recent observation of
51: excess of events with the final state containing $W + 2 , 3$ jets
52: {\cite{cdf,apol1,apol2}} can be interpreted as the signature of these
53: processes. \\
54:
55: The effective Lagrangian for the anomalous interactions between the
56: fourth family quarks, ordinary quarks and the gauge bosons $V$
57: ($V = \gamma, Z, g$) can be written as follows:
58:
59: \begin{eqnarray}
60: L = \frac {\kappa_{\gamma}^{q_i}}{\Lambda} e_q g_e \bar q_4 \sigma_{\mu \nu} (A_{\gamma}^{q_i} + B_{\gamma}^{q_i} \gamma_5) q_i F^{\mu \nu} +
61: \frac {\kappa_Z^{q_i}}{2 \Lambda} g_Z \bar q_4 \sigma_{\mu \nu}
62: (A_Z^{q_i} + B_Z^{q_i} \gamma_5) q_i Z^{\mu \nu} \nonumber \\
63: +\, \frac {\kappa_g^{q_i}}{\Lambda} g_s \bar q_4 \sigma_{\mu \nu}
64: (A_g^{q_i} + B_g^{q_i} \gamma_5) T^a q_i G^{\mu \nu}_a + h.c.
65: \end{eqnarray}
66: where $F^{\mu \nu}, Z^{\mu \nu}$, and $G^{\mu \nu}$ are the field strength
67: tensors of the photon, $Z$ boson and gluons, respectively; $T^a$ are
68: Gell-Mann matrices;
69: $e_q$ is the charge of the quark;
70: $g_e, g_Z$, and $g_s$ are the electroweak, and
71: the strong coupling constants respectively.
72: $g_Z = g_e/\cos\theta_W \sin\theta_W$ where $\theta_W$ is the Weinberg angle.
73: $A_{\gamma, Z, g}^q$ and
74: $B_{\gamma, Z, g}^q$ are the magnitudes of the neutral currents;
75: $\kappa_{\gamma, Z, g}$ define the strength of the anomalous couplings for the neutral currents with a photon, a $Z$ boson
76: and a gluon, respectively; $\Lambda$ is the cutoff scale for the new
77: physics. \\
78:
79: We assume all the neutral current magnitudes in Eq. (1) to be equal,
80: satisfying the constraint $|A|^2 + |B|^2 = 1$ and redefine all anomalous
81: couplings:
82: \begin{equation}
83: {\kappa_{\gamma}^{q_i}} = {\kappa_Z^{q_i}} = {\kappa_g^{q_i}} = \lambda^{(4-i)}
84: \end{equation}
85: where generation number $i = 1, 2, 3, 4$. We have implemented the new
86: interaction vertices into the CALCHEP {\cite{calchep}} package. Two values
87: of $\lambda$ are considered ($\lambda = 1, \, 0.5$) as an example.
88: Table 1 and 2 (3 and 4) present the branching ratios and the total decay
89: widths of the $u_4 \, (d_4)$ quark via anomalous interactions. Note that the
90: branching ratios are independent of $\Lambda$ whereas total decay width
91: is proportional to $\Lambda^{-2}$.
92: SM decay modes are negligible for
93: $\lambda / \Lambda > 0.01/$TeV due to the small magnitude of
94: the extended Cabibbo-Kobayashi-Maskawa matrix
95: elements $V_{u_4b}$ and $V_{d_4t}$ {\cite{ayla}}. \\
96:
97: \begin{table}[H]
98: \begin{center}
99: \caption{Branching ratios ($\%$) and total decay widths for $u_4$
100: ($\lambda = 1 , \Lambda = 1$ TeV).}
101: \vskip 0.5 cm
102: \begin{tabular}{|c|c|c|c|c|c|c|c|}
103: \hline
104: Mass (GeV)& $gu(c)$ & $gt$ & $Zu(c)$ & $Zt$ & $\gamma u(c)$ & $\gamma t$ & $\Gamma$ (GeV) \\
105: \hline
106: 200 & 47 & 0.6 & 2.2 & - & 0.99 & 0.031 & 1.39\\
107: \hline
108: 250 & 44 & 5.8 & 2.4 & - & 0.93 & 0.12 & 2.91 \\
109: \hline
110: 300 & 41 & 12 & 2.4 & 0.46 & 0.86 & 0.25 & 5.41 \\
111: \hline
112: 400 & 36 & 19 & 2.3 & 1.1 & 0.77 & 0.41 & 14.26 \\
113: \hline
114: 500 & 34 & 23 & 2.2 & 1.5 & 0.73 & 0.49 & 29.53 \\
115: \hline
116: 600 & 33 & 25 & 2.2 & 1.7 & 0.71 & 0.54 & 52.82 \\
117: \hline
118: 700 & 33 & 27 & 2.2 & 1.8 & 0.69 & 0.57 & 85.69 \\
119: \hline
120: \end{tabular}
121: \end{center}
122: \end{table}
123:
124: \begin{table}[H]
125: \begin{center}
126: \caption{The same as Table 1, but for $\lambda = 0.5$.}
127: \vskip 0.5 cm
128: \begin{tabular}{|c|c|c|c|c|c|c|c|c|c|c|}
129: \hline
130: Mass (GeV) & $gu$ & $gc$ & $gt$ & $Zu$ & $Zc$ & $Zt$ & $\gamma u$ & $\gamma c$ & $\gamma t$ & $\Gamma$ (GeV) \\
131: \hline
132: 200 & 18 & 72 & 3.7 & 0.86 & 3.4 & - & 0.38 & 1.5 & 0.079 & 0.06\\
133: \hline
134: 250 & 13 & 53 & 28 & 0.73 & 2.9 & - & 0.28 & 1.1 & 0.6 & 0.15 \\
135: \hline
136: 300 & 9.7 & 39 & 45 & 0.58 & 1.3 & 1.7 & 0.21 & 0.83 & 0.95 & 0.35 \\
137: \hline
138: 400 & 6.9 & 27 & 58 & 0.43 & 1.7 & 3.4 & 0.15 & 0.58 & 1.2 & 1.18 \\
139: \hline
140: 500 & 5.8 & 23 & 63 & 0.38 & 1.5 & 4.0 & 0.12 & 0.49 & 1.3 & 2.72 \\
141: \hline
142: 600 & 5.3 & 21 & 69 & 0.35 & 1.4 & 4.3 & 0.11 & 0.45 & 1.4 & 5.15 \\
143: \hline
144: 700 & 5.1 & 20 & 67 & 0.34 & 1.4 & 4.4 & 0.11 & 0.43 & 1.4 & 8.62 \\
145: \hline
146: \end{tabular}
147: \end{center}
148: \end{table}
149:
150: \begin{table}[H]
151: \begin{center}
152: \caption{Branching ratios ($\%$) and decay widths for $d_4$
153: ($\lambda = 1 , \Lambda = 1$ TeV).}
154: \vskip 0.5 cm
155: \begin{tabular}{|c|c|c|c|c|}
156: \hline
157: Mass (GeV)& $gd(s,b)$ & $Zd(s,b)$ & $\gamma d(s,b)$ & $\Gamma$ (GeV) \\
158: \hline
159: 200 & 32 & 1.5 & 0.17 & 2.05\\
160: \hline
161: 250 & 31 & 1.7 & 0.17 & 4.04 \\
162: \hline
163: 300 & 31 & 1.9 & 0.17 & 7.01 \\
164: \hline
165: 400 & 31 & 2.0 & 0.17 & 16.68 \\
166: \hline
167: 500 & 31 & 2.0 & 0.17 & 32.64 \\
168: \hline
169: 600 & 31 & 2.1 & 0.16 & 56.46 \\
170: \hline
171: 700 & 31 & 2.1 & 0.16 & 89.71 \\
172: \hline
173: \end{tabular}
174: \end{center}
175: \end{table}
176:
177: \begin{table}[H]
178: \begin{center}
179: \caption{Same as Table 2 but for $\lambda = 0.5$.}
180: \vskip 0.5 cm
181: \begin{tabular}{|c|c|c|c|c|c|c|c|c|c|c|}
182: \hline
183: Mass (GeV) & $gd$ & $gs$ & $gb$ & $Zd$ & $Zs$ & $Zb$ & $\gamma d$ & $\gamma s$ & $\gamma b$ & $\Gamma$ (GeV) \\
184: \hline
185: 200 & 4.5 & 18 & 72 & 0.22 & 0.86 & 3.4 & 0.024 & 0.096 & 0.38 & 0.22\\
186: \hline
187: 250 & 4.5 & 18 & 72 & 0.25 & 0.99 & 4.0 & 0.024 & 0.095 & 0.38 & 0.44 \\
188: \hline
189: 300 & 4.5 & 18 & 72 & 0.26 & 1.1 & 4.2 & 0.024 & 0.095 & 0.38 & 0.76 \\
190: \hline
191: 400 & 4.5 & 18 & 71 & 0.28 & 1.1 & 4.5 & 0.024 & 0.095 & 0.38 & 1.82 \\
192: \hline
193: 500 & 4.4 & 18 & 71 & 0.29 & 1.2 & 4.6 & 0.024 & 0.094 & 0.38 & 3.57 \\
194: \hline
195: 600 & 4.4 & 18 & 71 & 0.29 & 1.2 & 4.7 & 0.024 & 0.094 & 0.38 & 6.17 \\
196: \hline
197: 700 & 4.4 & 18 & 71 & 0.3 & 1.2 & 4.8 & 0.024 & 0.094 & 0.38 & 9.81 \\
198: \hline
199: \end{tabular}
200: \end{center}
201: \end{table}
202:
203: Anomalous single production cross sections for $u_4$ and $d_4$ quarks at
204: Tevatron are plotted in Figure 1. The upper curves are obtained with
205: $\lambda = 1, \Lambda = 2$ TeV and the lower ones with
206: $\lambda = 0.5, \Lambda = 1$ TeV. The excess of events with a $W$ and a
207: superjet in $W + 2$ jet sample, observed by the CDF collaboration at
208: Tevatron, can be explained
209: as anomalous single production of $u_4$ with subsequent decay chain
210: $u_4 \rightarrow t \, g \rightarrow W b \, g$. Let us estimate the number
211: of events expected in both senarios mentioned above.
212: In the case of $\lambda = 0.5$, $\sigma(p \bar p \rightarrow u_4 X) \times
213: BR(u_4 \rightarrow t g) = 0.31$ pb for $m_{u_4} = 400$ GeV. Assuming $40 \%$
214: detector efficiency and $BR(W \rightarrow e \nu + \mu \nu) \approx 0.21$,
215: one obtains $2 - 3$ such events for $106$ pb$^{-1}$ integrated luminosity.
216: In addition, the same number of events are expected from
217: $p \bar p \rightarrow \bar u_4 X$. CDF collaboration has observed $8$
218: events while the SM prediction is $ 2.69 \pm 0.41$ {\cite{cdf}}.
219: In the case of
220: $\lambda = 1$, one needs to set $\Lambda = 4$ TeV in order to obtain
221: similar number of events (for $\lambda = 1\,,\,\sigma \sim \Lambda^{-4}$).\\
222:
223:
224: The other main decay modes, namely $g u $ and $g c$
225: will give rise to dijet final states. For $m_{u_4} = 400$ GeV,
226: $\sigma \times BR(u_4 \rightarrow jj) \approx 0.18$ pb with
227: $\lambda = 0.5$ and $\Lambda = 1$ TeV and $\sigma \times
228: BR(u_4 \rightarrow jj) \approx 1.1$ pb with
229: $\lambda = 1$ and $\Lambda = 4$ TeV. The CDF dijet analysis {\cite{dijet}}
230: lead to an upper limit of $16$ pb at this mass. The contribution of $d_4$
231: to the dijet events is estimated to be $0.6$ pb with
232: $\lambda = 0.5$ and $\Lambda = 1$ TeV and $0.75$ pb with
233: $\lambda = 1$ and $\Lambda = 4$ TeV. \\
234:
235: Finally, if we allow the SM decay modes of $d_4$ to be comparable
236: to anomalous ones, the superjet events in $W + 3$ jet sample can be explained
237: through the following decay chain:
238: $d_4 \rightarrow W t \rightarrow W W b $, where one $W$ decays
239: leptonically and the other decays into two jets. CDF collaboration has
240: observed $5$ events while the SM prediction is $ 1.71 \pm 0.40$ {\cite{cdf}}.\\
241:
242: In conclusion, the upgraded Tevatron reaching integrated luminosity
243: $15$ fb$^{-1}$ can observe the fourth SM family quarks before the LHC,
244: provided that the anomalous single production is dominant.
245:
246:
247: \begin{figure}[H]
248: \begin{center}
249: \epsfig{file=fig1.eps,height=8.5cm,width=14cm}
250: \hfil
251: \caption{Anomalous single production cross section for $u_{4}$ (solid curves),
252: $d_{4}$ (dashed curves) quarks. Upper (lower) curves correspond to $\lambda = 1,\, \Lambda = 2$ TeV ($\lambda = 0.5, \, \Lambda = 1$ TeV). }
253: \label{fig.1}
254: \end{center}
255: \end{figure}
256:
257:
258: \noindent
259: \begin{center}{\bf Acknowledgments} \\
260: \end{center}
261:
262: This work is partially supported by Turkish State Planning Organization
263: under the Grant No 2002K120250.\\
264:
265: \begin{thebibliography}{99}
266:
267: \bibitem{datta} A. Datta and S. Raychaudhuri, Phys. Rev. D {\bf 49} 4762
268: (1994).
269: \bibitem{celikel} A. Celikel, A. K. Ciftci and S. Sultansoy, Phys. Lett. B
270: {\bf 342}, 257 (1995).
271: \bibitem{saleh} S. Sultansoy, hep-ph/0004271 (2000).
272: \bibitem{prd1} E. Arik {\it {et al.}}, Phys. Rev. D {\bf 58}, 117701 (1998).
273: \bibitem{tdr} ATLAS Technical Design Report, CERN/LHCC/99-15, Volume 2,
274: Chapter 18 (1999).
275: \bibitem{prd2} O. Cakir and S. Sultansoy, Phys. Rev. D {\bf 65}, 013009
276: (2002).
277: \bibitem{sn} E. Arik {\it {et al.}}, CERN-ATLAS
278: Scientific Note SN-ATLAS-2001-006 (2001), hep-ph/0109037 (2001).
279: \bibitem{prd3} E. Arik {\it {et al.}}, hep-ph/0203257, to be published in
280: Phys. Rev. D {\bf 66} (2002).
281: \bibitem{prd4} A. K. Ciftci, R. Ciftci and S. Sultansoy, Phys. Rev. D
282: {\bf 65}, 055001 (2002).
283: \bibitem{clic} R. Ciftci, A. K. Ciftci, E. Recepoglu and S. Sultansoy,
284: hep-ph/0203083 (2002).
285: \bibitem{frit} H. Fritzsch, D. Holtmannsp\" otter, Phys. Lett. B {\bf 457},
286: 186 (1999).
287: \bibitem{cdf} D. Acosta {\it {et al.}}, Phys. Rev. D {\bf 65}, 052007 (2002).
288: \bibitem{apol1} G. Apollinari {\it {et al.}}, Phys. Rev. D {\bf 65}, 032004
289: (2002).
290: \bibitem{apol2} G. Apollinari {\it {et al.}}, FERMILAB-Pub-01/265-E February 2002.
291: \bibitem{calchep} A. Pukhov {\it {et al.}}, hep-ph/9908288 (1999).
292: \bibitem{ayla} S. Atag {\it {et al.}}, Phys. Rev. D {\bf 54}, 5745 (1996).
293: \bibitem{dijet} F. Abe {\it {et al.}}, Phys. Rev. D {\bf 55}, R5263 (1997).
294:
295: \end{thebibliography}
296: \end{document}
297:
298:
299:
300:
301:
302:
303:
304:
305: