1: \documentclass[12pt,a4paper]{article}
2: \usepackage{epsfig}
3: \pagestyle{plain}
4: \topmargin=-0.8in
5: \hoffset=-1.0cm
6: \voffset=1cm
7: \textwidth=160mm
8: \textheight=220mm
9: \def\baselinestretch{1.5}
10:
11: \begin{document}
12: \title{Search for the vector-like top quark $T$ at the future
13: linac-ring type $ep$ collider}
14:
15:
16: \author{ Chong-Xing Yue, Feng Zhang, Wei Wang\\
17: %\address{
18: {\small Department of Physics, Liaoning Normal University, Dalian
19: 116029, China}\thanks{E-mail:cxyue@lnnu.edu.cn}\\}
20: \date{\today}
21:
22: \maketitle
23: %---------------------------------------------------------------------------
24: \begin{abstract}
25:
26: The little Higgs models typically contain a new vector-like top
27: quark $T$, which plays a key role in breaking the electroweak
28: symmetry. In the context of the littlest Higgs (LH) model, we
29: study single production of this kind of new particle via the
30: process $ep\rightarrow eb\rightarrow \nu_{e}T$ in the future
31: linac-ring type $ep$ collider (LC$\bigotimes LHC$). We find that
32: the production cross section is in the range of $1.2\times
33: 10^{-4}$--- 0.48 $pb$ at the $LC\bigotimes LHC$ with
34: $\sqrt{s}=3.7$ $TeV$.
35: \vspace{1cm}
36:
37: \hspace{-0.5cm}PACS number(s):12.60.Cn, 13.60.Fz, 14.65.Ha
38:
39: \end{abstract}
40:
41:
42: \newpage
43: Little Higgs models[1,2,3] were recently proposed as a kind of
44: models of electroweak symmetry breaking(EWSB), which can solve the
45: hierarchy problem by protecting the Higgs mass from quadratically
46: divergent at one-loop order and thus can be regarded as one of the
47: important candidates of the new physics beyond the standard
48: model(SM). The key feature of this kind of models is that the
49: Higgs boson is a pseudo-Goldstone boson of a global symmetry
50: breaking at a scale $\Lambda\sim10TeV$, so that the Higgs boson
51: mass can be as light as $O(100GeV)$. The light Higgs boson mass is
52: protected from the one-loop quadratic divergence by introducing a
53: few new particles with the same statistics as the corresponding
54: $SM$ particles. The new heavy gauge bosons cancel the one-loop
55: quadratic divergence generated by the $SM$ gauge boson $W$ and $Z$
56: loops, new heavy scalars cancel that by the Higgs
57: self-interaction, while the new vector-like top quark $T$ cancels
58: that by the top quark Yukawa interactions. Furthermore, these new
59: particles might produce characteristic signatures at the present
60: and future collider experiments[4,5,6]. Certainly, these new
61: particles can generate significant corrections to some observables
62: and thus the precision measurement data can give severe
63: constraints on this kind of models[4,7,8].
64:
65: In little Higgs models, $EWSB$ generally results from the coupling
66: of the Higgs boson to an independent sector containing the $SM$
67: top quark $t$ and the new vector-like top quark $T$. This kind of
68: models provide a natural mechanism of $EWSB$ associated with the
69: large value of the top quark Yukawa coupling, in which the new
70: vector-like top quark $T$ plays a key role in breaking the
71: electroweak symmetry. Thus, studying the possible signatures of
72: the new particle $T$ at present and future high energy colliders
73: would provide crucial information for $EWSB$ and future test the
74: little Higgs models.
75:
76: To avoid the fine tuning problem and produce a suitable Higgs
77: mass, the mass of the new vector-like top quark $T$ should not be
78: too large. Considering this reason and the precision electroweak
79: constraints on little Higgs models, if the little Higgs models are
80: correct, the $T$ mass $M_{T}$ should be about $2TeV$[1]. In this
81: case, the new particle $T$ can be produced at the $LHC$ via two
82: mechanism: $QCD$ pair production via the processes $gg\rightarrow
83: T\overline{T}$ and $q\overline{q}\rightarrow T\overline{T}$;
84: single production via $W$ exchange process $qb\rightarrow q'T$.
85: Due to the large $T$ mass $M_{T}$, the later process dominates
86: over the $QCD$ pair production process. It has been shown that the
87: new heavy top quark $T$ mass $M_{T}$ can be explored up to about
88: $2.5TeV$ via the $W$ exchange process $qb\rightarrow q'T$[4,5].
89:
90: Although the linac-ring type $ep$ collider($LC\otimes LHC$) with
91: the centre-of-mass(c.m.) energy $\sqrt{s}=3.7TeV$ and the integral
92: luminosity $\pounds_{int}\approx 100pb^{-1}$ has a lower
93: luminosity, it can provide better conditions for studying a lot of
94: phenomena comparing to $LC$ due to the higher c. m. energy and to
95: $LHC$ due to more clear environment[9]. Thus, it can be used to
96: detect the possible signals of the new heavy particles. For
97: example, Ref.[10] has recently discussed the production of excited
98: neutrinos at this type of collider. In this letter, we will study
99: single production of the heavy vector-like top quark $T$ predicted
100: by the littlest Higgs($LH$) model[1] via the process $ep
101: \rightarrow eb\rightarrow \nu_{e}T$ and see whether it can be
102: detected in the future $LC\otimes LHC$ with the c.m. energy
103: $\sqrt{s}=3.7TeV$ and the integral luminosity $\pounds
104: _{int}\approx 100pb^{-1}$.
105:
106: As the simplest realization of the little Higgs idea, the $LH$
107: model[1] is a phenomenologically viable model and has almost all
108: of the essential features of the little Higgs models. So, in this
109: letter, we will give our results in the framework of the $LH$
110: model, although many alternatives have been proposed[2,3].
111: However, the presence of the heavy vector-like top quark $T$ is an
112: essential feature of this kind of models, thus our results might
113: be apply to other models.
114:
115: In the $LH$ model, the couplings of the heavy vector-like top
116: quark $T$ to ordinary particles, which are related to our
117: calculation, can be written as[4]:
118: \begin{eqnarray}
119: g_{L}^{WTb}&=&\frac{e}{\sqrt{2}S_{W}}\frac{\nu}{f}x_{L},\hspace{1cm}g_{R}^{WTb}=0;\\
120: g_{L}^{W_{H}Tb}&=&-\frac{e}{\sqrt{2}S_{W}}\frac{\nu}{f}\frac{c}{s}x_{L},
121: \hspace{1cm}g_{R}^{W_{H}Tb}=0;\\
122: g_{L}^{W_{H}\nu e}&=&-\frac{e}{\sqrt{2}S_{W}}\frac{c}{s},\hspace{1cm}g_{R}^{W_{H}\nu e}=0;\\
123: g_{L}^{ZTt}&=&-\frac{ie}{2S_{W}C_{W}}\frac{\nu}{f}x_{L},\hspace{1cm}g_{R}^{ZTt}=0;\\
124: g_{L}^{HTt}&=&\frac{m_{t}}{\nu}\sqrt{\frac{x_{L}}{1-x_{L}}},
125: \hspace{1cm}g_{R}^{HTt}=\frac{m_{t}}{\nu}(1+x_{L})\frac{\nu}{f},
126: \end{eqnarray}
127: where $f$ is the scale parameter, $\nu\simeq 246 GeV$ is the
128: electroweak scale, $S_{W}=\sin \theta_{W}$, $\theta_{W}$ is the
129: Weinberg angle, and $c$ is the mixing parameter between
130: $SU(2)_{1}$ and $SU(2)_{2}$ gauge bosons with $ s^{2}= 1- c^{2}$.
131: $x_{L}$ is the mixing parameter between the $SM$ top quark $t$ and
132: the vector-like top quark $T$, which is defined as
133: $x_{L}=\lambda_{1}^{2}/(\lambda_{1}^{2}+\lambda_{2}^{2})$.
134: $\lambda_{1}$ and $\lambda_{2}$ are the Yukawa coupling
135: parameters. The mass of the heavy vector-like top quark $T$ can be
136: approximately written as:
137: \begin{equation}
138: M_{T}=\frac{m_{t}f}{\nu}\sqrt{\frac{1}{x_{L}(1-x_{L})}}
139: [1-\frac{\nu^{2}}{2f^{2}}x_{L}(1+x_{L})].
140: \end{equation}
141: In the following calculation, we will take $M_{T}$, $x_{L}$, and
142: $c$ as free parameters.
143:
144: The decay modes of the heavy vector-like top quark $T$ involving
145: the new particles $B_{H}$, $Z_{H}$, and $W_{H}$ might be
146: kinematically forbidden due to these new particles are heavy.
147: Thus, the dominate decay modes of $T$ are $tH$, $tZ$, and $bW$
148: with partial widths in the ratio $1:1:2$[4, 11]. At the order of
149: $\nu^{2}/f^{2}$, the total width of the new quark $T$ can be
150: written as:
151: \begin{equation}
152: \Gamma_{T}=\frac{M_{T}}{8\pi}(\frac{m_{t}}{\nu})^{2}\frac{x_{L}}{1-x_{L}}.
153: \end{equation}
154:
155: In the $LH$ model, the number of up-type quarks is four and thus
156: the matrix relating the quark mass eigenstates with the weak
157: eigenstates becomes a $4\times 3$ matrix. Compared to the $CKM$
158: matrix in the SM, the extended $CKM$ matrix has the fourth row
159: elements $V_{Td}$, $V_{Ts}$ and $V_{Tb}$. Thus, it is possible
160: that there are the decay channels $T\rightarrow ql\overline{\nu}$,
161: which $q$ is the down-type quark. However, their branching ratio
162: are very small. For example, Ref.$[12]$ has estimated the
163: branching ratio of the decay channel $T\rightarrow
164: bl\overline{\nu}$ and given $B_{r}$$(T\rightarrow bl\nu)$$\sim
165: 1.2\times 10^{-3}\times (M_{T}/1TeV)^{4}$.
166:
167: From above discussions, we can see that the heavy vector-like top
168: quark $T$ can be singly produced via the $t-$channel processes $ep
169: \rightarrow eb\rightarrow W^{*}\rightarrow \nu_{e}T$ and $ep
170: \rightarrow eb\rightarrow W_{H}^{*}\rightarrow \nu_{e}T$ in the
171: future $LC\otimes LHC$ with $\sqrt{s}=3.7TeV$. The relevant
172: Feynman diagrams are shown in Fig.1.
173:
174: For the process $e(P_{e})+b(P_{b})\rightarrow
175: T(P_{T})+\nu_{e}(P_{\nu})$, we define the kinematical invariants
176: $t=(P_{T}-P_{b})^{2}$. The renormalization amplitude can be
177: written as:
178: \begin{eqnarray}
179: M^{T}&=&M_{W}^{T}+M_{W_{H}}^{T}\nonumber\\
180: &=&-\frac{e^{2}}{2S_{W}^{2}}\frac{\nu}{f}x_{L}\overline{u}_{\nu}(P_{\nu})
181: \frac{1-\gamma_{5}}{2}\gamma_{\mu}u_{e}(P_{e})
182: \frac{-i(g^{\mu\nu}-\frac{k^{\mu}k^{\nu}}{M_{W}^{2}})}{t-M_{W}^{2}+iM_{W}\Gamma_{W}}\nonumber\\
183: &&\hspace{0.5cm}\overline{u}_{T}(P_{T})\frac{1-\gamma_{5}}{2}\gamma_{\nu}u_{b}(P_{b})
184: -\frac{e^{2}}{2S_{W}^{2}}\frac{c^{2}}{s^{2}}\frac{\nu}{f}x_{L}\overline{u}_{\nu}
185: (P_{\nu})\frac{1-\gamma_{5}}{2}\gamma_{\mu}u_{e}(P_{e})\\
186: &&\hspace{0.5cm}\frac{-i(g^{\mu\nu}-\frac{k^{\mu}k^{\nu}}{M_{W_{H}}^{2}})}
187: {t-M_{W_{H}}^{2}+iM_{W_{H}}\Gamma_{W_{H}}}\overline{u}_{T}(P_{T})
188: \frac{1-\gamma_{5}}{2}\gamma_{\nu}u_{b}(P_{b}),\nonumber
189: \end{eqnarray}
190: where $\Gamma_{W}$ and $\Gamma_{W_{H}}$ are the total decay widths
191: of the $SM$ gauge boson $W$ and the new gauge boson $W_{H}$,
192: respectively. At the leading order, the decay modes of the new
193: gauge boson $W_{H}$ mainly contain $f\overline{f'}$ and $WH$. So,
194: the total decay width $\Gamma_{W_{H}}$ can be written as[11]:
195: \begin{equation}
196: \Gamma_{W_{H}}=\frac{\alpha_{e}}{96S_{W}^{2}}[\frac{96c^{2}}{s^{2}}
197: +\frac{C_{W}^{2}(c^{2}-s^{2})^{2}}{s^{2}c^{2}}]M_{W_{H}}.
198: \end{equation}
199: In above equation, we have ignored the contributions of the decay
200: modes $WZ$ and $WB_{H}$ to the total width $\Gamma_{W_{H}}$, which
201: are suppressed by a factor of $\nu^{4}/f^{4}$.
202:
203: \begin{figure}[htb]
204: \vspace{-7.5cm}
205: \begin{center}
206: \epsfig{file=fig1.ps,width=620pt,height=750pt} \vspace{-14cm}
207: \hspace{0.5cm} \caption{The Feynman diagrams of the $t-$channel
208: processes $eb\rightarrow W(W_{H})\rightarrow \nu_{e}T$.}
209: \label{ee}
210: \end{center}
211: \end{figure}
212:
213: After calculating the cross section $\hat{\sigma}(\hat{s}$) of the
214: $t-$channel subprocess $eb\rightarrow\nu_{e} T$, the total cross
215: section $\sigma(s)$ of single $T$ production via the process
216: $ep\rightarrow eb\rightarrow \nu_{e}T$ at the future $LC\otimes
217: LHC$ can be obtained by folding $\hat{\sigma}(\hat{s}$) with the
218: bottom-quark distribution function $f_{b}(x)$ in the proton:
219: \begin{equation}
220: \sigma(s)=\int_{x_{min}}^{1}f_{b}(x)\hat{\sigma}(x^{2}s)dx
221: \end{equation}
222: with $x_{min}=M_{T}/\sqrt{s}$. In our calculation, we will take
223: $CTEQ5$ parton distribution function[13] for $f_{b}(x)$.
224:
225: From above equations, we can see that single $T$ production at the
226: $LC\otimes LHC$ comes from two processes: the $SM$ gauge boson $W$
227: exchange and the new gauge boson $W_{H}$ exchange. The
228: contributions of the former process $e^{-}b\rightarrow
229: W^{-}\rightarrow \nu_{e}T$ to single $T$ production mainly
230: dependent on the free parameters $M_{T}$ and $x_{L}$, while those
231: of the latter process $e^{-}b\rightarrow W_{H}^{-}\rightarrow
232: \nu_{e}T$ mainly dependent on the free parameters $M_{T}$,
233: $x_{L}$, $c$, and $M_{W_{H}}$. Taking into account the precision
234: electroweak constrains on the parameter space of the $LH$ model,
235: the free parameters $c$, $M_{W_{H}}$, $M_{T}$ and $x_{L}$ are
236: allowed in the ranges of $0\leq c\leq0.5$, $1TeV \leq
237: M_{W_{H}}\leq 3TeV$, and $0<x_{L}<1$ [8]. However, compared with
238: the contributions of $W$ exchange, the contributions of $W_{H}$
239: exchange to the cross section of single $T$ production is very
240: small. Thus, the cross section of single $T$ production is not
241: sensitive to the free parameters $c$ and $M_{W_{H}}$. So, in our
242: numerical estimation, we will take $c=0.3$ and $M_{W_{H}}$=$2TeV$.
243:
244: \begin{figure}[htb]
245: \vspace{-0.2cm}
246: \begin{center}
247: \epsfig{file=fig2.eps,width=350pt,height=300pt} \vspace{-1cm}
248: \hspace{5mm} \caption{The cross section $\sigma(s)$ of single $T$
249: production as a function of $M_{T}$ for three values of the
250: parameter $x_{L}$.}
251: \label{ee}
252: \end{center}
253: \end{figure}
254:
255:
256: In Fig.2, we plot the cross section of single $T$ production at
257: the $LC\otimes LHC$ with $\sqrt{s}=3.7$ $TeV$ as a function of the
258: $T$ quark mass $M_{T}$ for three values of the mixing parameter
259: $x_{L}$. One can see from Fig.2 that the cross section $\sigma
260: (s)$ increases as $M_{T}$ decreasing and $x_{L}$ increasing. For
261: $x_{L}$=0.5 and $1TeV\leq M_{T}\leq2.5TeV$, the value of the cross
262: section $\sigma(s)$ is in the range of $0.12pb\sim8
263: \times10^{-4}pb$. If we assume the integral luminosity of the
264: $LC\otimes LHC$ is $\pounds_{int}=100pb^{-1}$, then there will be
265: several and up to tens $\nu_{e}T$ events. Certainly, enhancing the
266: value of the integral luminosity of the $LC\otimes LHC$ can
267: largely increase the number of the $\nu_{e}T$ events.
268:
269:
270: At the leading order, the heavy vector-like top quark $T$
271: predicted by the $LH$ model mainly decays to the $tZ$, $tH$ and
272: $bW$ modes, which can provide characteristic signatures for the
273: discovery of the heavy vector-like quark $T$ in the future high
274: energy collider experiments. It has been shown that the signal of
275: the new vector-like quark $T$ might be detected via all of the
276: three decay modes in the future $LHC$ experiments[4,5]. Compared
277: with the $LHC$, the linac-ring type $ep$ collider, $LC\otimes
278: LHC$, has more clear environment. Furthermore, the cross sections
279: of single $T$ production at the $LHC$ and the $LC\otimes LHC$ are
280: at the same order of magnitude. Thus, the possible signal of the
281: vector-like top quark $T$ might be detected in the future
282: $LC\otimes LHC$ experiments. Certainly, more detailed analysis of
283: the $SM$ background would be needed to make a quantitative
284: conclusion for the $T$ observation.
285:
286: \vspace{0.5cm} \noindent{\bf Acknowledgments}
287:
288: F. Zhang would like to thank Bin Zhang for helpful discussions.
289: This work was supported in part by the National Natural Science
290: Foundation of China under the grant No.90203005 and No.10475037
291: and the Natural Science Foundation of the Liaoning Scientific
292: Committee(20032101).
293:
294: \newpage
295:
296: \begin{thebibliography}{99}
297: \bibitem{1}
298: N. Arkani-Hamed, A. G. Cohen, E. Katz, A. E.
299: Nelson, {\bf JHEP 0207}(2002)034.
300: \bibitem{2}
301: N. Arkani-Hamed, A. G. Cohen and H. Georgi,
302: {\em Phys. Lett. B}{\bf 513}(2001)232; N. Arkani-Hamed, A. G. Cohen,
303: T. Gregoire and J. G. Wacker,
304: {\bf JHEP 0208}(2002)020; N. Arkani-Hamed, A. G. Cohen,
305: E. Katz, A. E. Nelson, T. Gregoire and J. G. Wacker, {\bf JHEP
306: 0208}(2002)021; I. Low, W. Skiba and
307: D. Smith, {\em Phys. Rev. D}{\bf 66}(2002)072001; M.
308: Schmaltz, {\em Nucl. Phys. Proc. Suppl.} {\bf
309: 117}(2003)40; D. E. Kaplan and M. Schmaltz,
310: {\bf JHEP 0310}(2003)039.
311: \bibitem{3}
312: J. G. Wacker, {\em hep-ph}/{\bf0208235}; S. Chang and J. G. Wacker,
313: {\em Phys. Rev. D}{\bf69}(2004)035002;
314: W. Skiba and J. Terning, {\em Phys. Rev. D}{\bf 68}(2003)075001; S.
315: Chang, {\bf JHEP 0312}(2003)051; M. Schmaltz, {\bf JHEP 0408}(2004)056.
316: \bibitem{4}
317: T. Han, H. E. Logan, B. McElrath and L. T. Wang,
318: {\em Phys. Rev. D}{\bf 67}(2003)095004.
319: \bibitem{5}
320: M. Perelstein, M. E. Peskin and A. Pierce, {\it Phys. Rev. D}{\bf
321: 69}(2004)075002; G. Azuelos, et al., {\it hep-ph}/{\bf 0402037}.
322: \bibitem{6}
323: G. Burdman, M. Perelstein and A. Pierce, {\it Phys. Rev. Lett.} {\bf
324: 90} (2003) 241802; S. C. Park and J. Song, {\it Phys. Rev. D}{\bf
325: 69}(2004)115010; T. Han. H. E. Logen, B. McElrath and L. T. Wang, {\it Phys. Lett. B}{\bf 563}(2003)191;
326: W. Hou, S. Zhu, {\it Phys. Rev. D}{\bf 68}(2003)097301; Chong-Xing Yue, Shun-Zhi Wang,
327: Dong-Qi Yu, {\it Phys. Rev. D}{\bf 68}(2003)115004; J. J. Liu, W. G. Ma, G. Li, R.
328: Y. Zhang, H. S. Hou, {\it Phys. Rev. D}{\bf70}(2004)015001; H. E. Logan, {\it Phys. Rev. D}{\bf
329: 70}(2004)115003; G. A. Gonzalez-Sprinberg, R. Martinez,
330: and J. Alexis Rodriguez, {\it hep-ph}/{\bf 0406178}; S. R. Choudhury, N. Gaur, A.
331: Goyal, N. Mahajan, {\it Phys. Lett. B}{\bf 601}(2004)164; Gi-Chol Cho and Aya Omote,
332: {\it Phys. Rev. D}{\bf 70}(2004)057701; S. R. Choudhury, N. Gaur, G. C. Joshi, B. H. J.
333: Mckellar, {\it hep-ph}/{\bf 0408125}; Chong-Xing Yue, Wei Wang, {\it Phys. Rev. D}{\bf
334: 71}(2005)015002.
335: \bibitem{7}
336: J. L. Hewett, F. J. Petriell and T. G. Rizzo, {\bf JHEP 0310}(2003)062;
337: C. Csaki, J. Hubisz, G. D. Kribs, P. Meade, and J. Tering, {\it Phys. Rev. D}{\bf
338: 67}(2003)115002; R. S. Chivukula, N. Evans and E. H. Simmons, {\it Phys. Rev. D}{\bf
339: 66}(2002)035008; S. Chang and Hong-Jian He, {\it Phys. Lett. B}{\bf
340: 586}(2004)95; Mu-Chun Chen and S. Dawson, {\it Phys. Rev. D}{\bf
341: 70}(2004)015003; R. Casabuoni, A. Deandrea, M. Oertel, {\bf JHEP 0402}(2004)032;
342: Chong-Xing Yue and Wei Wang, {\it Nucl. Phys. B}{\bf
343: 683}(2004)48; W. Kilian and J. Reuter, {\it Phys. Rev. D}{\bf 70}(2004)015004;
344: I. Low, {\bf JHEP 0410}(2004)067.
345: \bibitem{8}
346: C. Csaki, J. Hubisz, G. D. Kribs, P. Meade, and J. Tering, {\it Phys. Rev. D}{\bf
347: 68}(2003)035009; T. Gregoire, D. R. Smith and J. G. Wacker, {\it Phys. Rev. D}{\bf
348: 69}(2004)115008.
349: \bibitem{9}
350: S. Sultansoy, {\it Eur. Phys. J. C}{\bf 33}(2004)s1064 and refereces therein.
351: \bibitem{10}
352: O. Cakir, I. T. Cakir, Z. Kirca, {\it Phys. Rev. D}{\bf 70}(2004)075017.
353: \bibitem{11}
354: H. E. Logan, {\it hep-ph}/{\bf 0307340}.
355: \bibitem{12}
356: Jaeyong Lee, {\bf JHEP 0412}(2004)065.
357: \bibitem{13}
358: CTEQ Collaboration, H. L. Lai et al., {\it Eur. Phys. J. C}{\bf
359: 12}(2000)375; J. Pumplin, D. R. Stump, J. Huston, H. L.
360: Lai, P. Nadolsky, W. K. Tuny, {\bf JHEP 0207}(2002)012.
361: \end{thebibliography}
362: \null
363: \end{document}
364: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
365: