1:
2: \documentstyle[12pt]{article}
3: \textheight 9.2in
4: \textwidth 6in
5: \oddsidemargin 0.2in
6: \topmargin -.2in
7:
8: \begin{document}
9:
10: \def \ggww{\gamma\gamma\to WW}
11:
12: \begin{center}
13: {\Large \bf
14: Strong Final State Interactions in $\ggww$}\\[2cm]
15: {\large P. Poulose\footnote{poulos@physik.rwth-aachen.de}
16: and L.M. Sehgal\footnote{sehgal@physik.rwth-aachen.de}\\[5mm]
17: Institute for Theoretical Physics E\\
18: RWTH Aachen, D-52056 Aachen, Germany}
19: \end{center}
20:
21: \vskip 4cm
22: \centerline{\bf Abstract}
23:
24: \vskip 6mm
25: \noindent
26: We study the effects of a possible strong final state interaction
27: among longitudinal $W$'s in $\ggww$.
28: The relevant partial wave amplitudes are modified by an Omn\`es function
29: approximated by a Breit-Wigner form factor. We study the fractional
30: cross section $f_{00}=\sigma_{LL}/\sigma_{\rm Total}$ with both $W$'s
31: longitudinally polarised, in the presence of a $J=2$ resonance ($M=2.5$
32: TeV, $\Gamma=500$ GeV) or a $J=0$ resonance ($M=1$ TeV, $\Gamma=1$ TeV),
33: whose parameters are scaled up from the $f_2$ and $\sigma$ resonances in
34: the $\pi\pi$ system. We also examine the effects of final state interaction
35: in the case of polarised photons ($J_z=0$ or $J_z=2$), and the impact on
36: the Drell-Hearn-Gerasimov sum rule.
37:
38: \newpage
39: \def \eeww{e^+e^-\to W^+W^-}
40: \def \ggvv{\gamma\gamma\to W^+W^-,\;ZZ}
41: \def \ggww{\gamma\gamma\to W^+W^-}
42:
43: \section{Introduction}
44: The mechanism of
45: electroweak symmetry breaking and the associated question of the origin
46: of masses of particles is a central issue in our understanding
47: of nature at a fundamental level. The Higgs mechanism employed in
48: the standard model (SM) leads to the prediction of an elementary scalar
49: particle with a mass $m_H=\sqrt{\lambda}\;v$,
50: where $v=\left(\sqrt{2}\;G_F\right)^{-\frac{1}{2}}=246$ GeV, and $\lambda$ is
51: the quartic coupling of the scalar potential. If the coupling $\lambda$
52: is very large, however, the scalar sector becomes strongly interacting, and
53: the above relation for the Higgs mass breaks down. In these circumstances,
54: even the existence of an elementary scalar particle becomes questionable.
55: Instead, the dynamics of the electroweak Goldstone bosons, which manifest
56: themselves as the longitudinal components of the gauge fields $W^\pm$ and
57: $Z$, begins to resemble the dynamics of the $\pi^\pm,\;\pi^0$ mesons, which
58: are the Goldstone bosons of chiral symmetry breaking in hadronic physics.
59: In such a situation, it is reasonable to expect resonances in the strong
60: interaction of longitudinal gauge bosons analogous to the
61: $\sigma,\;\rho,\;f_2,$ etc., in the $\pi\pi$ system. The possibility of
62: strong electroweak symmetry breaking is, therefore, best studied by
63: analysing processes involving $W_L$'s and $Z_L$'s.
64:
65: Such a situation has been considered in the literature in
66: various reactions. A $\rho$-like resonance in the electroweak sector
67: affects the process $\eeww$. Model independent analysis of this
68: process has been carried out by several authors \cite{eeww1}.
69: A specific model under the name of BESS has been developed to study
70: such new vector resonances \cite{bess}. While $\eeww$ is sensitive to
71: the existence of a $\rho$-like resonance, possible
72: scalar and tensor resonances, which are the equivalents
73: of $\sigma$ and $f_2$ in the hadronic system, are conveniently studied
74: in processes like $\ggvv$. Studies in this direction have been
75: carried out in \cite{chanowitz}.
76:
77: In our earlier study of $\eeww$, the strong final state interaction (FSI)
78: of the longitudinal $W$'s was implemented with
79: the help of the BESS model, in which a $\rho$-like vector triplet arises
80: as a consequence of an additional $SU(2)$ gauge symmetry \cite{poul_eeww}.
81: Such spin-1 resonances do not arise in $\gamma\gamma$ collisions.
82: For our present investigation of $\ggww$, we take a model independent
83: approach, exploring the consequences of $J=0$ and $J=2$ resonances in
84: the $WW$ system, which modify particular partial waves in the amplitude.
85: These resonances are taken to be the equivalents of $\sigma$ and
86: $f_2$ resonance in the $\pi\pi$ system.
87:
88: The plan of the paper is as follows.
89: In Section \ref{sec-sm}, we recall the salient features of the process
90: $\ggww$ in the SM.
91: In Section \ref{sec-fsi} we describe how strong final state interaction
92: effects are included. In Section \ref{sec-result} we discuss
93: observables sensitive to such modifications.
94: We give our conclusions in Section \ref{sec-conclusion}.
95:
96: \def \non{\nonumber}
97: \def \be{\begin{eqnarray}}
98: \def \ee{\end{eqnarray}}
99: \def \la{\lambda}
100: \def \lga{\lambda_{\gamma_1}}
101: \def \lgb{\lambda_{\gamma_2}}
102: \def \lwp{\lambda_{w^+}}
103: \def \lwm{\lambda_{w^-}}
104:
105: \def \eeww{e^+e^-\to W^+W^-}
106: \def \ggvv{\gamma\gamma\to W^+W^-,\;\;ZZ}
107: \def \ggww{\gamma\gamma\to W^+W^-}
108:
109: \def \logbeta{\frac{L}{2\beta}}
110: \def \logbetaB{\frac{L}{\beta}}
111: \def \logbetaC{L}
112: \def \logbetaA{\log\left(\frac{1+\beta}{1-\beta}\right)}
113:
114: \section{$\ggww$ in the Standard Model}
115:
116: The process $\ggww$ in the Standard Model
117: has $t$-channel and $u$-channel contributions
118: through the exchange of a $W$, and a contact interaction term.
119: The helicity amplitudes are given in the literature \cite{ggww-sofar},
120: and we reproduce those in the Appendix.
121:
122: Beam polarisation can be achieved in the photon linear colliders,
123: where Compton back scattering of polarised laser and electron beams is used
124: to produce high energy photon beams \cite{ph-collider}.
125: The two independent polarisation combinations of the photon beams
126: are those with same and opposite helicities. These are usually denoted by
127: $J_z=\lga-\lgb=0$ and $J_z=2$, where $\lga$ and $\lgb$ are the helicities of the
128: two photons. Differential cross sections corresponding to these two cases
129: (summed over $W$ polarisations) are given below.
130:
131: \begin{eqnarray}
132: \frac{d\sigma_{J_z=0}}{d\cos\theta}
133: &=& \frac{\beta}{8\pi s}\;
134: \frac{(4\pi\alpha)^2}{(1-\beta^2\cos^2\theta)^2}\;
135: \left(16-16r+3r^2\right)
136: \non\\[3mm]
137: \frac{d\sigma_{J_z=2}}{d\cos\theta}
138: &=& \frac{\beta}{8\pi s}\;
139: \frac{(4\pi\alpha)^2}{(1-\beta^2\cos^2\theta)^2}\;
140: \left[\left(3+10r+3r^2\right)\right.+ \non\\
141: &&\left.2\left(5-2r-3r^2\right)\;\cos^2\theta+
142: \left(3-6r+3r^2\right)\;\cos^4\theta\right]
143: \non\\
144: \label{eq-diff-sig-sm}
145: \end{eqnarray}
146: Here,
147: $\theta$ is the scattering angle, $\beta$ is the velocity of $W$
148: in the centre of mass frame, and $r=\frac{4m_w^2}{s}$.
149: The unpolarised cross section is
150:
151: \begin{eqnarray}
152: \frac{d\sigma}{d\cos\theta}
153: &=& \frac{1}{2}\;\left(\frac{d\sigma_{J_z=0}}{d\cos\theta}+
154: \frac{d\sigma_{J_z=2}}{d\cos\theta}\right) \non\\[3mm]
155: &=& \frac{\beta}{16\pi s}\;
156: \frac{(4\pi\alpha)^2}{(1-\beta^2\cos^2\theta)^2}\;
157: \left\{\left(19-6r+6r^2\right)\right.+\non\\
158: &&\left.
159: 2\left(5-2r-3r^2\right)\;\cos^2\theta+
160: \left(3-6r+3r^2\right)\;\cos^4\theta\right\}
161: \non\\
162: \end{eqnarray}
163: Both $J_z=0$ and $J_z=2$ distributions peak along the beam
164: directions.
165: Integrated cross sections in the case of polarised beams have the
166: following expressions:
167:
168: \begin{eqnarray}
169: \sigma_{J_z=0}(s)
170: &=&\frac{\beta}{8\pi s}\;(4\pi\alpha)^2\;
171: \left\{\left(\frac{16}{r}-16+3r\right)+
172: \left(16-16r+3r^2\right)\;
173: \logbeta \right\} \non\\
174: \sigma_{J_z=2}(s)
175: &=&\frac{\beta}{8\pi s}\;(4\pi\alpha)^2\;
176: \left\{\left(\frac{16}{r}+22+3r\right)+
177: \left(-16+4r+3r^2\right)\;
178: \logbeta\right\}
179: \label{eq-sigJz0Jz2}
180: \end{eqnarray}
181: where $L=\logbetaA$.
182:
183: Notice that asymptotically these cross sections become equal,
184: and the unpolarised cross section saturates to \(\sigma(s\to
185: \infty)=\frac{(4\pi\alpha)^2}{2\pi m_w^2}\sim \;80.9 \;\;{\rm pb}.\)
186: This advantage of $\ggww$ over other processes
187: like $\eeww$, which decrease with $s$, makes it
188: an attractive process in the linear colliders running at high energies.
189:
190: The difference of the cross sections in Eq. \ref{eq-sigJz0Jz2}
191: \begin{eqnarray}
192: \Delta\sigma=\sigma_{J_z=2}-\sigma_{J_z=0}&=&
193: \frac{\beta}{8\pi s}\;(4\pi\alpha)^2\;
194: \left\{38+
195: \left(-32+20\;r\right)\;
196: \logbeta \right\}
197: \label{eq-dhg-ggww}
198: \end{eqnarray}
199: fulfills the sum rule
200: \begin{eqnarray}
201: \int_{\frac{4m_w^2}{s}}^\infty\frac{\Delta\sigma(s)}{s}\;ds = 0.
202: \label{eq-dhg}
203: \end{eqnarray}
204: This is a special case of the generalized Drell-Hearn-Gerasimov sum rule
205: \cite{dhg},
206: which applies to any elementary process $\gamma+a\to b+c$ in a gauge
207: theory, $\Delta\sigma$ being the cross section difference for parallel and
208: antiparallel spins in the intial state. It is worth noting that
209: $\Delta\sigma$ changes sign at $\sqrt{s}=296$ GeV. Any new physics in the
210: amplitude of $\ggww$ is likely to shift the location of this zero, and
211: affect the convergence of the sum rule.
212:
213: Finally we quote the $\ggww$ cross section for longitudinal $W$'s.
214: The angular distributions and integrated cross section for the production of
215: $W_LW_L$ are the following.
216:
217: \begin{eqnarray}
218: \frac{d\sigma^{W_LW_L}_{J_z=0}}{d\cos\theta}
219: &=& \frac{\beta}{8\pi s}\;
220: \frac{(4\pi\alpha)^2}{(1-\beta^2\cos^2\theta)^2}\;r^2
221: \non\\[3mm]
222: \frac{d\sigma^{W_LW_L}_{J_z=2}}{d\cos\theta}
223: &=& \frac{\beta}{8\pi s}\;
224: \frac{(4\pi\alpha)^2}{(1-\beta^2\cos^2\theta)^2}\;
225: (1+r)^2\;\sin^4\theta \non\\
226: \label{eq-diff-sig-sm-LL}
227: \end{eqnarray}
228: \begin{eqnarray}
229: \sigma^{W_LW_L}_{J_z=0}
230: &=&\frac{\beta}{8\pi s}\;(4\pi\alpha)^2\;
231: \left[r+r^2\;\logbeta\right]\non\\
232: \sigma^{W_LW_L}_{J_z=2}
233: &=&\frac{\beta}{8\pi s}\;(4\pi\alpha)^2\;\frac{(1+r)^2}{\beta^2}\;\left[(2+r)
234: +r\;(r-4)\;\logbeta\right] \non\\
235: \end{eqnarray}
236:
237: Whereas the total cross section, summed over the $WW$ polarisations, goes
238: to a constant at high energy, the $W_LW_L$ fraction decreases with $s$.
239: This fraction is of particular interest as a probe of FSI involving
240: longitudinally polarised $W$'s.
241:
242: In the following section we will discuss how the FSI is introduced by
243: modifying particular partial waves, and how this affects various observables.
244:
245: \label{sec-sm}
246:
247: \section{Strong Final State Interactions}
248:
249: As mentioned in the introduction, we assume the existence of strong interactions
250: among longitudinal gauge bosons, analogous to the case of the $\pi\pi$ system.
251: Final state interaction in the $\pi\pi$ system is known to introduce
252: a phase shift in specific partial waves \cite{watson}, which
253: may be parametrised in terms of an Omn\`es function $\Omega(s)$
254: \cite{omnes}. The partial wave amplitude in the presence of FSI is
255: then modified according to
256:
257: \begin{eqnarray}
258: M^J\to \Omega^J(s)\;M^J
259: \label{eq-ampl-modi-gen}
260: \end{eqnarray}
261:
262: In the following we describe the partial wave decomposition of the
263: amplitude of the process $\gamma\gamma\to W_LW_L$, and how the
264: FSI is introduced. The relevant helicity amplitudes have the expansion
265: \cite{martin}
266:
267: \begin{eqnarray}
268: M^{SM}_{\lga\lgb 00}(s,\theta)&=&
269: \sum_J\frac{(2J+1)}{4\pi}\; {d}^{J\;*}_{J_z,0}(\theta)\; M_{\lga\lgb 00}^J(s)
270: \label{pwavedecomb}
271: \end{eqnarray}
272: Here ${d}^{J}_{J_z,0}(\theta)$ with $J_z=\lga-\lgb$ are
273: the rotation functions corresponding to the helicities considered.
274:
275: Inverting Eq.\ref{pwavedecomb} using the orthogonality of the
276: rotation functions, we get the partial wave amplitudes
277: \begin{eqnarray}
278: M_{\lga\lgb 00}^J(s)=(2\pi)\;\int\!d\cos\theta\;
279: {d}^{J}_{J_z,0}(\theta)\;M^{SM}_{\lga\lgb 00}(s,\theta)
280: \label{pwaveampl}
281: \end{eqnarray}
282:
283: As in the case of the $\pi\pi$ system \cite{morgan}, we expect the FSI
284: to induce resonances of specific spins $J_R$. Such a resonance affects the
285: partial wave amplitude $M^{J_R}_{\lga\lgb 00}$. In the case of $\gamma\gamma$
286: collisions, only even values of $J_R$ are allowed, and we will consider $J_R=0$
287: and $J_R=2$ resonances. In accordance with Eq. \ref{eq-ampl-modi-gen},
288: we introduce these effects through an Omn\`es function $\Omega(s)$.
289: For simplicity, we approximate this function by a Breit-Wigner
290: fuction normalised to unity at the threshold. That is,
291:
292: \begin{eqnarray}
293: M_{\lga\lgb 00}^{J_R}(s)\to
294: \Omega^{J_R}(s)\;M_{\lga\lgb 00}^{J_R}(s),
295: \end{eqnarray}
296: with
297: \begin{eqnarray}
298: \Omega^{J_R}(s) = \frac{4m_w^2-m_R^2}{s-m_R^2+i\;\Gamma_Rm_R\;
299: \left(\frac{\beta}{\beta_R}\right)^{(2J_R+1)}}
300: \label{omega}
301: \end{eqnarray}
302: Here, $m_R$ is the mass and $\Gamma_R$ the width of the resonance,
303: $\beta=\sqrt{1-4m_w^2/s}$ and $\beta_R=\sqrt{1-4m_w^2/m_R^2}$.
304: This modifies the helicity amplitudes such that
305:
306: \begin{eqnarray}
307: M_{\lga\lgb 00}(s,\theta)&=&
308: \sum_J\frac{(2J+1)}{4\pi}\;
309: {d}^{J\;*}_{J_z,0}(\theta)\;
310: M_{\lga\lgb 00}^J(s) \non\\
311: &=&M^{SM}_{\lga\lgb 00}(s,\theta)+
312: \left[\Omega^{J_R}(s) - 1\right]\;\frac{2J_R+1}{4\pi}\;
313: d^{J_R\;*}_{J_z,0}(\theta)\;
314: M_{\lga\lgb 00}^{J_R} (s) \non\\
315: \label{pwavedecomb2}
316: \end{eqnarray}
317: where the superscript $SM$ denotes the standard model result.
318:
319: Expressions for the relevant $d^{J_R}_{J_z,0}$ functions and partial wave
320: amplitudes are given in the Appendix. With the modified helicity
321: amplitudes in Eq. \ref{pwavedecomb2}, differential cross
322: sections given in Eq. \ref{eq-diff-sig-sm} are changed to
323:
324: \begin{eqnarray}
325: \left.\frac{d\sigma_{J_z=0}}{d\cos\theta}\right|_{J_R=0}
326: &=&\frac{d\sigma_{J_z=0}^{SM}}{d\cos\theta}+
327: \frac{\beta}{32\pi s}\;(4\pi\alpha)^2\;\non\\
328: &&\times\left\{
329: 2\;{\rm Re}(\Omega-1)\;
330: \frac{2\;r^2\;\logbetaC}{\beta\;(1-\beta^2\;\cos^2\theta)} +
331: |\Omega-1|^2 \;\frac{r^2\;\logbetaC^2}{\beta^2}
332: \right\} \non\\[3mm]
333: \left.\frac{d\sigma_{J_z=0}}{d\cos\theta}\right|_{J_R=2}
334: &=&\frac{d\sigma_{J_z=0}^{SM}}{d\cos\theta}+
335: \frac{\beta}{32\pi s}\;(4\pi\alpha)^2\;\non\\
336: &&\times\left\{
337: 2\;{\rm Re}(\Omega-1)\;
338: \frac{5}{\beta^2}\;2\;r^2\;
339: \left[-3+(2+r)\;\logbeta\right]\;
340: \frac{3\;\cos^2\theta-1}{1-\beta^2\;\cos^2\theta}+ \right.\non\\
341: &&\left.\;\;\;\;\;
342: |\Omega-1|^2 \;\left(\frac{5}{\beta^2}\right)^2\;r^2\;
343: \left[-3+(2+r)\;\logbeta\right]^2\;
344: \left(3\;\cos^2\theta-1\right)^2\right\} \non\\[3mm]
345: \left.\frac{d\sigma_{J_z=2}}{d\cos\theta}\right|_{J_R=2}
346: &=&\frac{d\sigma_{J_z=2}^{SM}}{d\cos\theta}+
347: \frac{\beta}{32\pi s}\;(4\pi\alpha)^2\;\non\\
348: &&\times\left\{
349: 2\;{\rm Re}(\Omega-1)\;
350: \frac{5}{2\beta^4}\;(1+r)^2\;
351: \left[(2-5\;r)+3r^2\;\logbeta\right]\;
352: \frac{\sin^4\theta}{1-\beta^2\;\cos^2\theta}+\right. \non\\
353: &&\left.\;\;\;\;\; \;\;\;
354: |\Omega-1|^2 \;\left(\frac{5}{4\beta^4}\right)^2\;
355: (1+r)^2\;
356: \left[(2-5\;r)+3r^2\;\logbeta\right]^2\;
357: \sin^4\theta\right\} \non\\
358: \end{eqnarray}
359:
360: For convenience we have dropped the labels on $\Omega$.
361: The expressions for $\Omega$ in the case of
362: $J_R=0$ and $J_R=2$ differ according to Eq. \ref{omega}.
363: Corresponding integrated cross sections are given by
364: \begin{eqnarray}
365: \left.\sigma_{J_z=0}(s)\right|_{J_R=0}
366: &=&\sigma^{SM}_{J_z=0}(s)+
367: \left(2\;{\rm Re}(\Omega-1)+|\Omega-1|^2\right)
368: \;\frac{\left(4\pi\alpha\right)^2}{16\pi s}\;
369: \frac{r^2}{\beta}\;
370: \logbetaC^2 \non\\[3mm]
371: \left.\sigma_{J_z=0}(s)\right|_{J_R=2}
372: &=&\sigma^{SM}_{J_z=0}(s)+
373: \left(2\;{\rm Re}(\Omega-1)+|\Omega-1|^2\right)
374: \non\\
375: &&\times \frac{\left(4\pi\alpha\right)^2}{16\pi s}\;
376: \frac{5\;r^2}{\beta^3}\;
377: \left[-3+(2+r)\;\logbeta\right]^2\non\\[3mm]
378: \left.\sigma_{J_z=2}(s)\right|_{J_R=2}
379: &=&\sigma^{SM}_{J_z=2}(s)+
380: \left(2\;{\rm Re}(\Omega-1)+|\Omega-1|^2\right)
381: \non\\
382: &&\times \frac{\left(4\pi\alpha\right)^2}{16\pi s}\;
383: \frac{5}{6}\;\frac{\left(1+r\right)^2}{\beta^7}\;
384: \left[\left(2-5\;r\right)+ 3\;r^2\;\logbeta
385: \right]^2 \non\\
386: \label{sigmaModified}
387: \end{eqnarray}
388:
389: The above equations are used to analyse how various cross
390: sections are modified.
391: We discuss the numerical results in the next section.
392:
393: \label{sec-fsi}
394:
395: \section{Numerical Results}
396: In our numerical analysis we have considered spin-0 and
397: spin-2 resonances analogous to $\sigma$ and $f_2$ in the
398: $\pi\pi$ system, scaled up to $m_R=1$ TeV and $\Gamma_R=1$ TeV;
399: and $m_R=2.5$ TeV and $\Gamma_R=0.5$ GeV respectively,
400: using a rough scaling factor of $v/f_\pi\sim 2000$, where $f_\pi$ is the
401: $\pi$ decay constant. We keep in
402: mind a photon-collider operating at and above 500 GeV centre of
403: mass energy, as is expected, for example in
404: TESLA. We also consider the polarisation option, which is
405: expected to be achieved in photon-linear colliders.
406: Our principal results are as follows.
407:
408: {\large \it 1.} Fig. \ref{fig-sig-unpol}$a$
409: shows cross sections versus $\sqrt{s}$ separately for the polarisation
410: states $J_z=0$ and $J_z=2$. The effects of the resonances are essentially
411: invisible on this scale. To increase the sensitivity to FSI, we consider
412: the cross section with an angular cut $|\cos\theta|\leq 0.8$. This,
413: for the case of $J_R=2$ is shown in Fig. \ref{fig-sig-unpol}$b$,
414: where the resonant enhancement is visible. For the $J_R=0$ resonance,
415: the enhancement is essentially invisible even after the angular cut.
416:
417: \begin{figure}[h]
418: \vskip 6cm
419: \special{psfile="UnpolW-sig-sm+tot-ct1.eps" hscale=90 vscale=110 hoffset=-80
420: voffset=0}
421: \special{psfile="UnpolW-sig-sm+tot-ct.8.eps" hscale=90 vscale=110 hoffset=150
422: voffset=0}
423: \caption{Cross section of unpolarised $W$'s ($a$) without any cut, and
424: ($b$) with an angular cut of $|\cos\theta|\leq 0.8$. Solid and dotted curves
425: correspond to $J_z=2$ and $J_z=0$ respectively, in the SM. The dash-dotted curve
426: in ($b$) shows the effect of a $J_R=2$ final state resonance.
427: }
428: \label{fig-sig-unpol}
429: \end{figure}
430:
431: {\large \it 2.} In Fig. \ref{fig-sig-WL}$a$ we show a plot of $\sigma_{LL}$
432: (the cross section for $W_LW_L$) versus
433: $\sqrt{s}$, with and without the $J=0$ and $J=2$ resonances. The effects of
434: an angular cut are indicated in Fig. \ref{fig-sig-WL}$b$.
435: Clearly, the effects of final state interaction become more visible when the
436: longitudinal part of the coss section ($\sigma_{LL}$) is isolated.
437:
438: \begin{figure}[h]
439: \vskip 12cm
440: \special{psfile="WLWL-sig-sm+tot-ct1.eps" hscale=90 vscale=110 hoffset=-80
441: voffset=0}
442: \special{psfile="WLWL-sig-sm+tot-ct.8.eps" hscale=90 vscale=110 hoffset=150
443: voffset=0}
444: \special{psfile="WLWL-sig-sm+totJ0-ct1.eps" hscale=90 vscale=110 hoffset=-80
445: voffset=160}
446: \special{psfile="WLWL-sig-sm+totJ0-ct.8.eps" hscale=90 vscale=110 hoffset=150
447: voffset=160}
448: \caption{
449: Cross section for longitudinally polarised $W$'s. ($a$) and ($c$) are without
450: angular cut, while ($b$) and ($d$) are for $|\cos\theta|\leq 0.8$. Effects of
451: $J_R=0$ are shown in ($a$) and ($b$), and for $J_R=2$ in ($c$) and ($d$).
452: Solid and dotted lines correspond to the SM results for $J_z=0$ and $J_z=2$
453: respectively, while the dashed and dash-dotted curves include FSI.
454: }
455: \label{fig-sig-WL}
456: \end{figure}
457:
458: {\large \it 3.} The longitudinal fraction of the cross section, defined as
459: \[ f_{00} = \frac{\sigma_{LL}}{\sigma_{\rm tot}}, \]
460: is given in Table 1. Values of $f_{00}$ are listed
461: in the SM and in the presence of FSI with and without an angular cut. One
462: can observe that, with an angular cut $|\cos\theta|\leq 0.8$,
463: the fraction $f_{00}$ increases typically from 3\% in the SM to 4\%
464: in the presence of FSI.
465: It may be recalled that the parameter $f_{00}$ can be
466: determined empirically by studying the energy distribution of the secondary
467: leptons from the $W$'s (see Ref.\cite{anja}).
468:
469: \begin{table}[h]
470: \begin{center}
471: \begin{tabular}{|l|l|c|c|c||c|c|c|}
472: \hline
473: \multicolumn{2}{|c|}{}&\multicolumn{3}{|c||}{}&\multicolumn{3}{|c|}{} \\
474: \multicolumn{2}{|c|}{}&\multicolumn{3}{|c||}{No angular cut}&
475: \multicolumn{3}{|c|}{$|\cos\theta|\leq 0.8$}\\[3mm]\cline{3-8}
476: \multicolumn{2}{|c|}{}&&&&&& \\
477: \multicolumn{2}{|r|}
478: {$\sqrt{s}$ (GeV)}&500&800&1000&500&800&1000\\[3mm]\cline{1-8}
479: \multicolumn{2}{|c|}{}&&&&&& \\
480: \multicolumn{2}{|r|}{$\sigma^{SM}$ (pb)}&
481: 77.82& 79.90& 80.32& 15.75& 7.05& 4.66\\[3mm]\cline{1-2}
482: &{\small SM}&0.0068&0.0025&0.0016&0.029&0.024&0.023\\
483: $f_{00}$&{\small SM+FSI($J_R=0$)}&0.0122&0.0036&0.0021&0.045&0.030&0.027\\
484: &{\small SM+FSI($J_R=2$)}&0.0125&0.0040&0.0026&0.046&0.034&0.034\\
485: [3mm]\cline{1-8}
486: \end{tabular}
487: \caption{Longitudinal fraction of cross section, $f_{00}=\sigma_{LL}/\sigma_{\rm tot}$
488: with and without angular cut. Values of $f_{00}$ in the presence of
489: FSI with $J_R=0$ and $J_R=2$ resonances are shown along with the SM values, for
490: different centre of mass energies of the collider.}
491: \end{center}
492: \label{table-f00}
493: \end{table}
494:
495: {\large \it 4.} Finally, we show in Fig. \ref{fig-dhg} the cross section difference
496: $\Delta\sigma=\sigma_{J_z=2}-\sigma_{J_z=0}$ as a function of $\sqrt{s}$.
497: The zero of the function, which in the SM lies at $\sqrt{s}=296$ GeV, is
498: shifted upwards by about 1 GeV. The integral (Eq. \ref{eq-dhg}) is no longer
499: convergent, as is to be expected when gauge theory amplitudes are modified by
500: an unconventional $WW$ interaction introduced in a phenomenological way.
501:
502: \begin{figure}[h]
503: \vskip 5cm
504: \special{psfile="dhgJ0.eps" hscale=90 vscale=110 hoffset=50
505: voffset=0}
506: \special{psfile="dhgJ0-zero.eps" hscale=45 vscale=45 hoffset=185
507: voffset=90}
508: \caption{${\Delta\sigma}$ against $\sqrt{s}$. Inset shows the
509: shift in the position of zero (dotted line) in the presence of strong FSI with
510: $J_R=0$ resonance at $m_R=1$ TeV and $\Gamma_R=1$ TeV. }
511: \label{fig-dhg}
512: \end{figure}
513:
514: \label{sec-result}
515:
516: \section{Conclusions}
517: We have investigated the effects of strong $W^+_LW^-_L$ interaction
518: in the channel $\ggww$, assuming resonant structures analogous to the
519: $\sigma$ and $f_2$ resonances in the $\pi\pi$ system. Numerical
520: corrections to the standard model predictions have been evaluated for the
521: total cross section, and for the longitudinal fraction,
522: $f_{00}=\sigma_{LL}/\sigma_{\rm tot}$. A typical result is an enhancement
523: of $f_{00}$ from 3\% to about 4\% at $\sqrt{s}=500$ GeV, after inclusion of
524: an angular cut $|\cos\theta|\leq 0.8$. We have also calculated the cross
525: section difference, $\Delta\sigma=\sigma_{J_z=2}-\sigma_{J_z=0}$ for like
526: and unlike photon polarisations in the initial state, which is relevant to
527: the generalized DHG sum rule. The zero of $\Delta\sigma(s)$, which occurs
528: at 296 GeV in the SM, is shifted upwards by about 1 GeV in the presence of
529: FSI.
530: \label{sec-conclusion}
531:
532:
533: \vskip 1cm
534: \noindent
535: {\large \bf Acknowledgements}\\[2mm]
536: One of us, P.P. wishes to thank the Humboldt Foundation for a
537: Post-doctoral Fellowship, and the
538: Institute of Theoretical Physics E, RWTH Aachen for the
539: hospitality provided during this work.
540:
541: \def \logbeta{\log\left(\frac{1+\beta}{1-\beta}\right)}
542:
543: \vskip 10mm
544: \noindent
545: {\Large \bf Appendix A: Helicity Amplitudes}\\[5mm]
546: Following are the
547: helicity amplitudes of the process $\ggww$ in the Standard Model,
548: norlamised such that,
549: \begin{eqnarray}
550: \frac{d\sigma}{d\cos\theta} = \frac{\beta}{32\pi s}\;
551: \sum_{\lambda} |M^{SM}_{(\lga,\lgb,\lwm,\lwp)}(s,\cos\theta)|^2
552: \end{eqnarray}
553: with $\lga,\lgb,\lwm$ and $\lwp$ are
554: helicities of initial photon beams and $W$'s produced; $\sqrt{s}$, the
555: centre of mass energy; $\theta$ the scattering angle in the c.m.f.
556: Summation over final particle helicities, and averaging over initial
557: state helicites are implied by $\sum_\lambda$.
558:
559: Taking out a common factor, the helicity amplitudes are expressed in
560: terms of the functions $A_{(\lga,\lgb,\lwm,\lwp)}$ as
561:
562:
563: \begin{eqnarray}
564: M^{SM}_{(\lga,\lgb,\lwm,\lwp)}
565: (s,\cos\theta)=\frac{4\pi\alpha}{1-\beta^2\cos^2\theta}\;
566: A^{SM}_{(\lga,\lgb,\lwm,\lwp)}(s,\cos\theta),
567: \end{eqnarray}
568:
569: with
570: \begin{eqnarray}
571: A^{SM}_{\pm\pm 00} &=& 2\;r \non\\
572: A^{SM}_{\pm\pm\pm\pm} &=& 2\;(1+\beta)^2 \non\\
573: A^{SM}_{\pm\pm\mp\mp} &=& 2\;(1-\beta)^2 \non\\[5mm]
574: A^{SM}_{\pm\mp 00} &=&-2\;\left(1+r\right)\;\sin^2\theta \non\\
575: A^{SM}_{\pm\mp 0\pm} &=&\mp\;2\sqrt{2\;r}\;
576: (1-\cos\theta)\;\sin\theta
577: =A^{SM}_{\mp\pm\pm 0} \non\\
578: A^{SM}_{\pm\mp 0\mp} &=& \mp\;2\sqrt{2\;r}\;
579: (1+\cos\theta)\;\sin\theta
580: =A^{SM}_{\mp\pm\mp 0}\non\\
581: A^{SM}_{\pm\mp\pm\pm} &=& 2\;r\;\sin^2\theta
582: =A^{SM}_{\mp\pm\pm\pm} \non\\
583: A^{SM}_{\pm\mp\pm\mp} &=& 2\;(1+\cos\theta)^2 \non\\
584: A^{SM}_{\pm\mp\mp\pm} &=& 2\;(1-\cos\theta)^2 \non\\
585: \end{eqnarray}
586: where $r=\frac{4m_w^2}{s}$. All other helicity amplitudes vanish.
587:
588: \vskip 10mm
589: \noindent
590: {\large \bf Appendix B: Partial Wave Amplitudes}\\[5mm]
591:
592: Partial wave amplitudes are given in terms of
593: the helicity amplitudes as,
594: \begin{eqnarray}
595: M_{\lga,\lgb,\lwm,\lwp}^J(s)=(2\pi)\;\int\!d\cos\theta\;
596: {d}^{J}_{\delta_\gamma,\delta_w}(\theta)\;
597: M^{SM}_{\lga,\lgb,\lwm,\lwp}(s,\theta)
598: \end{eqnarray}
599:
600: Here $\delta_\gamma=\lga-\lgb$ and $\delta_w=\lwm-\lwp$.
601: Partial wave amplitudes that are relevant in the present case
602: are the following:
603:
604: \begin{eqnarray}
605: M_{\pm\pm 00}^{J_R=0} (s)
606: &=&4\pi\alpha\;\frac{4\pi\:r}{\beta}\;\logbeta\non\\
607: M_{\pm\pm 00}^{J_R=2} (s)
608: &=&4\pi\alpha\;
609: \frac{4\pi\;r}{\beta^2}\;\left[-3+\frac{2+r}{2\beta}\;
610: \logbeta\right] \non\\[5mm]
611: M_{\pm\mp 00}^{J_R=2} (s)
612: &=&-4\pi\alpha\;
613: \frac{4\pi\;(1+r)}{\sqrt{6}\;\beta^4}\;
614: \left[\left(2-5\;r\right)+\frac{3\;r^2}{2\beta}\;
615: \logbeta\right] \non\\
616: \label{partialwavesJ2}
617: \end{eqnarray}
618:
619: We have used the following $d$ functions:
620: \begin{eqnarray}
621: d^{0}_{0,0} &=&1\non\\
622: d^{2}_{0,0} &=&\frac{1}{2}\;(3\;\cos^2\theta-1)\non\\
623: d^{2}_{2,0} &=&\sqrt{\frac{3}{8}}\;\sin^2\theta=d^{2}_{-2,0}
624: \end{eqnarray}
625:
626: \begin{thebibliography}{99}
627: \bibitem{eeww1}
628: T.L.Barklow, {\em hep-ph}/0112286 and references therein;
629: see also:
630: T.L.Barklow, R.S.Chivukula, J. Goldstein, T. Han,
631: {\em hep-ph}/0201243;
632: R.D. Heuer, D. Miller, F. Richard, P. Zerwas, {\em TESLA Technical
633: Design Report: Part III, DESY}-2001-011 ({\em hep-ph/}0106315);
634: T.L.Barklow,G.Burdman,R.S.Chivukula, B.A. Dobrescu, P.S. Drell,N.Hadley,
635: W.B. Kilgore, M. E. Peskin,J.Terning ,D.R. Wood,
636: {\em hep-ph/}9704217;
637: \bibitem{bess}R. Casalbuoni, S. De Curtis, D. Dominici, R. Gatto,
638: {\em Phys. Lett.} {\bf B 155} (1985) 95;
639: {\em Nucl. Phys.} {\bf B 282} (1987) 235;
640: \bibitem{chanowitz}
641: E.E. Boos and G.V.Jikia, Phys. Lett. {\bf B 275} (1992) 164;
642: M. Herrero and E. Ruiz-Morales, Phys. Lett. {\bf B 296} (1992) 397;
643: A. Abbasabadi, David Bowser-Chao, Duane A. Dicus, Wayne W. Repko,
644: Phys. Rev. {\bf D 4} (1994) 547;
645: M.S. Berger, Michael S. Chanowitz, Nucl. Inst. Meth.{\bf A 355} (1995) 52.
646: \bibitem{poul_eeww}
647: P. Poulose, S.D. Rindani, L.M. Sehgal, Phys. Lett. {\bf B 525} (2002) 71
648: \bibitem{ggww-sofar}
649: E. Yehudai, Phys. Rev. {\bf D 44} (1991) 3434;
650: M. Baillargeon, G. Belanger, F. Boudjema ,
651: Nucl. Phys. {\bf B 500} (1997) 224.
652: \bibitem{ph-collider}
653: I.F.Ginzburg, G.L. Kotkin, V.G. Serbo, V.I. Telnov,
654: Nucl. Inst. Meth. {\bf 205} (1983) 47;
655: I.F.Ginzburg, G.L. Kotkin, S.L. Panfil, V.G. Serbo, V.I. Telnov,
656: Nucl. Inst. Meth. {\bf A 219} (1984) 5;
657: V. Telnov, Nucl. Inst. Meth. {\bf A 355} (1995) 3.
658: \bibitem{dhg}
659: S.D.Drell and A.C.Hearn, Phys. Rev. Lett,{\bf 16} (1966) 908;
660: S.B.Gerasimov, Sov. J. Nucl. Phys. {\bf 2} (1966) 430;
661: G. Altarelli, N. Cabibbo, L. Maiani,
662: Phys. Lett. {\bf B 40} (1972) 415;
663: S. J. Brodsky, T. G. Rizzo and I. Schmidt, Phys. Rev. {\bf D 52} (1995) 4929
664: \bibitem{watson}
665: K. M. Watson, Phys.Rev. {\bf 88} (1952) 1163
666: \bibitem{omnes}
667: R. Omn\`es, Nuovo Cim. {\bf 8} (1958) 316
668: \bibitem{martin}
669: See, for example, A.D. Martin and T.D. Spearman,
670: {\it ``Elementary Particle Theory"} (1970), North-Holland Publishing Company.
671: \bibitem{morgan}
672: D. Morgan, M.R. Pennington,
673: Z. Phys. {\bf C 37} (1988) 431, Erratum-{\em ibid}.{\bf C 39} (1988) 590.
674: \bibitem{anja}
675: Anja Werthenbach, L.M. Sehgal, Phys. Lett.{\bf B402} (1997) 189
676: \end{thebibliography}
677:
678: \end{document}
679: