1: \documentclass{JHEP3}
2: %\accepted{LU-TP}
3: \keywords{ADD, LHC, Tevatron, Gravity}
4: \def\revision#1{$ #1\!\!$}
5: %\received{hep-ph/0608210}
6: %\revised{May 23, 2002}
7: %\JHEP{05(2002)046}
8: \preprint{LU-TP 06-29\\
9: hep-ph/0608210\\
10: % \today\\
11: % \revision{$Revision: 1.44 $}
12: }
13:
14: % --- This bit puts ``draft'' over everything! ---
15: %\special{!userdict begin /bop-hook{gsave 200 30 translate
16: %65 rotate /Times-Roman findfont 240 scalefont setfont
17: %0 0 moveto 0.9 setgray (DRAFT) show grestore}def end}
18: % --- end of this bit that puts `draft' over everything ---
19:
20: \usepackage{color}
21: \let\normalcolor\relax
22: \input mydefs
23: \renewcommand\email[1]{{\scriptsize\tt\href{mailto:#1}{#1}}}
24:
25: \newcommand{\ybar}{\ensuremath{\overline{y}}}
26: \newcommand{\xbar}{\ensuremath{\overline{x}}}
27: \newcommand{\kbar}{\ensuremath{\overline{k}}}
28: \newcommand{\mbar}{\ensuremath{\overline{m}}}
29: \newcommand{\lbar}{\ensuremath{\overline{l}}}
30: \newcommand{\bperp}{\ensuremath{\bar{b}_{\perp}}}
31: \newcommand{\qperp}{\ensuremath{\bar{q}_{\perp}}}
32: \newcommand{\kperp}{\ensuremath{\bar{k}_{\perp}}}
33: \newcommand{\abar}{\ensuremath{\overline{\alpha}}}
34: \newcommand{\azero}{\ensuremath{{\alpha}_{0}}}
35: \newcommand{\Cbar}{\overline{C}}
36: \newcommand{\Aborn}{\ensuremath{A_{\rm{Born}}}}
37: \newcommand{\Aeik}{\ensuremath{A_{\rm{eik}}}}
38: \renewcommand{\d}{\ensuremath{\mathrm{d}}}
39: \newcommand{\kTcut}{\ensuremath{k_{\perp 0}}}
40: \newcommand{\kTpot}[1]{\ensuremath{k_{\perp}^{#1}}}
41: \newcommand{\sigmahat}{\ensuremath{\hat{\sigma}}}
42: \def\mrm#1{\mathrm{#1}}
43: \def\sub#1{\ensuremath{_{\mrm{#1}}}}
44: \def\sup#1{\ensuremath{^{\mrm{#1}}}}
45: \def\ordo#1{\ensuremath{{\cal O}(#1)}}
46: \def\sud#1{\ensuremath{\Delta_{S_{#1}}}}
47: \def\Sud#1{\ensuremath{{\mathbf\Delta\sub{S_{#1}}}}}
48: \def\todo#1{\par\noindent\textbf{\boldmath $\rightarrow$ #1}}
49: \def\ftwo{\ensuremath{F_2}\xspace}
50: \def\mpl{\ensuremath{M\sub{P}}}
51: \def\mpln#1{\ensuremath{M\sub{P #1}}}
52: \def\rsch{\ensuremath{r\sub{Sch}}}
53: \def\shat{\ensuremath{\hat{s}}}
54: \def\mmin{\ensuremath{M\sub{min}}}
55: \def\mminn#1{\ensuremath{M\sub{min #1}}}
56: \def\Meff{\ensuremath{M\sub{eff}}}
57: \def\Mjj{\ensuremath{M_{jj}}}
58: \def\MBH{\ensuremath{M\sub{BH}}}
59: \newcommand{\figref}[1]{fig.~\ref{#1}\xspace}
60: \newcommand{\figrefi}[1]{fig.~\ref{#1}}
61:
62: \def\Ms{\ensuremath{M_s}}
63: \def\MD{\ensuremath{M_D}}
64: \newcommand{\charybdis}{C\scalebox{0.8}{HARYBDIS}\xspace}
65: \newcommand{\question}[1]{\footnote{\normalsize\bf QUESTION: #1}}
66:
67:
68: \skip\footins = 1\bigskipamount plus 2pt minus 4pt
69:
70: \title{\boldmath Classical and Non-Classical ADD-phenomenology with
71: high-\ET\ jet observables at collider experiments}
72:
73: \author{Leif Lönnblad and Malin Sjödahl\\
74: Dept.~of Theoretical Physics,
75: S\"olvegatan 14A, S-223 62 Lund, Sweden\\
76: E-mail: \email{Leif.Lonnblad@thep.lu.se}
77: and \email{Malin.Sjodahl@thep.lu.se}}
78:
79: \abstract{We use the results from a recent investigation of hard
80: parton--parton gravitational scattering in the ADD scenario
81: to make semi-quantitative predictions for a
82: few standard high-\ET\ jet observables at the LHC. By
83: implementing these gravitational scattering results in the \pythia event
84: generator and combining it with the \charybdis generator for black
85: holes, we investigate the effects of large extra dimensions and
86: find that, depending on the width of the brane, the relative
87: importance of gravitational scattering and black hole production
88: may change significantly. For the cases where gravitational
89: scatterings are important we discuss how to distinguish gravitational
90: scattering from standard QCD partonic scatterings. In particular
91: we point out that the universal colorlessness of elastic
92: gravitational scattering implies fewer particles
93: between the hard jets, and that this can be used in order to
94: distinguish an increased jet activity induced by gravitational scattering
95: from an increased jet activity induced by eg.\ super-symmetric extensions
96: where the interaction is colorful.}
97:
98: %****************************************************
99: \begin{document}
100:
101: %set sloppy attitude to line breaks
102: \sloppy
103:
104: \section{Introduction}
105: \label{p6:sec:intro}
106:
107: The most exotic, and by far most discussed collider signal of large
108: extra dimensions in the ADD scenario
109: \cite{Arkani-Hamed:1998rs,Arkani-Hamed:1998nn,Antoniadis:1998ig} is the
110: copiously produced extra dimensional black holes
111: \cite{Emparan:2000rs, Dimopoulos:2001hw,Giddings:2001bu,Kanti:2004nr}.
112: While these are
113: expected to come with large cross sections and characteristic signals
114: at the LHC for a ``natural'' Planck scale of around 1~TeV, both cross
115: section and signals suffer severely from uncertainties associated with
116: quantum gravity. This provides a wonderful chance to probe quantum
117: gravity, but from the point of view of verifying the scenario it is
118: not ideal. It is therfore worth looking for processes which involve
119: fewer uncertainties than decaying black holes.
120:
121: Other important ADD processes involve Kaluza--Klein modes,
122: either the production of real ones, or the exchange of virtual
123: ones in gravitational scattering of hard partons.
124: The signal for the former involves a large
125: missing transverse momentum and will be difficult to distinguish from
126: eg.\ the production of stable super-symmetric particles in some SUSY
127: extensions of the standard model. The later will show up as an
128: increase of the jet cross sections at high energies and may, if this increase is is small, be difficult to distinguish from other
129: beyond-the-standard-model effects.
130:
131: In a previous paper \cite{Lonnblad:2005ah} we investigated an
132: alternative signal for the ADD scenario, namely the disappearance of
133: the high-\ET\ jet cross section due to the formation of black holes.
134: However, in that paper we neglected the contribution from hard
135: gravitational scattering.
136:
137: Lately a coherent picture of gravitational scattering in the ADD model,
138: at both low and high energies, was presented in \cite{Sjodahl:2006gb}.
139: In this paper we investigate the phenomenological consequences. Again,
140: we will concentrate on standard jet observables to see how they are
141: affected by the existence of large extra dimensions, using different
142: choices of the model parameters. We will try to give a complete
143: semi-quantitative description of the observables ranging from the
144: region of perturbative gravitational scattering in the low-energy end
145: to the domain of classical (non-quantum gravitational) black holes for
146: energies above the Planck scale.
147:
148: While the LHC should easily discover large extra dimensions for the most
149: natural choices of Planck masses and number of extra dimensions, we
150: find situations where no black holes are formed and the only gravitational
151: scattering signal could be a slight increase of
152: the \ET\ and di-jet cross section at high energies.
153: We therefore discuss the possibility of distinguish such
154: scatterings from standard QCD events by studying the different color
155: topologies involved. We also suggest that such a procedure could be
156: used at the Tevatron to see if an increase of the high-\ET\ jet cross
157: section there could be the result of the onset of subplanckian
158: gravitational scattering.
159:
160: This paper is organized as follows. After a brief introduction to the
161: ADD scenario in section \ref{p6:sec:add}, we summarize in section
162: \ref{p6:sec:effgrav} the description of gravitational scatterings
163: developed in \cite{Sjodahl:2006gb}. We then go on to discuss the
164: production and decay of black holes in section \ref{p6:sec:BH} and, in
165: section \ref{p6:sec:results}, we present our results before discussing
166: our conclusions in section \ref{p6:sec:conclusions}.
167:
168: \section{Basics of ADD}
169: \label{p6:sec:add}
170:
171: The so called ADD scenario, invented in 1998 by Arkani-Hamed, Dvali
172: and Dimopoulos \cite{Arkani-Hamed:1998rs,Arkani-Hamed:1998nn}, aims at
173: explaining the hierarchy problem, i.e. why the observed Planck scale
174: at $10^{19}$~GeV is so large compared to the masses of the standard
175: model particles. This is done by introducing a number, $n$, of extra
176: dimensions in which only gravity is allowed to propagate.
177:
178: In order to explain why these dimensions have not yet been observed, it
179: is assumed that they are compactified with some (common)
180: compactification radius $R$\footnote{We use R to denote the
181: compactification radius rather than the compactification
182: circumference (see the appendix for a discussion on conventions). }
183: and that no gauge fields are allowed to
184: propagate in the extra dimensions. Gravity, on the other hand is, and
185: this renders the form of Newton's law at distances, $r$, much smaller than
186: the compactification radius
187: %From 060809:1
188: \begin{eqnarray}
189: \label{p6:eq:V}
190: \frac{V(r)}{m_1m_2}
191: &=& -\frac{S_n \Gamma(n)}{\mpl^{n+2} (2 \pi)^n} \frac{1}{r^{n+1}}.
192: \end{eqnarray}
193: Here $\mpl$ is the fundamental Planck scale, $S_n=2\pi^{n/2}/\Gamma(n/2)$
194: is the surface of a unit sphere in $n$ dimensions
195: and $\Gamma(n)$ is the Euler Gamma function.
196: At distances large compared to the compactification radius we must recover
197: the normal 3+1-dimensional form of Newton's law.
198: %
199: \begin{eqnarray}
200: \label{p6:eq:Vlarger}
201: \frac{V(r)}{m_1m_2}
202: &=&
203: % \frac{S_n \Gamma(n)}{\mpl^{n+2} (2 \pi R)^n} \frac{1}{r}.
204: -G_{N(4)} \frac{1}{r}.
205: \end{eqnarray}
206: %
207: Expressing Newton's constant in terms of the observed (3+1)-dimensional
208: Planck scale, $G_{N(4)} \sim 1/\mpln{4}^2$, then
209: gives the relation $\mpln{4}^{2} \sim \mpl^{n+2}R^n$ between the
210: fundamental Planck scale $\mpl$ and the observed 4-dimensional Planck
211: scale, which explains how the fundamental Planck scale could be (almost)
212: of the same order as the weak scale, but the observed effective
213: Planck scale, $\mpln{4}$, many orders of magnitude larger.
214:
215: However, this also implies that gravity should be very strong at small
216: distances which opens up for the possibility of observing gravitational
217: scattering and black holes at collider experiments.
218:
219: \section{Gravitational scattering in ADD scenario}
220: \label{p6:sec:effgrav}
221:
222: Although the field theory of gravity is ultimately divergent also in more
223: than 4 dimensions, an effective low-energy theory can be constructed by
224: a perturbative treatment of the metric in the limit where the metric
225: perturbation is small. A Lagrangian can be derived and Feynman
226: diagrams can be constructed from it. This is done in
227: \cite{Han:1998sg,Giudice:1998ck}. Since the extra dimensions are
228: compactified, momentum occurs in each direction as multiples of some
229: ground frequency, ie.\ as Kaluza--Klein modes.
230:
231: In a gravitational event an outgoing Kaluza--Klein (KK) mode will have
232: some (quantized) momentum in the extra dimensions, which enters in the
233: (3+1)-dimensional Lagrangian as a mass term. But the KK modes can also occur
234: as intermediate states in which case they have to be properly summed or,
235: taking the continuum limit, integrated over. This gives rise to
236: the integral
237: %
238: \begin{equation}
239: \label{p6:eq:mint}
240: \sum_{\mbar_{\lbar}}{\frac{1}{-m_{\lbar}^2+k^2}}
241: \approx S_n R^n \int{\frac{m^{n-1}}{-m^2+k^2}}dm.
242: \end{equation}
243: Here $\lbar$ enumerates the allowed momenta, $m_{\lbar}$, in the extra
244: dimensions, $m$ is the absolute value of $m_{\lbar}$, and $k^2$ is the
245: momentum squared of the $3+1$-dimensional part of the propagator.
246: Note that this sum over KK states does imply momentum non-conservation
247: for momenta transverse to the brane where the standard-model fields
248: live, but this is not a complete surprise since translational invariance
249: is broken in the bulk by the presence of the brane.
250:
251: \subsection{Dealing with divergences}
252: \label{p6:sec:div}
253:
254: What is worrying though, is that the field theory seems to contain
255: divergences already at the tree level. However, the divergences
256: dissappear when imposing the requirement that the standard model
257: particles live on a brane, either directly by assuming a narrow
258: distribution of the standard model fields into the extra dimensions
259: \cite{Sjodahl:2006vq,Sjodahl:2006gb}, or by a introducing a ``brane
260: tension'' \cite{Bando:1999di,Kugo:1999mf}. Both these methods gives
261: physical effective cut-offs for the momentum (mass) of the KK modes.
262: For example, a Gaussian extension $e^{-m^2/(2 M_s^2)}$ of the
263: standard model field densities into the bulk gives an ``effective propagator''
264: \cite{Sjodahl:2006gb}
265: \begin{equation}
266: \label{p6:eq:SMprop}
267: D(k^2)=R^n S_n\int \frac{dm \,m^{n-1}}{k^2-m^2} e^{-m^2/\Ms^2}
268: \end{equation}
269: for the exchange of KK modes with four-momentum exchange $k^2$. (This
270: object, $D(k^2)$, is here sloppily called a propagator, despite the fact
271: that the multiplicative Lorentz structure is not taken into account.)
272:
273: For momentum exchange small compared to $\Ms$, the standard model
274: momentum $k$ in the propagator is irrelevant (for most $m$ in the integral),
275: such that s-, t-, and u-channels are equally efficient and the scattering
276: is fairly isotropic.
277:
278: For $\sqrt{k^2} \gg \Ms$ on the other hand, the interaction is
279: dominated by forward scattering via the t-channel, and an all-order
280: eikonal calculation is necessary to ensure unitarity
281: \cite{Giudice:2001ce,Sjodahl:2006gb,Nussinov:1998jt}.
282: The stage is therefore set by
283: three energy scales, the fundamental Planck mass, $\mpl$, the inverse
284: brane width (brane tension), $\Ms$, and the rest mass of the partonic scattering, $\sqrt{s}$,
285: and the phenomenology depend on their relative
286: magnitude. It is illuminating to fix one of these scales an
287: study the different kinematical regions in the plan spanned by the
288: other two. This is done in \figref{p6:fig:sMs}where the
289: $(\sqrt{s},\Ms)$-plane is plotted for $\mpl$ fixed to 1 TeV.
290:
291:
292: Below we will successively describe the contribution from the t-, u-,
293: and s-channels and the various regions in \figref{p6:fig:sMs}.
294:
295: \FIGURE[t]{%
296: %\begin{center}
297: \epsfig{file=sMsPlane4.eps,width=10cm}
298: %\end{center}
299: \caption{\label{p6:fig:sMs} The $(\sqrt{s},\Ms)$-plane for $n=4$ and $\mpl=1$.
300: The straight line separating region 1 and 4 is $\sqrt{s}=\Ms$
301: while straight line separating region 4 and 5 is the line where the real
302: and imaginary parts in \eqref{p6:eq:1-loop} have equal magnitude.
303: The power-like solid curve separating region 1 and 2 is $\sqrt{s_{c}}$ from
304: \eqref{p6:eq:scd} as a function of $\Ms$ and the line separating the regions
305: 4 and 5 from region 3 is the line where $|A_{\rm{Born}}X|=1$,
306: see \eqref{p6:eq:1-loop}.
307: In the regions
308: 1 and 2 $\sqrt{s}$ is larger than $\Ms$, and, at least for $\sqrt{s} \gg \Ms$, the
309: eikonal approximation is correct. In region 1 the eikonal is, depending
310: on $b$, either large compared to 1 or given by \eqref{p6:eq:chibigb}.
311: In region 2 on the other hand
312: the $b$-range where $|\chi|$ is small includes a region where it is
313: described by \eqref{p6:eq:chismallb}. In region 3 the correction
314: corresponding to higher order loops is small, but in region 4 it is
315: important and helps assuring unitarity.
316: The dashed line indicates the minimal $\sqrt{s}$ (for a given $\Ms$) at which
317: the black hole radius \eqref{p6:eq:rSch} is larger than the brane width.
318: The plot visibly very similar for n=6.
319: } }
320:
321:
322: \subsection{t-channel}
323:
324: As argued in the above section, we expect t-channel contributions to
325: dominate at energies high compared to $\Ms$. Unitarity constraints
326: does, however, imply that the Born approximation can not be valid for
327: sufficiently high energies. In fact, as is argued in
328: \cite{Giudice:2001ce,Landau:1987gn}, a completely new phenomenon
329: occurs for scattering in more than $3$ spatial dimensions;
330: namely the emergence of a length scale associated with the transition
331: from the classical to the quantum domain.
332:
333: Intuitively this can be understood by considering the ratios
334: \begin{equation}
335: \label{p6:eq:theta}
336: \frac{\Delta \theta}{\theta} \mbox{ and }
337: \frac{\Delta b}{b}
338: \end{equation}
339: where $\theta$ is the scattering angle and $b$ the impact parameter
340: in a scattering experiment. In the classical domain these ratios
341: are both much smaller than $1$. Requiring the opposite, and approximating
342: \begin{equation}
343: \label{p6:eq:theta2}
344: \Delta \theta
345: \sim \frac{\Delta q}{M v}
346: \sim \frac{\hbar}{M v \Delta b}
347: \mbox{ and }
348: \theta
349: \sim \frac{b}{Mv^2}\frac{dV(b)}{db}
350: \end{equation}
351: for a non-relativistic particle with speed, $v$, mass, $M$, and
352: transverse momentum, $\Delta q$, moving in a potential, $V$, one
353: finds, for a Coulomb-like potential $V(b)=\alpha / b$,
354: the condition $\alpha < \hbar v$. For coupling constants close to
355: $1$, this basically implies that the relativistic and quantum
356: mechanical regions coincide. For a more general potential of the form
357: $V(b)=\alpha / b^{n+1}$, assuming $n$ to be positive (this is what
358: Gausses law gives in 3+n spatial dimensions), the separation of the
359: classical and quantum domain depends on the impact parameter, such
360: that, the transition occurs at $b_c\sim [\alpha / \hbar v]^{(1/n)}$.
361: For gravitational coupling with $\alpha=G_{4+n}MM$, this
362: corresponds to $b_c \sim [G_{4+n} M^2 /(v\hbar)]^{1/n}$
363: \cite{Giudice:2001ce}. Scattering in the potential \eqref{p6:eq:V}
364: is therefore expected to be mainly classical
365: only if the impact parameter $b$ is smaller than $b_c$.
366:
367: \FIGURE[t]{%
368: \epsfig{file=Box.eps,width=7cm}\hfill
369: \epsfig{file=Ladder.eps,width=7cm}
370: \caption{\label{p6:fig:Highs}
371: (a) The one loop contribution corresponding to exchange of two KK modes.
372: The KK modes are drawn as thick lines and standard model particles as
373: thin lines.
374: (b) The two-loop contribution.
375: }}
376:
377: For $\mpl \sim 1$ TeV the parameters of this equation are such that
378: we will see a transition between the classical and
379: quantum domain at LHC, and a more careful calculation, summing up
380: amplitudes from ladders of t-channel exchange in \figref{p6:fig:Highs}
381: to all orders is necessary.
382: This calculation was performed in \cite{Giudice:2001ce} by simply ignoring the divergences
383: corresponding to local contributions in \eqref{p6:eq:mint}, and recently in \cite{Sjodahl:2006gb} by
384: a more careful analysis using the effective propagator \eqref{p6:eq:SMprop}.
385:
386: The parameter $b_c$ also corresponds to the impact parameter where the
387: eikonal scattering phase
388: %
389: \begin{eqnarray}
390: \chi(b) &=& \frac{1}{2s} \int \frac{d^2 \kperp}{(2\pi)^2}\,
391: e^{-i\kperp \bperp} A_{\rm{Born}}(-\kperp^2)
392: \label{p6:eq:chiv1}
393: \end{eqnarray}
394: becomes large compared to $\hbar$. This makes perfect sense, as $b_c$
395: represents the impact parameter separating quantum mechanical and classical
396: scattering.
397:
398: At least in the eikonal region, i.e. for small scattering angles,
399: where there is no spin dependence, the Born amplitude can be
400: written \cite{Sjodahl:2006gb}
401: %
402: \begin{equation}
403: \Aborn(k^2=t)
404: % = \frac{s^2}{\MD^{n+2}}\, S_n \int_{0}^{\infty}
405: % \frac{dm \,m^{n-1}}{k^2-m^2}\, e^{-m^2/\Ms^2}.
406: = \frac{s^2}{2^{n-3}\pi^{n-1}\mpl^{n+2}}\, S_n \int_{0}^{\infty}
407: \frac{dm \,m^{n-1}}{k^2-m^2}\, e^{-m^2/\Ms^2}
408: \label{p6:eq:ABorn}
409: \end{equation}
410: where the suppression factor $e^{-m^2/\Ms^2}$ comes from implementing the
411: requirement that the standard model particles live on a finite brane
412: \cite{Sjodahl:2006gb}.
413: The same effect can be obtained by assuming a finite brane tension
414: \cite{Bando:1999di}.
415: Computing the integrals in \eqref{p6:eq:chiv1} \cite{Sjodahl:2006gb} then
416: gives the result
417: %
418: \begin{eqnarray}
419: \label{p6:eq:chi}
420: % \chi(b)=-\frac{s \Ms^n}{\MD^{n+2}}\Gamma(\frac{n}{2})\frac{\pi^{n/2-1}}{8}
421: % U(\frac{n}{2},1,\frac{\Ms^2 b^2}{4}).
422: %From GS3.nb
423: \chi(b)=-\frac{s \Ms^n}{(2\sqrt{\pi})^n \mpl^{n+2}}
424: \Gamma(\frac{n}{2})
425: U(\frac{n}{2},1,\frac{\Ms^2 b^2}{4})
426: \end{eqnarray}
427: where the $U$-functions are confluent hyper-geometric functions
428: of the second kind.
429:
430: In the limit of large third argument, $\Ms b \gg 1$ in $U$, ie.\ impact
431: parameters much larger than the brane width, $\chi$ can be written
432: %
433: \begin{eqnarray}
434: \chi(b)
435: \approx
436: -\left(\frac{b_c}{b}\right)^n
437: \,\,\,\,\mbox{for}\,\,\,\,
438: b_c
439: &\equiv&\frac{1}{\sqrt{\pi}}\left[ \frac{s \Gamma(n/2)}
440: {\mpl^{n+2}}\right]^{1/n}.
441: \label{p6:eq:chibigb}
442: \end{eqnarray}
443: At least if $b_c \gg 1/\Ms$ the eikonal \eqref{p6:eq:chi} reaches 1 in
444: the region where it is determined by \eqref{p6:eq:chibigb} and $b_c$ is
445: indeed the parameter associated with the transition from the quantum
446: mechanical to the classical region. For $\Ms$ small compared
447: to $\mpl$ the brane width is more important and there is an energy range
448: where the impact parameter for which $|\chi|$ reaches 1, is
449: given by the small argument limit in $U$, rather than the large
450: argument limit,
451: \begin{eqnarray}
452: \chi(b)
453: &\approx&
454: % \frac{\pi^{\frac{n}{2}-1}}{4} \frac{s}{\MD^2} \left(\frac{\Ms}{\MD}\right)^n
455: % \left( \ln(\Ms b) +\frac{1}{2} \psi(\frac{n}{2}) \right)
456: \frac{2 s}{(2\sqrt{\pi})^n \mpl^2} \left(\frac{\Ms}{\mpl}\right)^n
457: \left( \ln(\Ms b) +\frac{1}{2} \psi(\frac{n}{2}) \right)
458: \label{p6:eq:chismallb}
459: \end{eqnarray}
460: where $\psi(\frac{n}{2})$ is the digamma function.
461: The transition between,
462: $|\chi(b)|\approx 1$ described by \eqref{p6:eq:chismallb}, and
463: $|\chi(b)|\approx 1$ described by \eqref{p6:eq:chibigb},
464: occurs roughly at the energy where $b_c=1/\Ms$, and the phenomenology
465: will therefore differ in the regions $b_c>1/\Ms$ and $b_c<1/\Ms$.
466: Solving $b_c=1/\Ms$ we find
467: \begin{equation}
468: s_{c} =
469: % \frac{2}{(4\pi)^{\frac{n}{2}-1}\Gamma(\frac{n}{2})}
470: % \frac{\MD^{n+2}}{\Ms^n}.
471: \frac{\mpl^{n+2}\pi^{n/2}} {\Ms^n \Gamma(\frac{n}{2})}
472: \label{p6:eq:scd}
473: \end{equation}
474: this is the line separating region 1 and 2 in \figref{p6:fig:sMs}. For
475: $t \gg \Ms^2$ the all order eikonal amplitude is given by
476: %
477: \begin{equation}
478: \label{p6:eq:Aeik}
479: A_{\rm{eik}}(k^2)=-2 i s \int d^2 \bperp e^{i \kperp\cdot \bperp}(e^{i\chi}-1).
480: \end{equation}
481: When $|\chi|$ is large compared to 1 which, for $b_c\gg1/\Ms$, happens
482: for $b<b_c$, the exponentiation in \eqref{p6:eq:Aeik} is important while
483: for larger $b$ the eikonal amplitude is approximated by the Born term.
484:
485: For $b_c<1/\Ms$, region 2 in \figref{p6:fig:sMs}, $|\chi|$ is smaller than 1
486: except for very small impact parameters,
487: %
488: \begin{equation}
489: b <
490: % \frac{1}{\Ms}
491: % \exp\left(- \frac{4 \MD^{n+2} \pi^{1-\frac{n}{2}}}{s \Ms^n} \right).
492: \frac{1}{\Ms}
493: \exp\left(- \frac{(2\sqrt{\pi})^n \mpl^{n+2}}{2 s \Ms^n} \right),
494: \label{p6:eq:bl}
495: \end{equation}
496: found by ignoring the digamma function in \eqref{p6:eq:chismallb}.
497: In the whole of region 1 and 2 for $t \gg \Ms^2$ the gravitational
498: cross section is obtained from the all order eikonal amplitude in
499: \eqref{p6:eq:Aeik} (although higher order corrections are only
500: important region 1). It is given by
501: %
502: \begin{equation}
503: \label{p6:eq:seik}
504: \frac{d\sigma_{\rm{eik}}}{dt}
505: =\frac{1}{16 \pi s^2} |\Aeik|^2.
506: \end{equation}
507: %
508: If, on the other hand, $\sqrt{s} \ll \Ms$, such that $\sqrt{-t}$
509: necessarily is small compared to $\Ms$, the Born amplitude is
510: (apart from large angle spin dependences) fairly isotropic.
511: The ladder-type diagrams in \figref{p6:fig:Highs} will effectively turn
512: into $\phi^4$ interactions as in \figref{p6:fig:Lows}.
513:
514: \FIGURE[t]{%
515: \epsfig{file=OneLoop.eps,width=7cm}\hfill
516: \epsfig{file=TwoLoop.eps,width=7cm}
517: \caption{\label{p6:fig:Lows}
518: When the exchanged momentum is small compared to $\Ms$,
519: the KK propagator are effectively replaced by vertex factors.
520: The diagrams in fig.\ \ref{p6:fig:Highs} can then be drawn as above
521: with only standard model particle lines.
522: }}
523: Since the coupling grows with energy, higher order corrections will for some
524: $s$ become necessary to ensure unitarity. Summing up all contributions
525: of the type in \figref{p6:fig:Lows}, neglecting large angle spin dependence,
526: a geometric series is found
527: \cite{Sjodahl:2006gb} which helps unitarizing the cross section.
528: For the 1-loop contribution we have, with $P=p_1+p_2$ as in \figref{p6:fig:Lows},
529: %
530: \begin{eqnarray}
531: \label{p6:eq:1-loop}
532: A_{\rm{1-loop}}&\approx& \frac{-i}{2}
533: \int_{q<\Ms} \frac{d^4 q}{(2\pi)^4} A_{\rm{Born}}^2
534: \frac{1}{(P/2-q)^2} \frac{1}{(P/2+q)^2} = \nonumber \\
535: &\equiv& A_{\rm{Born}}^2\cdot X \,\,
536: \mathrm{with} \,\,
537: X \approx \frac{1}{32 \pi^2} ( \ln\frac{\Ms^2}{s/4} + i\pi)
538: \label{p6:eq:X}
539: \end{eqnarray}
540: and higher loop corrections give similar results. Summing all ladders we obtain
541: %
542: \begin{equation}
543: A_{\mathrm{ladders} } = A_{\rm{Born}}\, (1+A_{\rm{Born}}X+
544: (A_{\rm{Born} }X)^2 + \ldots\ )
545: = \frac{ A_{\rm{Born} } }{ 1-A_{\rm{Born} }X}.
546: \label{p6:eq:Xall-loop}
547: \end{equation}
548: Thus loop contributions of this type helps unitarizing the cross
549: section in region 4 in \figref{p6:fig:sMs}, defined to be the region
550: where $\sqrt{s}<\Ms$, but on-shell intermediate states in
551: \figref{p6:fig:Lows} dominate.
552: While we can not prove that these are the most important
553: contributions, it seems likely as long as the cross section is
554: dominated by on-shell states. In region 5 in \figref{p6:fig:sMs} this is
555: no longer true since here the imaginary part in \eqref{p6:eq:X} is smaller
556: than the real part. The simulations performed in this paper are in the
557: phase space region 1, 2, 3 and 4 in \figref{p6:fig:sMs}, and we use
558: \eqref{p6:eq:X} to unitarize the cross section in regions 3 and 4
559: (although it's not important in region 3).
560:
561: \subsection{u-channel}
562:
563: In the regions 1 and 2, the u-channel contribution (here generally
564: defined to be the case where the outgoing particle lines are crossed
565: compared to the incoming) is small compared to forward t-channel scattering.
566: In the regions 3 and 4, corresponding to
567: $\sqrt{s}<\Ms$, it is, however, of the same order of magnitude. In fact
568: there is no difference between the u and t-channel in \figref{p6:fig:Lows}.
569: This implies that u-channel contributions run into problems with unitarity
570: at roughly the same energy as t-channel contributions, and the
571: result \eqref{p6:eq:Xall-loop} (again neglecting spin dependence) can be used
572: also for the u-type ladders.
573:
574: The relevance of the u-channel ladders contribution is, however,
575: significantly lowered by the fact that interaction among identical
576: partons is suppressed at LHC.
577: To get a handle
578: on the importance of u-channel contribution, assume that only valence
579: quarks contribute to the cross section. This is a reasonable
580: assumption at sufficiently high momentum fractions and also, it will give
581: an upper limit. The probability for the colliding partons to have
582: identical flavor, spin and color is then approximately $1/10$.
583: %\textit{Assuming} that the t-channel ladders for
584: %scattering of particles with momenta $p_1$ and $p_2$ to momenta $p_3$
585: %and $p_4$ have been calculated for all momentum transfers to be
586: %$A_{ladders}(p_1 p_2 \rightarrow p_3 p_4)$, the total amplitude, taking
587: %both t- and u-channel contributions into account, would be
588: %$A_{u+t}=A_{ladders}(p_1 p_2 \rightarrow p_3 p_4)+ A_{ladders}(p_1 p_2
589: %\rightarrow p_4 p_3)$ for scattering of identical particles.
590: %We consider for simplicity maximal constructive interference, giving us
591: %$A_{u+t}=2 A_{ladders}(p_1 p_2 \rightarrow p_3 p_4)$. The ratio of the
592: %average extra cross section for both the t- and u-ladders compared to the pure
593: %t-ladders cross section would then be something like $2^2/10$.
594: %This is a significant but not critical contribution, and it is an overestimate.
595:
596: \subsection{s-channel}
597:
598: For $s\ll \Ms^2$, the factor $k^2=s$ in \eqref{p6:eq:ABorn} is insignificant
599: compared to most contributing KK masses and gives an amplitude similar to the
600: t- and u-channels. There is, however, one complication. Due to the
601: relative difference in sign between $k^2=s$ and $m^2$ in
602: \eqref{p6:eq:ABorn}
603: KK modes can be produced on shell.
604: %the ``propagator'' has poles corresponding to
605: %the production of on-shell Kaluza--Klein modes
606: %
607: %\begin{eqnarray}
608: % D(k^2=s)&=&R^n S_n\int \frac{dm \,m^{n-1}}{s-m^2+i \epsilon} e^{-m^2/\Ms^2}
609: % \nonumber \\
610: % &=& R^n S_n\int dm m^{n-1} e^{-m^2/\Ms^2}
611: % \left[P\left(\frac{1}{s-m^2} \right) -i\pi \delta(s-m^2)\right].
612: %\end{eqnarray}
613: %Approximating the real part of this expression by ignoring $s$ in the
614: %denominator we get
615: %
616: %\begin{equation}
617: % D(s)\approx -R^n S_n
618: % \frac{1}{2}\left[ \Ms^{n-2}\Gamma[\frac{n-2}{2}]
619: % + i \pi s^{(n-2)/2}e^{-s/\Ms^2}\right]
620: % \end{equation}
621: %For low $s$, when the density of KK modes with mass $m^2=s$ is low,
622: %this is a small contribution, but as $s \rightarrow \Ms^2$ on-shell
623: %KK production becomes significant.
624:
625: From the point of view of inclusive observables, these s-channel on-shell
626: Kaluza--Klein states are, however, unimportant.
627: The width of a \emph{single} KK mode with mass $m$ to decay into two
628: standard model particles of energy $m/2$ is $\sim m^3 G_{N(4)}$ giving
629: lifetimes of order 1000 seconds \cite{Giudice:1998ck}. These KK modes
630: will leave the detectors unseen.
631:
632:
633: %%
634: %\begin{equation}
635: %% \sim \frac{E^2 m}{G_{N(4)} e^{-m^2/\Ms^2}}
636: %% \approx \frac{m^3}{\mpln{4}^2 e^{-m^2/\Ms^2} }.
637: % \sim E^2 m G_{N(4)} e^{-m^2/\Ms^2}
638: % \approx \frac{m^3 e^{-m^2/\Ms^2}}{\mpln{4}^2}.
639: %\end{equation}
640: %Ignoring the suppression factor $e^{-m^2/\Ms^2}$ and assuming $m \sim
641: %E \sim 1$ TeV and 100 standard model degrees of freedom, gives a
642: %lifetime of $100$ seconds. KK modes more massive than $\Ms$ will have
643: %a longer lifetime due to the suppressed coupling $e^{-m^2/\Ms^2}$, and
644: %light KK modes will live longer since the phase space for the decay products is
645: %smaller. Thus all on-shell KK modes will leave the detectors without a
646: %trace.
647:
648: \subsection{Phenomenology of low energy gravitational scattering}
649:
650:
651: As already mentioned section \ref{p6:sec:div}, a gravitational scattering
652: where the Kaluza-Klein mode is not in the outgoing state, comes with
653: a momentum cut-off from the width of the brane, or from fluctuations of the
654: brane. In the low-energy region, 3 in \figref{p6:fig:sMs}, where
655: the born approximation is applicable, a cut-off dependent amplitude can
656: be used for describing the interaction. From the point of view of
657: perturbative gravitational scattering with internal KK modes only,
658: this does not result in any
659: extra parameters to describe the interaction. Instead it suffice to
660: replace the Planck scale $\mpl$ by an effective Planck scale according
661: to
662: %
663: \begin{equation}
664: \Meff=\frac{1}{2}
665: \left( \frac{(n-2) 2^n \pi^{\frac{n-2}{2}} \mpl^{n+2}}
666: {\Ms^{n-2}} \right)^\frac{1}{4}
667: \label{p6:eq:Meff}
668: \end{equation}
669: such that the Born amplitude, \eqref{p6:eq:ABorn}, (neglecting spins) can
670: be written
671: \begin{equation}
672: \Aborn=-\frac{s^2}{\Meff^4},
673: \end{equation}
674: after integration over $m$, neglecting $k^2=t$, $u$ or $s$.
675: In this kinematical region, gravitational scattering in the ADD model is a well
676: behaved effective field theory depending on only one free parameter, \Meff.
677: The low-energy spin dependent footprint of the ADD scenario for
678: \textit{any} number of extra dimensions can then be written
679: %
680: \begin{eqnarray}
681: \label{p6:eq:sigma}
682: \frac{d\sigma}{dt}
683: % = \frac{2 \pi k_s}{s^2}
684: % \left[ \frac{\alpha_s^2}{2}f_i(z)
685: % -2 \alpha_s F s^2
686: % \frac{\Ms^{n-2}}{ \mpl^{n+2}} \Gamma(\frac{2+n}{2})g_i(z)
687: %+8 F^2s^4 \left( \frac{\Ms^{n-2}}{ \mpl^{n+2}}\right)^2 h_i(z) \right]
688: = \frac{k_s}{s}
689: \left[
690: \frac{\pi \alpha_s^2}{s }f(z)
691: -\frac{s\alpha_s}{\Meff^4} g(z)
692: +\frac{s^3}{\pi \Meff^8} h(z) \right]
693: \end{eqnarray}
694: where $\alpha_s$ is the strong coupling constant and
695: $k_s$, $g(z)$, $h(z)$ and $f(z)$ are process dependent functions taking
696: spin-dependence into account given in \cite{Atwood:1999qd}.
697:
698: Gravitational scattering differ from standard-model and most beyond-standard-model processes in several ways. The experimentally most
699: striking is probably that it increases with increasing energy. As the
700: experimental situation stands today this is, however, badly
701: overcompensated by the decreasing parton distribution functions for
702: high momentum factions. The interaction is mediated by the large
703: number of Kaluza--Klein modes, implying that the cross section will
704: not have a single resonance structure, as opposed to cross section
705: signatures of most other beyond-standard-model particles. Due to the
706: different spin dependence of gravitational scattering the angular distribution
707: will also differ.
708:
709: We will here consider another difference, namely that contrary to the
710: main contribution to inclusive cross sections, both in the standard
711: model and in super-symmetric extensions, the gravitational
712: interaction is colorless. As we shall see, this implies noticeable
713: differences in particle multiplicity outside the jets.
714:
715: \section{Black holes in ADD scenario}
716: \label{p6:sec:BH}
717:
718: Black holes with mass large compared to the fundamental Planck scale,
719: but with radius small compared to the compactification radius are expected to
720: behave much like extra dimensional versions of astronomical 3+1-dimensional
721: black holes. The Schwarzschild radius is given by
722: %
723: \begin{eqnarray}
724: \label{p6:eq:rSch}
725: \rsch = \frac{1}{\sqrt{\pi} \mpl}
726: \left[ \frac{\MBH}{\mpl} \frac{8 \Gamma(\frac{n+3}{2})}{n+2} \right]^{\frac{1}{n+1}}
727: \end{eqnarray}
728: and the temperature is given by \cite{Myers:1986un}
729: \begin{eqnarray}
730: \label{p6:eq:T}
731: T = \frac{n+1}{4 \pi \rsch}.
732: \end{eqnarray}
733: Note that small black holes are hotter.
734:
735: A major difference between black holes in the ADD scenario and
736: ordinary 3-dimensional black holes is that ADD black holes do not
737: radiate gauge fields into most of phase space, since only gravity is
738: allowed to propagate in the extra dimensions.
739: One may believe that this would lead to
740: almost no radiation on the brane (where gauge fields and, hence, also we
741: live) as the bulk phase space is much larger. However, it has been
742: shown that this is not necessarily the case
743: \cite{Emparan:2000rs}.
744:
745: Since we are considering the non-idealized situation of a finite brane
746: width we must also consider the implications of this on black hole
747: production. In particular, a natural requirement is that the brane is
748: not more extended than the black hole, leading to the condition $\rsch
749: < 1/M_b$ for the formation of black holes. As we will see this prevents
750: black holes from appearing at the LHC for sufficiently small \Ms.
751:
752: On the other hand, if \Ms\ is large, we may, with increasing $\sqrt{s}$,
753: go directly from the Born region 3 in \figref{p6:fig:sMs} to black hole
754: production. This should be worrying since the black holes are
755: treated semi-classically but the gravitational scattering in region 3
756: is purely quantum mechanical. It is reasonable that the
757: black holes should start behaving classically
758: when the Compton wave length is of the same order as the black hole radius,
759: but it would have been more comforting to only study black hole production
760: in region 1 in \figref{p6:fig:sMs}, where the gravitational scattering is
761: mainly classical already at lower energies.
762: This represents a genuine quantum
763: gravity uncertainty.
764:
765: Already at a classical level the cross section for black hole creation is
766: subject to significant uncertainties. This is basically due the fact that
767: it does not suffice to consider the colliding objects, but in addition the
768: curvature of space-time far outside the black hole need to be calculated.
769: Classical numerical simulations for black hole formation in extra dimensions
770: have been performed in \cite{Yoshino:2002tx,Yoshino:2005hi} with the result
771: that the geometric cross section, $\pi r^2$, should be multiplied with a
772: factor $\sim 0.7-3$, increasing with the number of extra dimensions.
773: For this paper we have, however, chosen to keep the constant at 1.
774:
775: As the black holes considered here are formed from partons inside the
776: protons there is also an uncertainty from the usage of parton distribution
777: functions for an essentially non-perturbative process \cite{Harris:2004xt} .
778: (A discussion about the effects of quantum fluctuations
779: based on wave packages can be found in \cite{Giddings:2004xy, Rychkov:2004sn}.)
780:
781: Then there is the question of the onset of black hole production. It can be
782: argued that no black holes should be formed below (roughly) the Planck scale
783: as the uncertainty principle would forbid sufficient localization of the
784: partons. But precisely when does black holes begin to form?
785:
786: We consider first the condition that the black holes have to be
787: well localized in our ordinary dimension.
788: Looking at the momenta of the incoming partons in their combined rest
789: frame it is reasonable to require that their
790: wavelength, $\lambda_l\propto 2/\sqrt{s}$, is less than
791: \rsch. The corresponding requirement in the transverse direction gives
792: the requirement: $\lambda_\perp \propto 1/ p_T< \rsch$. Clearly one can argue
793: about the proportionality constant.
794: We have chosen
795: %
796: \begin{eqnarray}
797: \label{p6:eq:Mmin1}
798: \mmin=2/\rsch(\mmin).
799: \end{eqnarray}
800: Combining this with the expression for the Schwarzschild radius
801: \eqref{p6:eq:rSch} we get
802: %
803: \begin{eqnarray}
804: \label{p6:eq:ratio2}
805: \mmin={\mpl}
806: \left[ \frac{(2\sqrt{\pi})^{n+1}(n+2)}
807: {8 \Gamma(\frac{n+3}{2})} \right]^{\frac{1}{n+2}}.
808: \end{eqnarray}
809: Numerically the value of \mmin\ is then approximately twice the Planck mass.
810:
811: As we consider a finite brane width we must add the condition
812: $\rsch>1/M_s$, leading to the minimal mass
813: \begin{eqnarray}
814: \label{p6:eq:Mmin2}
815: \mminn{2}=\frac{\mpl^{n+2} (2+n) \pi^{\frac{n+1}{2}}}
816: {8 \Gamma \left[ \frac{3+n}{2} \right] M_s^{1+n}}.
817: \end{eqnarray}
818: Again one can argue about the proportionality constant.
819: While we take into account the effects of a finite brane, we do
820: not consider the dynamics governing the brane, and possibly describing
821: its width, although this may have significant effects on the spectra
822: observed \cite{Frolov:2004wy, Frolov:2004bq}.
823:
824: Once a black hole has formed it is believed to lose most of its geometric
825: asymmetries in a short period referred to as the balding phase.
826: This phase leaves a black hole whose only geometric asymmetry can be
827: described by one angular momentum parameter. However, it turns out that this
828: angular momentum tends to be lost rather quickly via Hawking radiation, such
829: that the black hole (apart from gauge charges) can be described by the
830: Schwarzschild metric.
831:
832: Neglecting the gauge charges, which in the case of electromagnetism has
833: been shown to have a modest influence \cite{Page:1977um}, the disappearance of
834: the black hole would be well described by Hawking radiation if the
835: black hole was much heavier than the Planck mass, and if no brane effects,
836: such as the black hole recoiling of the brane
837: \cite{Frolov:2002gf,Frolov:2002as}, or interacting with the brane
838: \cite{Frolov:2004wy,Frolov:2004bq} is taken into account. The problem is that
839: most collider-produced black holes will not be much heavier than the Planck mass.
840:
841: For a hole which is not heavy compared to the Planck mass one cannot
842: treat the metric as a static background for the emitted quanta, the back-reaction of the quanta to the metric should be taken into account and this
843: is not done in the derivation of the Hawking radiation \cite{Hawking:1974sw}.
844: Also, at some point, the lifetime of the black hole becomes shorter
845: than its radius. This makes it difficult to talk about a thermalized black
846: hole.
847:
848: Considering all of this, it should not come as a surprise if black holes
849: where observed with spectra which differs significantly from that
850: expected from \eqref{p6:eq:T}.
851:
852:
853: \section{Results}
854: \label{p6:sec:results}
855:
856: We have used the amplitudes for gravitational scattering for the
857: different regions in \figref{p6:fig:sMs} presented above to reweight the
858: standard QCD $2\to2$
859: scatterings in the \pythia (version 6.2 \cite{Sjostrand:2001yu}) event
860: generator.
861: In the regions 1 and 2 we have used the (elastic spin-independent t-type)
862: all order eikonal cross
863: section from \eqref{p6:eq:chiv1} and \eqref{p6:eq:Aeik}.
864: In the regions 3 and 4 we have used
865: the spin dependent Born amplitude \cite{Giudice:2004mg}
866: corresponding to \eqref{p6:eq:sigma},
867: and higher order corrections according to \eqref{p6:eq:Xall-loop}.
868: In region 3 the higher order corrections are small, but in
869: region 4 they are essential. In the case of particle-antiparticle
870: scattering, such that the scattering can be mediated via the s-channel,
871: we have ``unitarized'' also the s-channel contribution in region 4 (and 3)
872: using \eqref{p6:eq:Xall-loop}, despite that fact the the s-type ladders,
873: diagrams in \figref{p6:fig:Lows} rotated by $\pi/2$ do not have on-shell
874: intermediate standard model particles.
875: There are thus several fundamental uncertainties
876: associated with gravitational scattering in region 4. First, we
877: use the spin dependent Born amplitude, but we do not take spin dependence
878: consistently into account in \eqref{p6:eq:Xall-loop} since we use the
879: same $\Aborn(t)$ everywhere in all ladders.
880: Second, we suppress s-type contributions in the same way as u- and t-type.
881: (Note that we call the ladders in \figref{p6:fig:Highs} and \figref{p6:fig:Lows}
882: t-type, sometimes these diagrams are referred to as s-channel, since the
883: resummation is in $s$.)
884:
885: The different treatments in the various regions means that we could expect
886: a discontinuous
887: transition when $\sqrt{s}$ is increased, such that we cross the line
888: $\sqrt{s}=M_s$ in \figref{p6:fig:sMs}. As long as the Born approximation
889: is applicable (regions 2 and 3), this transition just corresponds
890: to starting neglecting spin-dependence in region 2. If the transition
891: is between region 4 and 1, the situation is, however, worse due to
892: fundamental uncertainties associated with region 4.
893:
894: For each generated $2\to2$ scattering we also change the
895: color flow between the scattered partons with a probability
896: $\sigma\sub{ADD}/(\sigma\sub{ADD}+\sigma\sub{QCD})$ to reflect the
897: colorless nature of the graviton exchange. The resulting partonic
898: state is then allowed to evolve a QCD cascade and is finally
899: hadronized to produce fully simulated hadron-level events. Where relevant, we have
900: also added multiple soft and semi-hard QCD scatterings to simulate the
901: underlying event according to the model implemented in
902: \pythia \cite{Sjostrand:1987su}.
903:
904: In addition, we have used the \charybdis\cite{Harris:2003db} program to
905: simulate the production and decay of black holes as described in section \ref{p6:sec:BH} and in \cite{Lonnblad:2005ah}.
906: To ensure that the energy is sufficiently localized, in our ordinary dimensions
907: and in the extra dimensions, we have required a minimal black hole
908: mass according to \eqref{p6:eq:ratio2} and \eqref{p6:eq:Mmin2}.
909: We also use the Schwarzschild radius to
910: cut off any QCD and gravitational $2\to2$ scatterings in region 3 and 4
911: for large enough masses and transverse momenta as discussed in
912: \cite{Lonnblad:2005ah}. In region 1 (and 2) we use the impact parameter description
913: defined via \eqref{p6:eq:chi} to turn off gravitational interactions at
914: distances smaller than \rsch. Clearly this simpleminded approach of turning
915: of gravitational scattering should not be seen as the final word. In
916: particular our understanding of gravitational scattering, and hence its
917: turnoff, is limited in region 4.
918:
919:
920: We limit our investigation to two standard inclusive high-\ET\ jet
921: observables \cite{Lonnblad:2005ah,Harris:2004xt,Humanic:2006xg}, namely the \ET-spectrum of the highest-\ET\ jet in an
922: event, and the distribution in invariant mass, \Mjj, of the two highest-\ET\
923: jets in an event. As high-\ET\ jets will be a part of almost any
924: signal of new physics at the LHC, such observables will be measured
925: early on after the start of the experiments and it is also where one
926: would expect gravitational scatterings to contribute. We use a simple
927: cone algorithm\footnote{The \texttt{GETJET} algorithm originally
928: written by Frank Paige.} with a code radius of 0.7, assuming a
929: calorimeter covering the pseudo-rapidity interval, $|\eta|<2.5$, and
930: requiring a minimum \ET\ of $100$~GeV for the resulting jets.
931: We have checked that our results do not depend much on the algorithm
932: chosen.
933:
934: \TABLE{
935: \begin{tabular}{|l|c|c|r|r|}
936: \hline
937: \Meff & $n$ & $\Ms/\mpl$ & \mpl & \Ms\\
938: \hline
939: 1.0 & 4 & $\frac{1}{2}$ & 0.45 & 0.22\\
940: 1.0 & 4 & 1 & 0.63 & 0.63\\
941: 1.0 & 4 & 2 & 0.89 & 1.79\\
942: 1.0 & 4 & 4 & 1.26 & 5.05\\
943: 1.0 & 6 & 2 & 0.56 & 1.13\\
944: 0.7 & 4 & 4 & 0.88 & 3.54\\
945: 4.0 & 4 & 4 & 5.05 & 20.21\\
946: \hline
947: \end{tabular}
948: \caption{\label{p6:tab:mpms} The different values of \Meff, number
949: of extra dimensions, $n$, and the ratio of $\Ms/\mpl$ used in the
950: simulations together with the resulting approximative values of
951: \mpl\ and \Ms. The masses are all given in units of TeV.}}
952:
953:
954:
955: \FIGURE[t]{
956: \epsfig{file=data/EffgravET1a.eps,width=7.4cm}
957: \epsfig{file=data/EffgravMJ1b.eps,width=7.4cm}
958: \caption{\label{p6:fig:ET1} (a) The \ET-spectrum of the highest
959: \ET\ jet in an event, and (b) the invariant mass spectrum of
960: the two highest \ET\ jets in an event at the LHC. In both
961: cases $\Meff=1$~TeV with 4 extra dimensions and
962: $\Ms/\mpl=2$ ($\mpl\approx0.9$~TeV, $\Ms\approx1.8$~TeV).
963: The long-dashed lines are the contribution from QCD scatterings,
964: short-dashed lines the contribution from gravitational
965: scatterings, dotted lines the contribution from the decay of black
966: holes and full lines the sum of all contributions.} }
967:
968: In \figref{p6:fig:ET1} we show generated the \ETI{max}\ and \Mjj\
969: distributions at the LHC for the case of four extra dimensions,
970: $\Meff=1$~TeV and $\Ms/\mpl=2$ (see table \ref{p6:tab:mpms} for the
971: resulting values of \mpl\ and \Ms). In the \ETI{max} spectra we see
972: that the cross section is dominated by QCD scatterings at low \ET as
973: expected, followed by an intermediate region where gravitational
974: scattering becomes important before black-hole production starts
975: dominating the cross section at large \ET. For the \Mjj-spectrum,
976: the situation is different, and the gravitational scatterings
977: dominates at large masses.
978:
979: Modulo effects of the parton densities we expect both gravitational
980: scattering and black-hole production to increase with energy.
981: For black holes one may naively not necessarily expect to find
982: high-\ET\ jets, as energetic quanta are Boltzmann suppressed in the
983: Hawking radiation. However, it turns out that the large cross
984: section for a black hole to form at high $s$, multiplied with the small
985: probability for the Black hole to radiate extremely energetic quanta,
986: may dominate over the non-black hole cross section for rather large
987: transverse momenta \cite{Lonnblad:2005ah}.
988: (Even if well localized QCD and gravitational
989: scattering events are not suppressed due to black hole production.)
990: These extremely energetic quanta do, however, not obey the semiclassical
991: approximation in the Hawking radiation derivation, and are therefore associated
992: with large uncertainties.
993:
994:
995:
996: %For gravitational scattering the measured di-jet mass is much
997: %closer to the the generated \shat, which is why it dominates at large
998: %\Mjj\question{what?}.
999: For large \ET, however, the gravitational scattering events, just as
1000: the QCD ones, may be localized inside the Schwarzschild radius and
1001: will collapse into a black hole.
1002:
1003: \FIGURE[t]{
1004: \epsfig{file=data/EffgravMJ2a.eps,width=7.4cm}
1005: \epsfig{file=data/EffgravMJ2b.eps,width=7.4cm}
1006: \epsfig{file=data/EffgravMJ2c.eps,width=7.4cm}
1007: \caption{\label{p6:fig:MJ2} The contribution of different regions in
1008: figure \ref{p6:fig:sMs} to the di-jet mass spectrum from
1009: gravitational scatterings at the LHC with $\Meff=1$~TeV, 4
1010: extra dimensions and $\Ms/\mpl=1$~(a), $2$~(b) and $4$~(c). In
1011: all cases the full line is the sum of all contributions and the
1012: contributions from regions 1, 2, 3 and 4 is given by the
1013: long-dashed, short-dashed, dotted and dash-dotted lines
1014: respectively. }}
1015:
1016: In \figref{p6:fig:MJ2} we show the \Mjj-distribution of gravitational
1017: scatterings only, divided into the contributions from the different
1018: regions in \figref{p6:fig:sMs}. Keeping $\Meff=1$~TeV and the number of
1019: extra dimensions (4) fixed, we vary $\Ms/\mpl$ and find that the
1020: contribution from region 1 dominates except in the low-mass regions
1021: below \Ms. The transitions between the regions are not sharp, mainly
1022: due to the smearing introduced by shower, hadronization and the jet
1023: reconstruction.
1024: %This smearing also hides the fact that the transition
1025: %between region 4 and 1 discontinuous in the distribution
1026: %of the generated \shat.
1027: This smearing hides the fact that the transition between
1028: $\sqrt{s} > \Ms$ and $\sqrt{s} < \Ms$ is discontinuous in the distribution
1029: of the generated $s$. In the case this transition occurs between
1030: region 2 and 3, where the Born approximation is applicable, the
1031: discontinuity is not even visible in the generated $s$-distribution. If the
1032: transition occurs between region 4 and 1, a discontinuity can, however,
1033: be seen.
1034:
1035: \FIGURE[t]{
1036: \epsfig{file=data/EffgravET3a.eps,width=7.4cm}
1037: \epsfig{file=data/EffgravET3c.eps,width=7.4cm}
1038:
1039: \epsfig{file=data/EffgravET3d.eps,width=7.4cm}
1040:
1041: \caption{\label{p6:fig:ET3} The same as \figrefi{p6:fig:ET1}a, but with
1042: $\Ms/\mpl=1$~(a), $4$~(b) and $0.5$~(c).}}
1043:
1044: We note in table \ref{p6:tab:mpms} that, although \Meff\ is kept fixed,
1045: giving the same amount of gravitational scattering at $\sqrt{s}\ll M_s$,
1046: increasing the ratio $\Ms/\mpl$ will increase \textit{both} \Ms\ and \mpl.
1047: And since black-hole production depends of \mpl\ and $M_s$ differently via
1048: \eqsref{p6:eq:rSch}, (\ref{p6:eq:Mmin1}) and (\ref{p6:eq:Mmin2}),
1049: we can vary the relative importance of gravitational scattering and
1050: black-hole production by varying $\Ms/\mpl$. Hence we see in
1051: \figrefi{p6:fig:ET3}a that lowering $\Ms/\mpl$
1052: to 1, the gravitational scattering will never give a sizeable
1053: contribution to the \ETI{max}-distribution, while increasing the ratio
1054: to 4 (\figrefi{p6:fig:ET3}b) results in the gravitational scattering
1055: dominating the cross section further out in \ET\ as compared to
1056: \figrefi{p6:fig:ET1}a. In \figrefi{p6:fig:ET3}c we decrease the ratio even
1057: further to 0.5 which results in a brane thickness so large that black
1058: holes can never be formed at the LHC, and the only indication of
1059: the presence of extra dimensions in the \ET\-spectra is a slight increase in
1060: the cross section for large \ETI{max}.
1061:
1062: \FIGURE[t]{
1063: \epsfig{file=data/EffgravET3f.eps,width=7.4cm}
1064: \epsfig{file=data/EffgravET3e.eps,width=7.4cm}
1065: \caption{\label{p6:fig:ET3e} The same as \figrefi{p6:fig:ET1}a, but with
1066: (a) 4 extra dimensions, $\Meff=4$~TeV, $\Ms/\mpl=4$ and (b) 6 extra
1067: dimensions, $\Meff=1$~TeV, $\Ms/\mpl=2$.}}
1068:
1069: A similar effect can be obtained by increasing the effective mass,
1070: while keeping the ratio $M_s/M_p$ fixed, hence increasing
1071: both $\mpl$ and $M_s$.
1072: This is done in \figrefi{p6:fig:ET3e}a and, again,
1073: the only visible effect of the extra dimensions is from gravitational scattering in the high-\ET\
1074: region. On the other hand we see in \figrefi{p6:fig:ET3e}b how increasing
1075: the number of extra dimensions to 6, keeping $\Meff=1$~TeV, gives a
1076: negligible contribution from gravitational scattering to the
1077: \ETI{max}-distribution, which instead is completely dominated by the decay of
1078: black holes.
1079:
1080: If large extra dimensions exist, one would hope that the scales are
1081: such that they would be easily discovered at the LHC by, eg.\ the
1082: striking signature of a decaying black hole. However, it is easy to
1083: see how nature could conspire, such that the only signal in the \ET\
1084: spectrum would be a
1085: slight increase of the high-\ET\ jet cross section. There are, of
1086: course, other signals, such as the production of real gravitons,
1087: showing up as large missing transverse momenta. But such signals could
1088: also be the result of other possible beyond-the-standard-model
1089: scenarios. In any case, it would be desirable to be able to
1090: distinguish gravitational scatterings from standard QCD events. One
1091: obvious difference is that the exchange of a graviton is colorless in
1092: contrast to a QCD scattering. This will necessarily give rise to a
1093: different color topology in gravitational events as compared to QCD
1094: ones. In particular one would expect the appearance of so-called
1095: rapidity gaps between the jets in gravitational scattering events.
1096: Although these gaps may be filled by secondary soft and semi-hard QCD
1097: scatterings, one may still expect a lower activity between the jets in
1098: such events.
1099:
1100: \FIGURE[t]{
1101: \epsfig{file=data/EffgravET4a.eps,width=7.4cm}
1102: \epsfig{file=data/EffgravET4b.eps,width=7.4cm}
1103: \caption{\label{p6:fig:ET4} The average number of charged particles
1104: outside the jet-cones in the central rapidity unit between the two
1105: hardest jets in events corresponding to \figrefi{p6:fig:ET3}c. The
1106: full line is for all events while the long-dashed and short-dashed
1107: are for QCD and gravitational scatterings respectively. In (b)
1108: only events with a minimum pseudo-rapidity difference of one unit
1109: between the two highest \ET\ jets are included, while in (a) there
1110: is no such requirement.}}
1111:
1112: In \figrefi{p6:fig:ET4}a we show the average number of charged
1113: particles with a transverse momentum above $0.5$~GeV outside the jet
1114: cones in the middle unit of pseudo-rapidity between the two hardest
1115: jets as a function of \ETI{max}. Hence, we count only charged particles,
1116: $c$, with
1117: \begin{eqnarray}
1118: \pTi{c}&>&0.5\mbox{~GeV},\nonumber\\
1119: \Delta R_{c1},\Delta R_{c2}&>&0.7\mbox{~and}\nonumber\\
1120: \left|\eta_c-\frac{\eta_1+\eta_2}{2}\right|&<&0.5,
1121: \label{p6:eq:midrap}
1122: \end{eqnarray}
1123: where $\eta_c$ and $\eta_i$ are the pseudo rapidities of the particle
1124: and (the center of) jet $i$ respectively and $\Delta R_{ci}$ is the
1125: distance between the particle and jet $i$ in the
1126: pseudo-rapidity--azimuth-angle $(\eta,\phi)$ plane. In this
1127: simulation we have included multiple interactions in \pythia to
1128: simulate the underlying event.\footnote{Using parameter settings
1129: according to the so-called Tune-A by Rick Field\cite{RickTuneA}.} We
1130: see that the expectation from QCD events is around 10 particles, while
1131: for gravitational scatterings the average is around 5. With sufficient
1132: statistics it could therefore be possible to observe the decrease in
1133: the number of charge particles with increasing \ETI{max} as
1134: gravitational scatterings starts to dominate. In
1135: \figrefi{p6:fig:ET4}a we have not required a large rapidity separation
1136: between the jets. Doing so would increase the effect, as shown in
1137: \figrefi{p6:fig:ET4}b, but on the other hand the statistics would
1138: decrease.
1139:
1140: We note that the absolute numbers in \figref{p6:fig:ET4} is very
1141: sensitive to the modeling of the underlying event, which is very
1142: difficult to predict for the LHC. The underlying event should,
1143: however, give the same contribution to both scattering types, and the
1144: difference between the two should be fairly well predicted by \pythia.
1145:
1146: \FIGURE[t]{
1147: \epsfig{file=data/EffgravET5a.eps,width=7.4cm}
1148: \epsfig{file=data/EffgravET5b.eps,width=7.4cm}
1149: \caption{\label{p6:fig:ET5} (a) The \ET-spectrum of the highest
1150: \ET\ jet in an event, and (b) The average number of charged
1151: particles outside the jet-cones in the central rapidity unit
1152: between the two hardest jets at the Tevatron for
1153: $\Meff=700$~GeV, $\Ms/\mpl=4$ and 4 extra dimensions. The
1154: full line is for all event while the long-dashed and short-dashed
1155: are for QCD and gravitational scatterings respectively.}}
1156:
1157: At the Tevatron there was an indication of an excess of the cross
1158: section for very high \ET\ jets as compared to the QCD prediction
1159: \cite{Abe:1996wy,Affolder:2001fa}. Although a re-evaluation of the
1160: uncertainties due to the parton density parameterizations used in the
1161: QCD calculations has brought this excess within the limits of the
1162: statistical and systematical errors, it is still intriguing that such
1163: an excess could be the signal of the onset of gravitational scattering
1164: due to the presence of large extra dimensions.
1165:
1166: In \figrefi{p6:fig:ET5}a we show our prediction for the \ETI{max}
1167: distribution for $n=4$, $\Meff=700$~GeV and $\Ms/\mpl=4$ at the
1168: Tevatron. The parameters were chosen so that the excess above standard
1169: QCD production is approximately within the statistical and
1170: systematical uncertainties of the corresponding Tevatron measurement.
1171: In \figrefi{p6:fig:ET5}b we then show the average number of charged
1172: particles outside the cones (same as in \figref{p6:fig:ET4}, but counting
1173: charged particles with transverse momenta down to $0.25$~GeV). The
1174: decrease in the region where gravitational scatterings become
1175: important is significant, although it may be difficult to get enough
1176: statistics to measure it even for Run-II at the Tevatron. However, it
1177: is not completely inconceivable that by finding a more sensitive
1178: observable of the color structure, we could be able to see the first
1179: indication of large extra dimensions already at the Tevatron, before
1180: LHC is switched on.
1181:
1182:
1183: \section{Conclusions}
1184: \label{p6:sec:conclusions}
1185:
1186: We have studied gravitational scattering and black hole production at
1187: the LHC and the Tevatron in the ADD scenario assuming that brane on
1188: which the standard model fields live have a finite width. We found
1189: that the relative importance of gravitational scattering and black
1190: hole production is sensitive to this width, and that for large widths
1191: the extension of the standard model particle fields into the bulk, may
1192: prevent black holes from forming since the energy may not be
1193: sufficiently localized within the black hole radius.
1194:
1195: A wide brane corresponds to a low cut-off for virtual Kaluza--Klein
1196: modes (the brane width and the KK cut-off, \Ms, are inversely related
1197: via a Fourier transform \cite{Sjodahl:2006gb}) and therefore results
1198: in weaker gravitational interaction in the non-classical regions.
1199: %(regions 2, 3, 4 and 5) in \figref{p6:fig:sMs}
1200: It is thus possible for
1201: nature to conspire, by choosing a low $M_s$, such that neither much
1202: gravitational scattering or black holes is observed at the LHC. In
1203: this case processes involving the production of on-shell KK modes
1204: resulting in missing $E_{\perp}$ may become important observables.
1205:
1206: In our simulations we have used values of \mpl, \Ms\ and the number of
1207: extra dimensions, $n$, which we believe have not yet been excluded by
1208: experiments (see eg.\ \cite{PDBook,Abulencia:2006kk} for recent reviews).
1209: Most of
1210: these limits are only relevant to \mpl\, but restrictions on \Ms\
1211: could be obtained by considering processes involving both virtual and
1212: real KK modes.
1213:
1214: In the case of low \Ms, only a weak increase in the jet spectra could
1215: be observed at LHC, and the signal of missing $E_{\perp}$ could be the result
1216: of SUSY. We point out that the colorless nature of gravitational
1217: scattering could be a way of distinguishing gravity induced events from
1218: other beyond-standard-model extensions. In fact this method could be used to
1219: indicate if an excess of jet activity at high transverse energies at the
1220: Tevatron is a result of gravitational scattering.
1221:
1222: %\bibliographystyle{utcaps}
1223: %%\bibliography{/home/beckett/leif/personal/lib/tex/bib/references,refs}
1224: %\bibliography{references,refs}
1225:
1226: \appendix
1227:
1228: \section{Appendix}
1229: \label{p6:sec:Appendix}
1230:
1231: There are at least four definitions of the Planck mass. Often one have
1232: to understand which definition an author uses by the relation of the
1233: Planck mass to the 4-dimensional Newton's constant $G_{N(4)}$ or to
1234: the Schwarzschild radius of a black hole. The process of hunting down
1235: constants is further complicated by the use of different definitions
1236: of the compactification radius, many authors \cite{Han:1998sg} mean by
1237: the compactification radius rather the compactification circumference,
1238: here denoted $L$, whereas others really mean the radius,
1239: $R=L/(2 \pi)$. In order to simplify comparison between the different
1240: conventions we here state the relations between the Planck masses
1241: $\mpl$ (used here) and in \cite{Harris:2003db}, $\MD$ used in
1242: \cite{Giudice:1998ck, Giudice:2001ce}, $M_G$, $M_S$ used in
1243: \cite{Han:1998sg} and
1244: the 4-dimensional Newton's constant $G_{N(4)}$, the relation between
1245: the Planck masses and Schwarzschild radius, and the relations of the
1246: Planck masses to each other.
1247:
1248: \begin{eqnarray}
1249: \label{p6:eq:MDGN}
1250: \MD^{2+n}=\frac{1}{8\pi R^n G_{N(4)}}
1251: \end{eqnarray}
1252:
1253: \begin{eqnarray}
1254: \label{p6:eq:MpGN}
1255: \mpl^{2+n}=\frac{1}{L^n G_{N(4)}}
1256: \end{eqnarray}
1257:
1258: \begin{eqnarray}
1259: \label{p6:eq:MGGN}
1260: M_G^{2+n}=\frac{2^{n-2}\pi^{n-1}}
1261: {L^n G_{N(4)}}
1262: \end{eqnarray}
1263:
1264: \begin{eqnarray}
1265: \label{p6:eq:MsGN}
1266: M_S^{2+n}=\frac{\Gamma \left(\frac{n}{2} \right) \pi^{n/2}}
1267: {2^{1-n} L^n G_{N(4)}}
1268: \end{eqnarray}
1269:
1270: \begin{eqnarray}
1271: \label{p6:eq:rMD}
1272: \rsch=\frac{1}{\MD}\left[\frac{M_{BH}}{\MD}\right]^{\frac{1}{n+1}}
1273: \left[
1274: \frac{2^n \pi^{\frac{n-3}{2}} \Gamma\left(\frac{n+3}{2} \right)}{n+2}
1275: \right]^{\frac{1}{n+1}}
1276: \end{eqnarray}
1277:
1278: \begin{eqnarray}
1279: \label{p6:eq:rMp}
1280: \rsch=\frac{1}{\sqrt{\pi}\mpl}
1281: \left[\frac{M_{BH}}{\mpl}\right]^{\frac{1}{n+1}}
1282: \left[
1283: \frac {8 \Gamma\left(\frac{n+3}{2} \right)}{n+2}
1284: \right]^{\frac{1}{n+1}}
1285: \end{eqnarray}
1286:
1287: \begin{eqnarray}
1288: \label{p6:eq:rMG}
1289: \rsch=\frac{2}{M_G}
1290: \left[\frac{M_{BH}}{M_G}\right]^{\frac{1}{n+1}}
1291: \left[
1292: \frac {\pi^{\frac{n-3}{2}} \Gamma\left(\frac{n+3}{2} \right)}{n+2}
1293: \right]^{\frac{1}{n+1}}
1294: \end{eqnarray}
1295:
1296: \begin{eqnarray}
1297: \label{p6:eq:rMs}
1298: \rsch=\frac{1}{M_S}
1299: \left[\frac{M_{BH}}{M_S}\right]^{\frac{1}{n+1}}
1300: \left[
1301: \frac{2^{2+n} \Gamma\left(\frac{n+3}{2}\right) \Gamma\left(\frac{n}{2} \right)}
1302: {\sqrt{\pi}(n+2)}
1303: \right]^{\frac{1}{n+1}}
1304: \end{eqnarray}
1305:
1306: \begin{eqnarray}
1307: \label{p6:eq:MpMp}
1308: \mpl
1309: &=&2^{\frac{3-n}{2+n}} \pi^{\frac{1-n}{2+n}} \MD\nonumber\\
1310: &=&2^{\frac{2-n}{2+n}} \pi^{\frac{1-n}{2+n}} M_G\nonumber\\
1311: &=&2^{\frac{1-n}{2+n}} \pi^{\frac{-n}{4+2n}}
1312: \Gamma\left(\frac{n}{2}\right)^{\frac{-1}{2+n}} M_S
1313: \end{eqnarray}
1314:
1315: %\section*{Acknowledgments}
1316: \bibliographystyle{utcaps}
1317: %\bibliography{/home/beckett/leif/personal/lib/tex/bib/references,refs}
1318: \bibliography{references,refs}
1319:
1320: \end{document}
1321:
1322:
1323: