1: % Precision electroweak tests using $\bar \nu_e e$scattering
2: % Draft as of May 18, 2004
3: \documentclass[12pt]{article}
4: \usepackage{graphicx}
5: \textheight 9.0in
6: \textwidth 6.0in
7: \voffset -0.4in
8: \hoffset -0.2in
9: \def \sef{\sin^2 \theta_{\rm eff}}
10: \renewcommand{\thesection}{\Roman{section}}
11: \renewcommand{\thetable}{\Roman{table}}
12: \begin{document}
13: \rightline{CLNS 04/1874}
14: \rightline{hep-ph/0404264}
15: \bigskip
16: %
17: \centerline{\bf PRECISION ELECTROWEAK TESTS WITH $\bar \nu_e e$
18: SCATTERING\footnote{To be submitted to Phys.\ Rev.\ D, Brief Reports.}}
19: \bigskip
20:
21: \centerline{Jonathan L. Rosner~\footnote{rosner@hep.uchicago.edu. On leave
22: from Enrico Fermi Institute and Department of Physics,
23: University of Chicago, 5640 S. Ellis Avenue, Chicago, IL 60637}}
24: \centerline{\it Laboratory of Elementary Particle Physics}
25: \centerline{\it Cornell University, Ithaca, NY 14850}
26: \medskip
27:
28: \begin{quote}
29: Measurements of the cross section for $\bar \nu_e e^-$ elastic scattering
30: with unprecedented precision have recently been proposed. The impact of
31: these experiments for detecting possible deviations from the standard
32: electroweak theory is analyzed and compared with that of several other
33: measurements.
34: \end{quote}
35:
36: \leftline{PACS Categories: 12.15.Lk, 12.15.Mm, 13.15.+g, 14.60.Lm}
37: \bigskip
38:
39: Precise tests of the electroweak theory are able to determine the presence of
40: ``oblique corrections'' affecting vacuum polarization of the photon, $Z$, and
41: $W$ bosons through new particles in loops. A language for dealing with these
42: effects has been developed by Peskin and Takeuchi \cite{Peskin:1990zt} in
43: terms of two parameters $S$ and $T$, upon which observables depend linearly.
44: $S = T = 0$ may be defined to correspond to ``no new physics,'' given nominal
45: values of the top quark and Higgs boson masses $m_t$ and $M_H$. Both $S$ and
46: $T$ depend logarithmically on $M_H$, while $T$ depends quadratically on $m_t$.
47: Constraints on $S$ and $T$ thus can provide information on the mass of the
48: as-yet-undiscovered Higgs boson as well as restricting the types of new
49: particles that may enter into gauge boson vacuum polarization loops.
50:
51: Every new experiment can be analyzed in terms of the constraints it imposes
52: on $S$ and $T$. Thus, for example, it was discovered that the weak charge
53: $Q_W$ measured in parity-violation experiments on heavy atoms such as cesium
54: \cite{Marciano:1990dp,Sandars} is sensitive almost exclusively to $S$.
55:
56: Recently a measurement of the total cross section for $\bar \nu_e e^-$ elastic
57: scattering with unprecedented accuracy has been proposed \cite{Conrad:2004gw}.
58: In the present note I analyze the potential constraints on $S$ and $T$
59: following from such a measurement at the proposed 1.3\% level. The
60: measurement is found to have much more dependence on $S$ than on $T$, and to
61: restrict $S$ more closely than measurements of atomic parity violation in
62: the best-studied cesium \cite{Kuchiev:2003pk} case. Its impact is compared
63: with those of several other measurements, including the direct $W$ mass
64: determination from hadron and $e^+ e^-$ colliders, $M_W = 80.425 \pm
65: 0.034$ GeV/$c^2$ \cite{MW}, and the NuTeV measurement of the ratio of
66: neutral-current to charged-current cross sections in deeply inelastic neutrino
67: scattering \cite{Zeller:2001hh}.
68:
69: The differential cross section for $\bar \nu_e e^- \to \bar \nu_e e^-$ may be
70: written as a function of recoil electron kinetic energy $T$
71: \cite{Conrad:2004gw} in the standard electroweak theory as
72: \begin{equation}\label{eqn:sig}
73: \frac{d \sigma}{dT} = \frac{G_F^2 m_e}{2 \pi} \left[ (g_V + g_A)^2
74: + (g_V - g_A)^2 \left( 1 - \frac{T}{E_\nu} \right)^2 + (g_A^2 - g_V^2)
75: \frac{m_e T}{E_\nu^2} \right]~~~,
76: \end{equation}
77: where $G_F = 1.16639(1) \times 10^{-5}$ GeV$^{-2}$ is the Fermi coupling
78: constant, $m_e$ is the electron mass, $E_\nu$ is the energy of the incident
79: $\bar \nu_e$, and the couplings in the lowest-order electroweak theory are
80: $g_A = -1/2$, $g_V = 1/2 + 2x$, with $x \equiv \sin^2 \theta$, where $\theta$
81: is the weak mixing angle. The combination $g_V + g_A = 2x$ is due entirely to
82: $Z$ exchange, while the combination $g_V - g_A = 1 + 2x$ contains a
83: contribution of $+2$ from $W$ exchange in the direct channel and $-1 + 2x$ from
84: $Z$ exchange. One can then write down the $S$ and $T$ dependence of these
85: combinations by noting that they become
86: \begin{equation}\label{eqn:gvga}
87: g_V + g_A = 2x \rho~,~~ g_V - g_A = 2 + (-1 + 2 x) \rho~,~~
88: g_V = 1 + (2 x - \frac{1}{2}) \rho~,~~g_A = -1 + \frac{\rho}{2}
89: \end{equation}
90: when oblique corrections are included, where
91: \cite{Peskin:1990zt,Marciano:1990dp,Rosner:2001ck}
92: \begin{equation}\label{eqn:STdep}
93: x = x_0 + 0.0036 S - 0.0026 T~~,~~~
94: \rho = 1 + \alpha T = 1 + 0.0078 T~~,
95: \end{equation}
96: where $x_0$ is the nominal value of $\sin^2 \theta$ at $S=T=0$. The parameter
97: $\sin^2 \theta$ in this discussion is to be interpreted as $\sef$, the
98: effective value of $\sin^2 \theta$ as measured via leptonic vector and
99: axial-vector couplings: $\sef \equiv (1/4)(1 - [g_V^{\ell}/g_A^{\ell}])$.
100: Its latest value in one analysis \cite{Altarelli:2004fq} is
101: $\sef = 0.23150 \pm 0.00016$. One can then substitute Eq.\ (\ref{eqn:STdep})
102: into Eq.\ (\ref{eqn:gvga}) and linearize in $S$ and $T$ to find
103: \begin{equation}\label{eqn:gST}
104: g_V = 1/2 + 2 x_0 + 0.0073 S - 0.0055 T~~,~~~g_A = -1/2 + 0.0039 T
105: \end{equation}
106:
107: The number of expected events in the proposal of Ref.\ \cite{Conrad:2004gw}
108: depends on the coupling constants in the following manner \cite{MS}:
109: \begin{equation}\label{eqn:nevg}
110: N = 45950 (g_V + g_A)^2 + 2277 (g_V - g_A)^2 + 4424 (g_A^2 - g_V^2)~~~,
111: \end{equation}
112: where the large disparity between the first two coefficients arises from the
113: fact that the experiment tends to be sensitive to high electron recoil
114: energies, for which the second term in Eq.\ (\ref{eqn:sig}) is small.
115: Taking the expressions (\ref{eqn:gST}) for the couplings, one then finds
116: \begin{equation}\label{eqn:nevST}
117: N = 11727 + 297 S - 101 T~~~.
118: \end{equation}
119: If $N$ is measured to $\pm 1.3\%$, and if a central value consistent with
120: $S=T=0$ is found, a band $\pm 152 = 297 S - 101 T$, or
121: \begin{equation}\label{eqn:STband}
122: \pm 1 = 1.95 S - 0.66 T
123: \end{equation}
124: is found. The results of this constraint are compared with several others in
125: Fig.\ \ref{fig:STnue}. The ellipses are based on a previous fit
126: \cite{Rosner:2001ck} to electroweak data, which have not changed greatly
127: subsequently.
128:
129: \begin{figure}
130: \begin{center}
131: \includegraphics[height=4.65in]{STnue.ps}
132: \caption{Regions of 68\% (inner ellipse) and 90\% (outer ellipse) confidence
133: level values of $S$ and $T$ based on comparison of theoretical and
134: experimental electroweak observables \cite{Rosner:2001ck}.
135: Dash-dotted lines denote the axes $S=0$ and $T=0$. Diagonal long-dashed lines
136: denote the constraints from $M_W$ \cite{MW} (above the ellipses) and NuTeV
137: \cite{Zeller:2001hh} (below the ellipses). Diagonal short-dashed lines
138: denote the constraints from the proposed measurement of $\sigma(\bar \nu_e
139: e^- \to \bar \nu_e e^-)$, assuming a central value entailing $S=T=0$.
140: Curves emerging from the center of the ellipses denote Standard Model
141: predictions. Nearly vertical lines correspond, from left to right, to Higgs
142: boson masses $M_H = 100,$ 200, 300, 500, 1000 GeV; drooping curves correspond,
143: from top to bottom, to $+1 \sigma$, central, and $-1 \sigma$ values of $m_t$.
144: \label{fig:STnue}}
145: \end{center}
146: \end{figure}
147:
148: To put the constraints from $\sigma(\bar \nu_e e^- \to \bar \nu_e e^-)$ in
149: perspective, no other electroweak observable aside from atomic parity
150: violation has such a large ratio of $S$ to $T$ dependence. For comparison,
151: the latest determination of the weak charge $Q_W$ in cesium finds
152: \cite{Kuchiev:2003pk} $Q_W({\rm Cs}) = -72.84 \pm 0.49$, to be compared with
153: the Standard Model prediction \cite{Marciano:1990dp,Takeuchi:1999ci}
154: $Q_W({\rm Cs}) = -(73.19 \pm 0.13) - 0.800S -0.007T$, thus entailing $S =
155: -0.45 \pm 0.61$, a band so wide that it cannot be fully displayed in Fig.\
156: \ref{fig:STnue}.
157:
158: Thus, though a measurement of $\sigma(\bar \nu_e e^- \to \bar \nu_e e^-)$
159: at the percent level is not likely to restrict the ellipses in precision
160: electroweak fits to $S$ and $T$, it provides unique information in much
161: the same spirit as atomic parity violation at levels superior to those
162: currently obtained.
163:
164: I thank J. Conrad and M. Shaevitz for helpful comments, and M. Tigner for
165: extending the hospitality of the Laboratory for
166: Elementary-Particle Physics at Cornell during this research. This work was
167: supported in part by the United States Department of Energy through Grant No.\
168: DE FG02 90ER40560 and in part by the John Simon Guggenheim Memorial
169: Foundation.
170:
171: % Journal and other miscellaneous abbreviations for references
172: \def \ajp#1#2#3{Am.~J.~Phys.~{\bf#1}, #2 (#3)}
173: \def \apny#1#2#3{Ann.~Phys.~(N.Y.) {\bf#1}, #2 (#3)}
174: \def \app#1#2#3{Acta Phys.~Polonica {\bf#1}, #2 (#3)}
175: \def \arnps#1#2#3{Ann.~Rev.~Nucl.~Part.~Sci.~{\bf#1}, #2 (#3)}
176: \def \cmts#1#2#3{Comments on Nucl.~Part.~Phys.~{\bf#1}, #2 (#3)}
177: \def \cn{Collaboration}
178: \def \cp89{{\it CP Violation,} edited by C. Jarlskog (World Scientific,
179: Singapore, 1989)}
180: \def \dpfa{{\it The Albuquerque Meeting: DPF 94} (Division of Particles and
181: Fields Meeting, American Physical Society, Albuquerque, NM, Aug.~2--6, 1994),
182: ed. by S. Seidel (World Scientific, River Edge, NJ, 1995)}
183: \def \dpff{{\it The Fermilab Meeting: DPF 92} (Division of Particles and Fields
184: Meeting, American Physical Society, Batavia, IL., Nov.~11--14, 1992), ed. by
185: C. H. Albright \ite~(World Scientific, Singapore, 1993)}
186: \def \efi{Enrico Fermi Institute Report No. EFI}
187: \def \epjc#1#2#3{Eur.~Phys.~J.~C~{\bf #1}, #2 (#3)}
188: \def \epl#1#2#3{Europhys.~Lett.~{\bf #1}, #2 (#3)}
189: \def \f79{{\it Proceedings of the 1979 International Symposium on Lepton and
190: Photon Interactions at High Energies,} Fermilab, August 23-29, 1979, ed. by
191: T. B. W. Kirk and H. D. I. Abarbanel (Fermi National Accelerator Laboratory,
192: Batavia, IL, 1979}
193: \def \hb87{{\it Proceeding of the 1987 International Symposium on Lepton and
194: Photon Interactions at High Energies,} Hamburg, 1987, ed. by W. Bartel
195: and R. R\"uckl (Nucl.~Phys.~B, Proc.~Suppl., vol. 3) (North-Holland,
196: Amsterdam, 1988)}
197: \def \ib{{\it ibid.}~}
198: \def \ibj#1#2#3{~{\bf#1}, #2 (#3)}
199: \def \ichep72{{\it Proceedings of the XVI International Conference on High
200: Energy Physics}, Chicago and Batavia, Illinois, Sept. 6 -- 13, 1972,
201: edited by J. D. Jackson, A. Roberts, and R. Donaldson (Fermilab, Batavia,
202: IL, 1972)}
203: \def \ijmpa#1#2#3{Int.~J.~Mod.~Phys.~A {\bf#1}, #2 (#3)}
204: \def \ite{{\it et al.}}
205: \def \jpb#1#2#3{J.~Phys.~B {\bf#1}, #2 (#3)}
206: \def \lkl87{{\it Selected Topics in Electroweak Interactions} (Proceedings of
207: the Second Lake Louise Institute on New Frontiers in Particle Physics, 15 --
208: 21 February, 1987), edited by J. M. Cameron \ite~(World Scientific, Singapore,
209: 1987)}
210: \def \ky85{{\it Proceedings of the International Symposium on Lepton and
211: Photon Interactions at High Energy,} Kyoto, Aug.~19-24, 1985, edited by M.
212: Konuma and K. Takahashi (Kyoto Univ., Kyoto, 1985)}
213: \def \mpla#1#2#3{Mod.~Phys.~Lett.~A {\bf#1}, #2 (#3)}
214: \def \nc#1#2#3{Nuovo Cim.~{\bf#1}, #2 (#3)}
215: \def \np#1#2#3{Nucl.~Phys.~{\bf#1}, #2 (#3)}
216: \def \pisma#1#2#3#4{Pis'ma Zh.~Eksp.~Teor.~Fiz.~{\bf#1}, #2 (#3) [JETP Lett.
217: {\bf#1}, #4 (#3)]}
218: \def \pl#1#2#3{Phys.~Lett.~{\bf#1}, #2 (#3)}
219: \def \pla#1#2#3{Phys.~Lett.~A {\bf#1}, #2 (#3)}
220: \def \plb#1#2#3{Phys.~Lett.~B {\bf#1}, #2 (#3)}
221: \def \pr#1#2#3{Phys.~Rev.~{\bf#1}, #2 (#3)}
222: \def \pra#1#2#3{Phys.~Rev.~A {\bf#1}, #2 (#3)}
223: \def \prc#1#2#3{Phys.~Rev.~C {\bf#1}, #2 (#3)}
224: \def \prd#1#2#3{Phys.~Rev.~D {\bf#1}, #2 (#3)}
225: \def \prl#1#2#3{Phys.~Rev.~Lett.~{\bf#1}, #2 (#3)}
226: \def \prp#1#2#3{Phys.~Rep.~{\bf#1}, #2 (#3)}
227: \def \ptp#1#2#3{Prog.~Theor.~Phys.~{\bf#1}, #2 (#3)}
228: \def \ptps#1#2#3{Prog.~Theor.~Phys.~Suppl.~{\bf#1}, #2 (#3)}
229: \def \rmp#1#2#3{Rev.~Mod.~Phys.~{\bf#1}, #2 (#3)}
230: \def \sci#1#2#3{Science {\bf#1}, #2 (#3)}
231: \def \si90{25th International Conference on High Energy Physics, Singapore,
232: Aug. 2-8, 1990}
233: \def \slc87{{\it Proceedings of the Salt Lake City Meeting} (Division of
234: Particles and Fields, American Physical Society, Salt Lake City, Utah, 1987),
235: ed. by C. DeTar and J. S. Ball (World Scientific, Singapore, 1987)}
236: \def \slac89{{\it Proceedings of the XIVth International Symposium on
237: Lepton and Photon Interactions,} Stanford, California, 1989, edited by M.
238: Riordan (World Scientific, Singapore, 1990)}
239: \def \smass82{{\it Proceedings of the 1982 DPF Summer Study on Elementary
240: Particl)e Physics and Future Facilities}, Snowmass, Colorado, edited by R.
241: Donaldson, R. Gustafson, and F. Paige (World Scientific, Singapore, 1982)}
242: \def \smass90{{\it Research Directions for the Decade} (Proceedings of the
243: 1990 Summer Study on High Energy Physics, June 25--July 13, Snowmass, Colorado),
244: edited by E. L. Berger (World Scientific, Singapore, 1992)}
245: \def \tasi90{{\it Testing the Standard Model} (Proceedings of the 1990
246: Theoretical Advanced Study Institute in Elementary Particle Physics, Boulder,
247: Colorado, 3--27 June, 1990), edited by M. Cveti\v{c} and P. Langacker
248: (World Scientific, Singapore, 1991)}
249: \def \yaf#1#2#3#4{Yad.~Fiz.~{\bf#1}, #2 (#3) [Sov. J. Nucl. Phys. {\bf #1},
250: #4 (#3)]}
251: \def \zhetf#1#2#3#4#5#6{Zh.~Eksp.~Teor.~Fiz.~{\bf #1}, #2 (#3) [Sov. Phys. -
252: JETP {\bf #4}, #5 (#6)]}
253: \def \zpc#1#2#3{Zeit.~Phys.~C {\bf#1}, #2 (#3)}
254: \def \zpd#1#2#3{Zeit.~Phys.~D {\bf#1}, #2 (#3)}
255:
256: \begin{thebibliography}{99}
257:
258: %\cite{Peskin:1990zt}
259: \bibitem{Peskin:1990zt}
260: M.~E.~Peskin and T.~Takeuchi,
261: %``A New Constraint On A Strongly Interacting Higgs Sector,''
262: Phys.\ Rev.\ Lett.\ {\bf 65}, 964 (1990);
263: %%CITATION = PRLTA,65,964;%%
264: %\cite{Peskin:1991sw}
265: %\bibitem{Peskin:1991sw}
266: %M.~E.~Peskin and T.~Takeuchi,
267: %``Estimation of oblique electroweak corrections,''
268: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 46}, 381 (1992).
269: %%CITATION = PHRVA,D46,381;%%
270:
271: %\cite{Marciano:1990dp}
272: \bibitem{Marciano:1990dp}
273: W.~J.~Marciano and J.~L.~Rosner,
274: %``Atomic Parity Violation As A Probe Of New Physics,''
275: Phys.\ Rev.\ Lett.\ {\bf 65}, 2963 (1990)
276: [Erratum-ibid.\ {\bf 68}, 898 (1992)];
277: %%CITATION = PRLTA,65,2963;%%
278:
279: \bibitem{Sandars}
280: P. G. H. Sandars, J. Phys.\ B {\bf 23}, L655 (1990).
281:
282: %\cite{Conrad:2004gw}
283: \bibitem{Conrad:2004gw}
284: J.~M.~Conrad, J.~M.~Link and M.~H.~Shaevitz,
285: %``Precision measurement of sin**2(theta(W)) at a reactor,''
286: arXiv:hep-ex/0403048.
287: %%CITATION = HEP-EX 0403048;%%
288:
289: %\cite{Kuchiev:2003pk}
290: \bibitem{Kuchiev:2003pk}
291: M.~Y.~Kuchiev and V.~V.~Flambaum,
292: %``Radiative corrections to parity non-conservation in atoms,''
293: arXiv:hep-ph/0305053.
294: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0305053;%%
295:
296: \bibitem{MW} LEP Electroweak Working Group; see web page
297: http://lepewwg.web.cern.ch/LEPEWWG for periodic updates.
298:
299: %\cite{Zeller:2001hh}
300: \bibitem{Zeller:2001hh}
301: G.~P.~Zeller {\it et al.} [NuTeV Collaboration],
302: %``A precise determination of electroweak parameters in neutrino nucleon
303: %scattering,''
304: Phys.\ Rev.\ Lett.\ {\bf 88}, 091802 (2002)
305: [Erratum-ibid.\ {\bf 90}, 239902 (2003)]
306: [arXiv:hep-ex/0110059].
307: %%CITATION = HEP-EX 0110059;%%
308:
309: %\cite{Rosner:2001ck}
310: \bibitem{Rosner:2001ck}
311: J.~L.~Rosner,
312: %``Role of present and future atomic parity violation experiments in precision
313: %electroweak tests,''
314: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 65}, 073026 (2002)
315: [arXiv:hep-ph/0109239].
316: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0109239;%%
317:
318: %\cite{Takeuchi:1999ci}
319: \bibitem{Takeuchi:1999ci}
320: T.~Takeuchi, W.~Loinaz and A.~K.~Grant,
321: %``Precision tests of electroweak physics,''
322: Virginia Tech report
323: VPI-IPPAP-99-03, hep-ph/9904207, presented by T. Takeuchi at {\it Hadron
324: Collider Physics 13}, Mumbai, India, January 14--20, 1999 (unpublished).
325: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9904207;%%
326:
327: %\cite{Altarelli:2004fq}
328: \bibitem{Altarelli:2004fq}
329: G.~Altarelli and M.~W.~Grunewald,
330: %``Precision electroweak tests of the standard model,''
331: arXiv:hep-ph/0404165.
332: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0404165;%%
333:
334: \bibitem{MS} M. Shaevitz, private communication.
335: \end{thebibliography}
336: \end{document}
337: