1: \documentclass[10pt]{article}
2: \usepackage{graphicx,floatflt,amssymb,epsf}
3: \textwidth=17cm
4: \textheight=22.5cm
5: \oddsidemargin -0.3cm
6: \topmargin -1.5cm
7: \parskip 0.3cm
8: \tolerance=10000
9: \parindent 0pt
10:
11:
12: \def\ltap{\raisebox{-.4ex}{\rlap{$\sim$}} \raisebox{.4ex}{$<$}}
13: \def\gtap{\raisebox{-.4ex}{\rlap{$\sim$}} \raisebox{.4ex}{$>$}}
14:
15: \def\e{{\cal{E}}}
16: \def\ehat{\hat{\cal{E}}}
17: \def\nn{{\cal{N}}_n}
18: \def\n1{{\cal{N}}_{1i}}
19:
20: \begin{document}
21: %\pagestyle{empty}
22: \begin{flushright}
23: \texttt{hep-ph/0502031}\\
24: SINP/TNP/05-01\\
25: CU-PHYSICS/01-2005\\
26: \end{flushright}
27:
28: \vskip 30pt
29:
30: \begin{center}
31: {\Large \bf Probing Universal Extra Dimension at the \\[1mm]
32: International Linear Collider} \\
33: \vspace*{1cm}
34: \renewcommand{\thefootnote}{\fnsymbol{footnote}}
35: {\large {\sf Gautam Bhattacharyya${}^1$}, {\sf Paramita Dey${}^1$},
36: {\sf Anirban Kundu${}^2$}, and {\sf Amitava Raychaudhuri${}^2$}
37: } \\
38: \vspace{10pt}
39: {\small ${}^{1)}$ {\em Saha Institute of Nuclear Physics,
40: 1/AF Bidhan Nagar, Kolkata 700064, India} \\
41: ${}^{2)}$ {\em Department of Physics, University of Calcutta,
42: 92 A.P.C. Road, Kolkata 700009, India}}
43:
44: \normalsize
45: \end{center}
46:
47: \begin{abstract}
48: In the context of an universal extra-dimensional scenario, we consider
49: production of the first Kaluza-Klein electron positron pair in an $e^+e^-$
50: collider as a case-study for the future International Linear Collider. The
51: Kaluza-Klein electron decays into a nearly degenerate Kaluza-Klein photon and
52: a standard electron, the former carrying away missing energy. The Kaluza-Klein
53: electron and photon states are heavy with their masses around the inverse
54: radius of compactification, and their splitting is controlled by radiative
55: corrections originating from bulk and brane-localised interactions. We look
56: for the signal event $e^+e^- +$ large missing energy for $\sqrt s = 1$ TeV and
57: observe that with a few hundred fb$^{-1}$ luminosity the signal will be
58: readily detectable over the standard model background. We comment on how this
59: signal may be distinguished from similar events from other new physics.
60:
61: \vskip 5pt \noindent
62: \texttt{PACS Nos:~ 12.60.-i, 14.60.Hi} \\
63: \texttt{Key Words:~~Universal Extra Dimension,
64: International Linear Collider}
65: \end{abstract}
66:
67:
68:
69: \renewcommand{\thesection}{\Roman{section}}
70: \setcounter{footnote}{0}
71: \renewcommand{\thefootnote}{\arabic{footnote}}
72:
73:
74: {\bf Introduction}:~ If extra-dimensional models in a few hundred GeV
75: scale \cite{anto} are realised in Nature, one can not only undertake
76: their precision studies at the proposed International Linear Collider
77: (ILC) \cite{ilc} but also can distinguish them from other new
78: physics. In this paper, we consider such models with one extra
79: dimension having inverse radius of compactification in the range
80: $R^{-1} = 250-450$ GeV. We examine production of the first
81: Kaluza-Klein (KK) electron positron pair ($E_1^+ E_1^-$) in a linear
82: $e^+e^-$ collider operating at $\sqrt{s} = 1$ TeV. The heavy modes
83: $E_1^\pm$ would decay into the standard (zero modes) $e^\pm$ and the
84: first KK photon ($\gamma_1$), the latter carrying away missing energy.
85: The splitting between $E_1^\pm$ and $\gamma_1$ comes from the bulk and
86: brane-localised radiative corrections. The cross section of the final
87: state $e^+e^-$ plus missing energy is quite large and the standard
88: model (SM) background is tractable, so that even with a one year run
89: of ILC at $\sqrt s$ = 1 TeV with approximately 300 fb$^{-1}$ enough
90: statistics would accumulate. Forward-backward asymmetry of the final
91: state electron mildly depends on the initial polarisations. Even
92: though the mass spectrum of KK excitations of different SM particles
93: may resemble the supersymmetric pattern, angular distribution of the
94: final electrons can be used to discriminate the intermediate KK
95: electrons from selectrons or other new physics scalars.
96:
97: {\bf Simplest universal extra dimension}:~ We consider the simplest
98: realisation of the universal extra dimension (UED) scenario in which
99: there is only one extra dimension which is accessed by all SM
100: particles \cite{acd}. The extra dimension ($y$) is compactified on a
101: circle of radius $R$ along with a $Z_2$ orbifolding which renders all
102: matter and gauge fields, viewed from a 4 dimensional (4d) perspective,
103: depend on $y$ either as $\cos(ny/R)$ (even states) or $\sin(ny/R)$
104: (odd states), where $n$ is the KK index. The tree level mass of the
105: $n$th state of a particular field is given by $M_n^2 = M_0^2 +
106: n^2/R^2$, where $M_0$ is the zero mode mass of that field. Clearly,
107: excepting the top quark, Higgs, $W$, and $Z$, the KK states of all
108: other SM particles with the same $n$ are nearly mass degenerate at
109: $n/R$. Now, with all the fields propagating in the bulk, the momentum
110: along the fifth direction, quantised as $n/R$, remains a conserved
111: quantity. A closer scrutiny however reveals that a remnant $Z_2$
112: symmetry (different from the previous $Z_2$) in the effective 4d
113: Lagrangian dictates that what actually remains conserved is the KK
114: parity defined as $(-1)^n$. As a result, level mixings may occur which
115: admit even states mix only with even states, and odd with
116: odd. Therefore, (i) the lightest Kaluza-Klein particle (LKP) is
117: stable, and (ii) a single KK state (e.g. $n = 1$ state) cannot be
118: produced. These two criteria are reminiscent of supersymmetry with
119: conserved R-parity where the lightest supersymmetric particle (LSP) is
120: stable, and superparticles can only be pair produced. If produced, the
121: heavier KK modes can cascade decay to lighter ones, eventually to soft
122: SM particles plus LKP carrying away missing energy. But low energy
123: constraints on the UED scenario from $g-2$ of the muon \cite{nath},
124: flavour changing neutral currents \cite{chk,buras,desh}, $Z \to
125: b\bar{b}$ decay \cite{santa}, the $\rho$ parameter \cite{acd}, other
126: electroweak precision tests \cite{ewued} and implications from hadron
127: collider studies \cite{collued}, all indicate that $R^{-1}~\gtap$ a
128: few hundred GeV. As a result, even the second KK state having mass
129: $2/R$ will be beyond the pair-production reach of at least the first
130: phase of the planned linear collider. So, as mentioned in the
131: Introduction, we consider the production of first KK electron positron
132: pair and their subsequent decays into first KK photon plus the
133: standard leptons; the degeneracy between $E_1^\pm$ and $\gamma_1$
134: being lifted by radiative corrections which we shall briefly touch
135: upon below.
136:
137:
138: {\bf Radiative corrections and the spectrum:}~
139: Barring zero mode masses, the
140: degeneracy ($n/R$) at a given KK level is only a tree level result. Radiative
141: corrections lift this degeneracy \cite{cms1,pk,ggh,viq}. For intuitive
142: understanding, we consider the kinetic term of a scalar field as \cite{cms1}
143: $L_{\rm kin} = Z \partial_\mu \phi \partial^\mu \phi - Z_5 \partial_5 \phi
144: \partial^5 \phi ~~(\mu = 0,1,2,3)$, where $Z$ and $Z_5$ are renormalisation
145: constants. Recall, tree level KK masses ($M_n = n/R$) originate from the
146: kinetic term in the $y$-direction. If $Z = Z_5$, there is no correction to
147: those KK masses. But this equality is a consequence of Lorentz
148: invariance. When a direction is compactified, Lorentz invariance is lost, so
149: also is lost the equality between $Z$ and $Z_5$, leading to $\Delta M_n
150: \propto (Z-Z_5)$. One actually encounters two kinds of radiative
151: corrections. \\
152: (a) {\em Bulk corrections}: These corrections are finite.
153: Moreover, they are
154: nonzero only for bosons. They arise when the internal loop lines wind around
155: the compactified direction, sensing that compactification has actually
156: occured, leading to the breaking of Lorentz invariance. The correction to the
157: KK mass $M_n$ works out to be independent of $n$ and goes like $\Delta M_n^2
158: \propto \beta/16\pi^4 R^2$, where $\beta$ is a symbolic representation of the
159: collective beta function contributions of the gauge and matter KK fields
160: floating inside the loop. Since the beta function contributions are different
161: for particles in different representation, the KK degeneracy is lifted. One
162: can understand the decoupling of the correction as inverse power of $R$ by
163: noting that the $R \to \infty$ limit makes the fifth direction uncompactified
164: leading to exact Lorentz invariance. For the KK fermions this
165: correction is zero. \\
166: (b) {\em Orbifold corrections}:~ Orbifolding additionally breaks
167: translational
168: invariance in the fifth direction. The corrections to the KK masses arising
169: from interactions localized at the fixed points are not finite unlike the bulk
170: corrections. These are logarithmically divergent. These boundary terms can be
171: thought of as counterterms whose finite parts are completely undetermined. A
172: rather bold but predictive hypothesis is to assume that these corrections
173: vanish at the cutoff scale $\Lambda$. Calculation shows that
174: the correction to $M_n$ does depend on $M_n$ in this case, and a generic
175: correction looks like $\Delta M_n \sim M_n (\beta/16\pi^2)
176: \ln(\Lambda^2/\mu^2)$, where $\mu$ is the low energy scale where we compute
177: these corrections. The KK states are thus further split, this time with an
178: additional dependence on $\Lambda$.
179:
180: {\em Spectrum}:~ The mass spectra of the first excited electrons
181: and the first excited $W^\pm, Z$ and photon for different choices of
182: $R$ and $\Lambda$ are displayed in Table 1. While the tree level KK mass is
183: given by $1/R$, the radiative corrections to them depend both on $R$ and
184: $\Lambda$ (for the exact expressions, see, e.g.,\cite{cms1}).
185:
186: \begin{table}
187: \begin{center}
188: \begin{tabular}{|c|c|c|c|c|c|c|}
189: \hline
190: $R^{-1}$&$\Lambda R$&$M_{\ehat_1}$&$M_{\e_1}$&$M_{W_1}$& $M_{Z_1}$ &
191: $M_{\gamma_1}$ \\
192: \hline
193: 250 &20 & 252.7 & 257.5 & 276.5 & 278.1 & 251.6 \\
194: \cline{2-7}
195: & 50 & 253.6 & 259.7 & 280.6 & 281.9 & 251.9 \\ \hline
196: %300 & 20 & 300.6 & 308.3 & 327.6 & 327.8 & 300.3 \\ \cline{2-7}
197: % & 50 & 300.1& 310.9 & 332.6 & 332.8 & 300.3 \\ \hline
198: 350 & 20 & 353.8 & 360.4 & 379.0 & 379.7 & 351.4 \\ \cline{2-7}
199: & 50 & 355.0 & 363.6 & 384.9 & 385.4 & 351.5 \\ \hline
200: %400 & 20 & 400.8 & 411.1 & 431.0 & 431.1 & 400.2 \\ \cline{2-7}
201: % & 50 & 401.1 & 414.5 & 437.8 & 437.9 & 400.2 \\ \hline
202: 450 & 20 & 454.9 & 463.4 & 482.9 & 483.3 & 451.1 \\ \cline{2-7}
203: & 50 & 456.4 & 467.5 & 490.6 & 490.8 & 451.1 \\ \hline
204: %500 & 20 & 501.0 & 513.9 & 535.4 & 535.4 & 500.2 \\ \cline{2-7}
205: % & 50 & 501.3 & 518.2 & 543.9 & 544.0 & 500.2 \\ \hline
206: \end{tabular}
207: \caption[]{KK masses ($n=1$) for different cases: excited electrons in
208: SU(2) singlet and doublet representations, excited charged and neutral
209: gauge bosons, respectively. All mass scales are in GeV.}
210: \end{center}
211: \end{table}
212:
213:
214: {\bf Production and decay modes of KK leptons}:~ The SU(2) doublet KK states
215: appear with both left and right chiralities as ${\mathcal{L}}_{L,R}$, where
216: ${\mathcal{L}} = (\nn, \e_n)^T$, so do the SU(2) singlets ${\ehat}_{L,R}$. All
217: these states for $n=1$ will be pair produced at the foreseeable collider
218: energy. As noted in Table 1, the orbifold corrections create enough mass
219: splitting between these states and $\gamma_1$ (dominantly $B_1$) allowing the
220: former to decay within the detector to $e^\pm~ +$ missing energy which
221: constitute our signal. Below we denote ${\e}^\pm_1$ and ${\ehat}^\pm_1$
222: collectively by $E_1^\pm$.
223:
224:
225: Now we consider the pair production $e^+e^- \to E_1^+ E_1^-$ for
226: different polarisations of the incident beams. The interaction
227: proceeds through $s$- and $t$-channel graphs. The $s$-channel
228: processes are mediated by $\gamma$ and $Z$. The $t$-channel processes
229: proceed through $\gamma_1/Z_1$ gauge bosons and $\gamma^5_1/Z^5_1$
230: scalars (fifth components of 5d neutral gauge bosons). $E_1$ decays
231: into $e$ and $\gamma_1$. The splitting between $E_1$ and $\gamma_1$
232: masses is sufficient for the decay to occur well within the detector
233: with a 100\% branching ratio (BR). It may be possible to observe even
234: a displaced vertex (e.g., $\ehat_1$ decays, for $R^{-1} =$ 250
235: GeV). So in the final state we have $e^+e^-~+~ 2\gamma_1$ ($\equiv$
236: missing energy).
237:
238: The same final state can be obtained from $e^+e^- \to W_1^+W_1^-$ as
239: well. Again, the interaction proceeds through $\gamma$ and $Z$
240: mediated $s$-channel graphs, and ${\cal{N}}_{1L}$ mediated $t$-channel
241: graphs. Given the splittings (Table 1), $W_1^\pm$ can decay into
242: $e_i^\pm$ and $\n1$, as well as into $E^\pm_{1i}$ and $\nu_i$, where
243: $i=$ 1 to 3 is the flavour index. While $\n1$ escapes undetected,
244: $E^\pm_{1i}$ decays into $e_i^\pm$ and $\gamma_1$. So, if we tag only
245: electron flavours (plus missing energy) in the final state, the
246: $e^+e^- \to W_1^+W_1^-$ cross section, which is in the same ball-park
247: as the $e^+e^- \to E_1^+ E_1^-$ cross section, should be multiplied by
248: a BR of $\sim$ 1/9. Numerically, therefore, this channel is not
249: significant. Even more insignificant contribution would come from
250: $(W^5_1)^\pm$ scalar (fifth component of 5d charged gauge bosons) pair
251: production.
252:
253: {\bf SM background}:~ The main background comes from $\gamma^*
254: \gamma^* \to e^+e^-$ events, where $\gamma^*$s originate from the
255: initial electron-positron pair while the latter go undetected down the
256: beam pipe \cite{colorado}. The $\gamma^* \gamma^*$ production cross
257: section is $\sim 10^4$ pb. About half of these events results in final
258: state $e^+e^-$ pair as visible particles.
259:
260: The background $e^+e^-$ pairs are usually quite soft and coplanar with
261: the beam axis \cite{peskin}. An acoplanarity cut significantly removes
262: this background. Such a cut, we have checked, does not appreciably
263: reduce our signal. For example, excluding events which deviate from
264: coplanarity within 40 mrad reduces only 7\% of the signal cross
265: section. In fact, current designs of LC envisage very forward
266: detectors to specifically capture the `would-be-lost' $e^+e^-$ pairs
267: down the beam pipe\footnote{ To counter the two-photon background we
268: may also advocate the following strategy. Instead of eliminating the
269: background, we calculate the number of $e^+e^-$ events originating
270: from two-photon production. For this we first count the number of
271: $\mu^+\mu^-$ plus missing energy events. The number of such events
272: coming from the decay of KK muons, we have checked for $1/R \sim 250 -
273: 300$ GeV, would be rather small, about a factor of 1/20 compared to
274: the number of $e^+e^-$ plus missing energy events, due to strong
275: $s$-channel suppression. So most of the observed $\mu^+\mu^-$ events
276: would have sprung from $\gamma^*\gamma^*$. Thus the muon events serve
277: as a normalisation to count the $e^+e^-$ plus missing energy events
278: originating from the two-photon background. Our signal events should
279: be recognized as those which are in excess of that. Based on the
280: estimates of two-photon events given by the Colorado group
281: \cite{colorado}, we have checked that for an integrated luminosity of
282: 300 ${\rm fb}^{-1}$ the signal events would be about ten times larger
283: than the square-root of background.}.
284:
285:
286: Numerically less significant backgrounds would come from $e^+e^- \to
287: W^+W^-$, $e\nu W$, $e^+e^-Z$, followed by the appropriate leptonic
288: decays of the $W$ and $Z$.
289:
290:
291:
292: {\bf Collider parameters}:~ The study is performed in the context of
293: the ILC \cite{ilc}, running at $\sqrt{s}=1$ TeV (upgraded option), and
294: with a polarisation efficiency of 80\% for $e^-$ and 50\% for $e^+$
295: beams. We impose kinematic cuts on the lower and upper energies of
296: the final state charged leptons as 0.5 and 20 GeV respectively. While
297: the lower cut is a requirement for minimum energy resolution for
298: identification, the (upper) hardness cut eliminates most of the SM
299: background. We also employ a rapidity cut admitting only those final
300: state electrons which are away from beam pipe by more than $15^\circ$.
301:
302: {\bf Cross sections}:~ The cross section for $e^+e^-$ plus missing
303: energy final state has been plotted in Fig.~1. We have neglected the
304: events coming from excited $W$ decay. Notice that varying the beam
305: polarisations does create a detectable difference in the cross
306: section, nevertheless, there is no special gain for any particular
307: choice: for left-polarised $e^-$ beam, both $B_1$ and $W^3_1$
308: contribute, whereas for the right-polarised $e^-$ beam, only $B_1$
309: contributes but with an enhanced coupling. The cross section enhances
310: as we increase $\Lambda R$ from 2 to 20; this is due to the change in
311: $\theta_{W1}$ (the weak angle for $n=1$ KK gauge bosons). Further
312: increase of $\Lambda R$ does not change the cross section; a
313: saturation point is reached. Additionally, the kinematic cuts tend to
314: reduce the cross section which is why the curve for $\Lambda R = 50$
315: lies between the ones for $\Lambda R = 2$ and 20.
316:
317: {\bf Forward-backward (FB) asymmetries}:~ The FB asymmetries of the
318: final state electrons, defined as $A_{\rm FB} = (\sigma_{\rm F} -
319: \sigma_{\rm B})/ (\sigma_{\rm F} + \sigma_{\rm B})$, are plotted in
320: Fig.~2 for different values of $\Lambda R$. The reason as to why it
321: falls with increasing $1/R$ is as follows. The first-stage process
322: $e^+e^-\to E_1^+E_1^-$ is forward-peaked, and for smaller $1/R$,
323: i.e. lighter KK electrons, the final state $e^\pm$ are boosted more
324: along the direction of the parent $E^\pm$. As $1/R$, or equivalently
325: the KK mass, increases the boost drops and the distribution tends to
326: lose its original forward-peaked nature. Polarisation of the beams
327: does not appear to have a marked advantage. A point to note is that
328: the electrons coming from two-photon background will be FB symmetric.
329:
330:
331: {\bf Discriminating UED from other new physics}:~
332: It is not our purpose in this brief note to discuss at depth any
333: specific version of new physics model and its possible discrimination
334: from UED. Still, for illustrative purposes, we recall that the
335: spectrum of KK excitations for a given level (here $n = 1$) may be
336: reminiscent of a possible supersymmetry spectrum \cite{cms2}, where
337: the KK parity is `like' the R-parity. Even in a situation when the
338: LSP weighs above 250 GeV and conspires to be almost degenerate with
339: the selectron, it is possible to discriminate a KK electron decaying
340: into the KK photon (LKP) from a selectron decaying into a neutralino
341: LSP by studying the angular distribution pattern of the final state
342: electron. We demonstrate this with a simple toy example. Compare the
343: pair production of (a) generic heavy fermions and (b) generic heavy
344: scalars in an $e^+e^-$ collider in a toy scenario. Assume $\sqrt{s}
345: \gg m$, where $m$ is the mass of the heavy lepton/scalar, so that only
346: the $t$-channel diagrams, with just a heavy gauge boson in case (a)
347: and a heavy fermion in case (b) as propagators, are numerically
348: dominant (we assume this only for the ease of analytic
349: comparison). The heavy states are produced with sufficient boost,
350: therefore the tagged leptons they decay into have roughly the same
351: angular distributions as them. Take the mass of the $t$-channel
352: propagator in either case to be about the same as the mass of the
353: heavy lepton/scalar as $m = 250$ GeV. For these choices, the ratio of
354: $d\sigma/d\cos\theta$ (case (a)/ case (b)) is observed to be $(3.8 +
355: 1.3 \cos\theta + 0.6 \cos^2\theta)/\sin^2\theta$, clearly indicating
356: that the two cases can be easily distinguished from their angular
357: distributions. Moreover, the UED cross section is found to be a factor
358: of 4 to 5 larger than the scalar production cross section for similar
359: couplings and other parameters. For selectron production, indeed one
360: must take the detailed neutralino structure and the exact couplings,
361: but the basic arguments that we advanced for distinguishing scalar-
362: from the fermion-productions at the primary vertex using the toy model
363: would still hold.
364:
365: {\bf Comparison with the CLIC Working Group study}:~
366: Our analysis is complementary to that in the CLIC multi-TeV linear
367: collider study report \cite{clic}. While we have electrons in the
368: final state, the study in \cite{clic} involves muons. Clearly, the
369: angular distribution in our case is dominated by $t$-channel diagrams,
370: while the process studied in \cite{clic} proceeds only through
371: $s$-channel graphs. Due to the inherently forward-peaked nature of
372: the $t$-channel diagrams, we obtain a significantly larger FB
373: asymmetry. Unlike in \cite{clic}, we have neither included the initial
374: state radiation effect nor incorporated detector simulation.
375:
376: {\bf LHC/ILC synergy}:~ Extensive studies have been carried out
377: \cite{lhc-lc} addressing the physics interplay between the LHC and the
378: ILC, in particular, how the results obtained at one machine would
379: influence the way analyses would be carried out at the other. While
380: LHC may serve as a discovery machine, precision measurements of the
381: masses, decay widths, mixing angles, etc., of the discovered particles
382: can be carried out at the ILC. To illustrate this with an example, let
383: us consider a selectron weighing around 200 GeV. The analysis
384: \cite{m-selectron} shows that while the uncertainty in its mass
385: determination is around 5 GeV at the LHC, with inputs from the ILC the
386: uncertainty can be brought down to about 0.2 GeV due to a
387: significantly better edge analysis in the clean ILC environment.
388: Similar precisions may be expected for the masses of the KK electrons
389: as well for a comparable cross-section. However, if $R^{-1}$ is large
390: and the cross section goes down by about a factor of 50-100, the
391: sensitivity will also go down scaling inversely as the square root of
392: the number of events. (Beam polarisation will not be of much help, as
393: can be seen from Fig.\ 1). Another point that may play a significant
394: role in determining the masses is the softness of final-state
395: electrons. We have applied adequate softness cuts to remove very soft
396: electrons. One needs a detailed analysis to determine the exact
397: accuracies at different benchmark points, but roughly the accuracy of
398: determining the KK masses at the ILC should be of the order of 1 GeV
399: or even better. Even if the KK electrons are first observed at the
400: LHC, their spin assignments might not be possible. This particular
401: issue, i.e. whether UED states can be distinguished from the
402: supersymmetric states at the LHC, has been studied in
403: \cite{webber}. Considering the decay chain in which a KK quark (or, a
404: squark) disintegrates into a quark, a lepton-antilepton pair and
405: missing energy, and looking at the spin correlations of the emitted
406: quark with one of the leptons, the authors of \cite{webber} conclude
407: that for a quasi-degenerate (UED like) spectrum, spin assignments of
408: the discovered particles could hardly be efficiently done: the best
409: discriminator of UED from supersymmetry in that case would be a
410: significantly larger production cross sections for the UED particles
411: than those of the supersymmetric ones. On the contrary, if the
412: observed spectrum is hierarchical (e.g. a supersymmetric type), the
413: prospects of observing spin correlations would be better. However,
414: the ILC would provide a better environment for doing spin studies.
415: The clinching evidence of UED would of course be the discovery of the
416: $n = 2$ KK modes. While the $Z_2$ peak can be discovered at the LHC
417: through some hadronically quiet channels, $\gamma_2$ will be hard to
418: detect at the LHC because it immediately decays into two jets which
419: will be swamped by the QCD background \cite{biplob}. Turning our
420: attention now to the ILC, given its proposed energy reach, these
421: states will too heavy to be pair produced, but as shown in
422: \cite{biplob}, single resonant productions of $Z_2$ and $\gamma_2$,
423: despite suppression from KK number violating couplings, will have
424: sizable cross sections. Precision measurements of their peak positions
425: and widths at the ILC will enable one to extract $R$ and $\Lambda$.
426:
427:
428:
429: {\bf Conclusion}:~ We have shown that the ILC may have a significant
430: role in not only detecting the presence of few-hundred-GeV-size extra
431: dimensions but also discriminating it from other new physics options,
432: like supersymmetry. Even if the KK modes are first observed at the
433: LHC, one needs the ILC for their proper identification through
434: precision measurements of the masses, couplings and spin correllations.
435: The physics interplay of the LHC and the ILC will be quite important
436: in this context.
437:
438:
439:
440: \vskip 10pt
441:
442: \centerline{\bf{Acknowledgements}} We thank H.C. Cheng for clarifying
443: to us some aspects of orbifold radiative corrections. We acknowledge
444: very fruitful correspondences with M.E. Peskin on the two-photon
445: background. We also thank J. Kalinowski for presenting a preliminary
446: version of this work in ICHEP 2004, Beijing \cite{kali}. Thanks are
447: also due to S. Dutta and J.P. Saha, who were involved in the earlier
448: stages of this work. Stimulating discussions with the participants
449: of the Study Group on Extra Dimensions at LHC, held at HRI, Allahabad,
450: are also acknowledged. G.B., P.D., and A.R. acknowledge hospitality at
451: Abdus Salam ICTP, Trieste, while G.B. also acknowledges hospitality at
452: LPT, Orsay, and Theory Division, CERN, at different stages of the
453: work. G.B. and A.R. were supported, in part, by the DST, India,
454: project number SP/S2/K-10/2001. AK was supported by DST, Govt.\ of
455: India, through the project SR/S2/HEP-15/2003.
456:
457:
458: \begin{thebibliography}{99}
459: %\bibitem{add}
460: %N.~Arkani-Hamed, S.~Dimopoulos and G.R.~Dvali,
461: %``The hierarchy problem and new dimensions at a millimeter,''
462: %Phys.\ Lett.\ B {\bf 429} (1998) 263
463: %[arXiv:hep-ph/9803315] and
464: %Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 59} (1999) 086004
465: %[arXiv:hep-ph/9807344];
466: %I.~Antoniadis, N.~Arkani-Hamed, S.~Dimopoulos and G.R.~Dvali,
467: %``New dimensions at a millimeter to a Fermi and superstrings at a TeV,''
468: %Phys.\ Lett.\ B {\bf 436} (1998) 257
469: %[arXiv:hep-ph/9804398];
470:
471:
472: \bibitem{anto}
473: I.~Antoniadis,
474: %``A Possible New Dimension At A Few Tev,''
475: Phys.\ Lett.\ B {\bf 246} (1990) 377.
476:
477: \bibitem{ilc}
478: D.~J.~Miller,
479: %``Linear collider physics,''
480: arXiv:hep-ph/0410306.
481:
482: \bibitem{acd}
483: T.~Appelquist, H.C.~Cheng and B.A.~Dobrescu,
484: %``Bounds on universal extra dimensions,''
485: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 64} (2001) 035002
486: [arXiv:hep-ph/0012100].
487:
488: \bibitem{nath}
489: P.~Nath and M.~Yamaguchi,
490: %``Effects of Kaluza-Klein excitations on g(mu)-2,''
491: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 60} (1999) 116006
492: [arXiv:hep-ph/9903298].
493:
494: \bibitem{chk}
495: D.~Chakraverty, K.~Huitu and A.~Kundu,
496: %``Effects of universal extra dimensions on B0 - anti-B0 mixing,''
497: Phys.\ Lett.\ B {\bf 558} (2003) 173
498: [arXiv:hep-ph/0212047].
499:
500:
501: \bibitem{buras} A.J.~Buras, M.~Spranger and A.~Weiler,
502: %``The impact of universal extra dimensions on the unitarity triangle and
503: %rare K and B decays. ((U)),''
504: Nucl.\ Phys.\ B {\bf 660} (2003) 225
505: [arXiv:hep-ph/0212143];
506: A.J.~Buras, A.~Poschenrieder, M.~Spranger and A.~Weiler,
507: %``The impact of universal extra dimensions on B $\to$ X/s gamma, B $\to$ X/s
508: %gluon, B $\to$ X/s mu+ mu-, K(L) $\to$ pi0 e+ e-, and epsilon'/epsilon,''
509: Nucl.\ Phys.\ B {\bf 678} (2004) 455
510: [arXiv:hep-ph/0306158].
511:
512: \bibitem{desh}
513: K.~Agashe, N.G.~Deshpande and G.H.~Wu,
514: %``Universal extra dimensions and b $\to$ s gamma,''
515: Phys.\ Lett.\ B {\bf 514} (2001) 309
516: [arXiv:hep-ph/0105084].
517:
518: \bibitem{santa}
519: J.F.~Oliver, J.~Papavassiliou and A.~Santamaria,
520: %``Universal extra dimensions and Z $\to$ b anti-b,''
521: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 67} (2003) 056002
522: [arXiv:hep-ph/0212391].
523:
524: \bibitem{ewued} T.G. Rizzo and J.D. Wells, Phys. Rev. D {\bf 61}
525: (2000) 016007 [arXiv:hep-ph/9906234]; A. Strumia, Phys. Lett. B {\bf
526: 466} (1999) 107 [arXiv:hep-ph/9906266]; C.D. Carone, Phys. Rev. D {\bf
527: 61} (2000) 015008 [arXiv:hep-ph/9907362].
528:
529: \bibitem{collued} T. Rizzo, Phys. Rev. D {\bf 64} (2001) 095010
530: [arXiv:hep-ph/0106336]; C. Macesanu, C.D. McMullen and S. Nandi,
531: Phys. Rev. D {\bf 66} (2002) 015009 [arXiv:hep-ph/0201300];
532: Phys. Lett. B {\bf 546} (2002) 253 [arXiv:hep-ph/0207269];
533: H.-C. Cheng, Int. J. Mod. Phys. A {\bf 18} (2003) 2779
534: [arXiv:hep-ph/0206035]; A. Muck, A. Pilaftsis and R. R\"uckl,
535: Nucl. Phys. B {\bf 687} (2004) 55 [arXiv:hep-ph/0312186].
536:
537: \bibitem{cms1}
538: H.C.~Cheng, K.T.~Matchev and M.~Schmaltz,
539: %``Radiative corrections to Kaluza-Klein masses,''
540: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 66} (2002) 036005
541: [arXiv:hep-ph/0204342].
542:
543: \bibitem{pk}
544: M.~Puchwein and Z.~Kunszt,
545: %``Radiative corrections with 5D mixed position-/momentum-space
546: %propagators,''
547: Annals Phys.\ {\bf 311} (2004) 288 [arXiv:hep-th/0309069].
548:
549:
550: \bibitem{ggh}
551: H.~Georgi, A.~K.~Grant and G.~Hailu,
552: %``Brane couplings from bulk loops,''
553: Phys.\ Lett.\ B {\bf 506} (2001) 207
554: [arXiv:hep-ph/0012379].
555:
556: \bibitem{viq}
557: G.~von Gersdorff, N.~Irges and M.~Quiros,
558: %``Bulk and brane radiative effects in gauge theories on orbifolds,''
559: Nucl.\ Phys.\ B {\bf 635} (2002) 127
560: [arXiv:hep-th/0204223].
561:
562:
563: \bibitem{colorado}
564: See the website: \texttt{http://hep-www.colorado.edu/SUSY}, in
565: particular, N. Danielson, COLO HEP 423. See also, M. Battaglia and
566: D. Schulte, arXiv:hep-ex/0011085; H. Baer, T. Krupovnickas and X. Tata,
567: JHEP {\bf 0406} (2004) 061 [arXiv:hep-ph/0405058].
568:
569: \bibitem{peskin}
570: M.E. Peskin, private communications.
571:
572: \bibitem{cms2}
573: H.C.~Cheng, K.T.~Matchev and M.~Schmaltz,
574: %``Bosonic supersymmetry? Getting fooled at the LHC,''
575: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 66} (2002) 056006
576: [arXiv:hep-ph/0205314].
577:
578:
579: %\bibitem{ccst}
580: %C.D.~Carone, J.M.~Conroy, M.~Sher and I.~Turan,
581: %``Universal extra dimensions and Kaluza Klein bound states,''
582: %Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 69} (2004) 074018
583: %[arXiv:hep-ph/0312055].
584:
585: %\bibitem{mnr1}
586: %C.~Macesanu, S.~Nandi and M.~Rujoiu,
587: %[arXiv:hep-ph/0407253].
588:
589:
590: \bibitem{clic}
591: Physics at the CLIC multi-TeV linear collider, Eds: M. Battaglia, A. De Roeck,
592: J. Ellis and D. Schulte, CERN Report No: CERN-2004-005. See also,
593: M.~Battaglia, A.~Datta, A.~De Roeck, K.~Kong and K.~T.~Matchev,
594: %``Contrasting supersymmetry and universal extra dimensions at the CLIC
595: %multi-TeV e+ e- collider,''
596: arXiv:hep-ph/0502041.
597:
598: \bibitem{lhc-lc} G.~Weiglein {\it et al.} [LHC/LC Study Group],
599: %``Physics interplay of the LHC and the ILC,''
600: arXiv:hep-ph/0410364.
601:
602: \bibitem{m-selectron} See, for example, Table 5.14 of Ref.~\cite{lhc-lc}.
603:
604: \bibitem{webber} J.~M.~Smillie and B.~R.~Webber,
605: %``Distinguishing spins in supersymmetric and universal extra
606: % dimension models at the Large Hadron Collider,''
607: arXiv:hep-ph/0507170.
608:
609: \bibitem{biplob} B.~Bhattacherjee and A.~Kundu,
610: %``The International Linear Collider as a Kaluza-Klein Factory,''
611: arXiv:hep-ph/0508170.
612:
613:
614: \bibitem{kali}
615: J.~Kalinowski,
616: %``Testing CP violation and universal extra dimensions at future colliders,''
617: arXiv:hep-ph/0410137.
618:
619: \end{thebibliography}
620: %-----------------------------------------
621: \newpage
622:
623: \begin{figure}
624: \vspace{-10pt}%3in
625: \centerline{\hspace{-3.3mm}
626: \rotatebox{-90}{\epsfxsize=8cm\epsfbox{x_lcued.ps}}}
627: \hspace{3.3cm}\caption[]{ Cross section versus $1/R$ for the process
628: $e^+e^-\to e^+e^- + $ missing energy. Plots are shown for unpolarised incident
629: beams with $\Lambda R =$ 2,20 and 50, and for `optimum' ILC polarisation (80\%
630: for $e^-$ and 50\% for $e^+$ beams) for $\Lambda R=$ 20. The lower and upper
631: energy cuts on the final state leptons are set at 0.5 and 20 GeV,
632: respectively. The angular cuts with respect to the beam axis are set at
633: $15^\circ$.} \protect\label{fig1}
634: \end{figure}
635: %------------------------------------
636: %-----------------------------------------
637: \begin{figure}
638: \vspace{-10pt}%3in
639: \centerline{\hspace{-3.3mm}
640: \rotatebox{-90}{\epsfxsize=8cm\epsfbox{as_lcued.ps}}}
641: \hspace{3.3cm}\caption[]{ $A_{FB}$ versus $1/R$ for the same process. Plots
642: are shown for unpolarised incident beams with $\Lambda R = 2$ and 20, and for
643: `optimised' ILC polarisation for $\Lambda R=$ 20. The cuts are as in Fig.~1.}
644: \protect\label{fig2}
645: \end{figure}
646: %------------------------------------
647:
648: \end{document}
649:
650:
651:
652: