Search For Extra Dimension

Experimental Aspects of Extra Dimensions

Andy Parker Cambridge University

Outline • • • •

Experimentalists view of the theory Gravity experiments Other limits Large extra dimensions at LHC – Real and virtual effects – Tevatron limits – NLC • Warped extra dimensions • Black hole production

10/22/08

Helsinki

2

An experimentalists view of the theory • SM is wonderful! – All experimental data is explained to high precision – Theory checked at distance scales of 1/MW= 2.5 x 10-18 m – Only one state is unaccounted for - the Higgs – There is only one free parameter which is unknown - MH – No contradiction between the best fit Higgs mass and search limit. • But theorists don’t agree! – Higgs mass is unstable against quantum corrections – Hierarchy problem - MW=80 GeV, MH<1 TeV, MPl=1019 GeV 10/22/08 Helsinki

3

Higgs search limit at LEP In SM framework, Higgs mass is well constrained. Only a matter of time ….

In SUSY models, very difficult to raise lightest higgs mass

10/22/08

Helsinki

4

Two views of the world….

Supersymmetry ….

Extra dimensions…. …different scales

….hidden perfection 10/22/08

Helsinki

5

Epicycles Typical Ptolemaic planetary model Symmetry is assumed: all orbits are based on circles But the Earth is not at the centre of the circle (the eccentric) The planet moves on an epicycle The epicycle moves around the equant

From Michael J. Crowe, Theories of the World from Antiquity to the Copernican Revolution. 10/22/08

Helsinki

6

Supersymmetry Conventional method to fix Higgs mass: Invoke SUSY Double the number of states in model Invoke SUSY breaking Fermion/boson loops cancel (GIM) Higgs mass stabilised! 105 new parameters (MSSM) +48 more free parameters if RP not conserved => SUSY is a good pension plan for experimentalists!

10/22/08

Helsinki

7

Extra Dimensions Hypothesize that there are extra space dimensions Volume of bulk space >> volume of 3-D space Hypothesize that gravity operates throughout the bulk SM fields confined to 3-D Then unified field will have “diluted” gravity, as seen in 3-D If we choose n-D gravity scale=weak scale then… Only one scale -> no hierarchy problem! Can experimentally access quantum gravity!

But extra dimension is different scale from “normal” ones -> new scale to explain Extra dimensions are more of a lottery bet than a pension plan! 10/22/08

Helsinki

8

Scale of extra dimensions For 4+n space-time dimensions

M »M 2 Pl

2+n Pl(4 +n )

R

n

For MPl(4+n) ~ MW

R » 10

30 / n- 17

1TeV 1+2 / n cm ( ) mW

n=1, R=1013 cm ruled out by planetary orbits n=2, R~100 µm-1mm OK (see later) 10/22/08

Helsinki

9

-> Conclude extra dimensions must be compactified at <1mm

Kaluza Klein modes Particles in compact extra M dimension: 4-D brane •Wavelength set by periodic 1/R boundary condition •States will be evenly spaced in mass – “tower of Kaluza-Klein modes” r •Spacing depends on scale of ED Compactified – For large ED (order of mm) spacing is very dimension small - use density of states p = h /l , hc = 0.2GeVfm – For small ED, spacing 12 - 13 l = 1mm, p = 0.2 /10 = 2.10 GeV can be very large. 10/22/08

Helsinki

10

Why are SM fields confined to 3-D space? Interactions of SM fields measured to very high precision at scales of 10-18 m If gauge forces acted in bulk, deviations would have been measured KK modes would exist for SM particles For large ED, mass splitting would be small.

10/22/08

Helsinki

11

H1 results on excited fermions

95% cl

Many channels examined: no evidence for f*.

10/22/08

Helsinki

12

Gravity in 3-D space Gauss’s theorem: Field at r given by

 r  òF /m dS = 4p GM

M

F /m 4p r 2 = 4p GM

r m

10/22/08

F = GMm /r

Helsinki

2

13

Gravity in 4-D space

4-sphere

Compute volume of 4-sphere

V4 (r) =

r sinθ

r θ

=

p

òV (r sinq) r sinq dq 3

0

p

4p 0 3

ò

r 4 sin 4 q dq

= 12 p 2 r 4

d 2 3 S4 = V4 = 2p r dr F / m S4 = 4p GM

3-sphere

G = 8pR M n

10/22/08

2GMm F= 3 pr

- (2+n ) D Helsinki

14

ED signature in Gravity experiments x

R

r>R

Get 3-D result

r
Get 4-D result

y F Gaussian surfaces

R

10/22/08

Helsinki

r

15

Measuring Gravity in the lab Torsion balance Henry Cavendish 1778 (apparatus by Michell) Measured mean density of Earth (no definition of the unit of force). Sir Charles Boys inferred G=6.664x1011 Nm2/kg2 from Cavendish’s data a century later. Modern value G = (6.6726 ± 0.0001)x10-11 Nm2/kg2.

10/22/08

Helsinki

16

Measuring Gravity in the lab Recent experiment of Long et al hep-ph/0009062 Source mass oscillates at 1kHz Signal is oscillation of test mass Must isolate masses from acoustic vibrations, EM coupling •Run in vacuum •Isolation stacks Capacitor •Conducting shield •Low temperature

1 kHz

Detector

Shield 10/22/08

Helsinki

Source mass

17

Deviations from Newtonian gravity Gravity experiments present results in terms of Yukawa interaction of form

Gr 1 (r1 )r 2 (r2 ) V (r) = - òdr1 òdr2 [1+ a e- r12 / l ] r12

λ gives range of force α gives strength relative to Newtonian gravity. α depends on geometry of extra dimensions

Sensitive to forces of 4x10-14 N Limited by thermal noise: next step, cool detector

10/22/08

Helsinki

18

Limits on deviations from Newtonian gravity Planetary orbits set very strong limits on gravity at large distances…. …but forces many orders of magnitude stronger than gravity are not excluded at micron scales. Parameterized as a Yukawa interaction of strength α relative to gravity and range λ

hep-ph/0009062 10/22/08

1m mHelsinki

“moduli” = scalars in string theories 19

Submillimetre gravity measurements: EotWash Torsion pendulum experiment “Masses” are 10 holes in each ring Lower attractor has two rings with displaced holes, rotates slowly Geometry designed to suppress long range signals without affecting shortrange ones Membrane shields EM forces All surfaces gold plated. Separation down to 218µm 10/22/08

Helsinki

20

Torsional pendulum data Data from one turn of base plate, with fitted expected curve Angular precision 8nrad Signal would have higher harmonic content and different dependence on distance.

10/22/08

Helsinki

21

Deviations in data Measured torques at 3 frequencies

α=3 λ=250mm Deviations from Newtonian prediction

10/22/08

Helsinki

22

Limit from torsional pendulum New limit sensitive to scales <3.5 TeV for n=2

n=2

10/22/08

Helsinki

23

r

Casimir effect Casimir (1948) predicted force between 2 plates from field fluctuations

p hc Fc = A 4 240 r 2

Plate area A

This will become a background at distances around 1µm

Gold probe d

Scan gold probe across surface

d

10/22/08

Fgrav varies as probe moves, but Fc is constant.

2d

Helsinki

24

Pioneer 10 Pioneer 10 is leaving the solar system after 30 years in flight. Orbit shows deccelaration from force of 10-10 g Radiation pressure? – Solar? – Antenna? – Heat? – Gas leaks Time dependence?

10/22/08

Helsinki

25

Limits from g-2 experiments g-2 is best measured number in physics: Theory:

α SM = (g-2)/2 = 11659159.7(6.7)x10-10 Experiment (PDG): = 11659160(6)x10-10 LED can give contributions from KK excitations of W, Z, γ, Ο(10 −10

)

(Cirelli, Moriond)

10/22/08

Helsinki

Brookhaven experiment: hepph/0105077

26

Astrophysical Constraints Supernova remnants lose energy into ED, but production of KK states restricted to O(10MeV) Remnant cools faster Data from SN1987A implies MD > 50 TeV for n=2

PRL 83(1999)268

10/22/08

Helsinki

27

Neutrino oscillations Neutrino oscillations could occur into sterile neutrinos KK excitations of SM fermion singlets can mix with neutrinos to form sterile states Oscillation data (SNO, Super-Kamiokande…) are well fitted by oscillations into standard neutrino states -> little room for sterile states -> bound on ED models -> model dependent limits on parameters Eg LBNL-49369 gives R<0.82

10/22/08

Helsinki

µm

28

Signatures for Large Extra Dimensions at Colliders ADD model (hep-ph/9803315)

G

R

Each excited graviton state has normal gravitational couplings -> negligible effect LED: very large number of KK states in tower Sum over states is large.

x

y

=> Missing energy signature with massless gravitons escaping into the extra dimensions

10/22/08

Helsinki

29

LEP Searches for Extra Dimensions

e e ® Gg + -

Search for real graviton production

σ ∝( s /M ) 2 D

Cross section

n

No evidence for excess rate in photon+Etmiss -> Set limits Search for deviations in dilepton and di-boson production

10/22/08

Helsinki

e +e- ® G* ® f f ,VV s = F(l / M s4 )

30

LEP Limits on direct graviton production Limits on MD (TeV) Number of extra dimensions Energy range GeV

2

3

4

5

6

7

ALEPH 189-209

1.28

0.97

0.78

0.66

0.57

-

DELPHI 181-209

1.38

-

0.84

-

0.58

-

L3 189

1.02

0.81

0.67

0.58

0.51

0.45

OPAL 189

1.09

0.86

0.71

0.61

0.53

0.47

10/22/08

Helsinki

31

LEP limits on virtual graviton interactions Search for deviations from SM in dilepton and diboson production MS ~ 1TeV? Set 95% CL

λ

depends on quantum gravity theory e+eλ=−1 λ=+1 M S

L3

0.98

1.06

OPAL

1.00

1.15

λ=−1

λ=+1

γγ

10/22/08

Helsinki

DELPH 0.70 I L3 0.99

0.77

OPAL

0.83

0.89

limit s

0.84

32

Signatures at the LHC Good signatures are 45198 • Jet +missing energy channels: 2001-012 – gg -> gG – qg -> qG – qq -> Gg • Photon channels

LBNLATL-PHYS-

– qq -> Gγ – pp ->

γγ X

Virtual graviton exchange

• Lepton channels – pp -> 10/22/08



X

Virtual graviton exchange Helsinki

33

Real graviton production Cross section:

d 4s mGn- 2 Sn- 1 ds m = å 2 2 n +2 dm dpT jet,g dy jet,g dyG 2 MD dt

i, j

f i (x1 ) f j (x 2 ) x1 x2

Note ED mass scale and n do not separate -> difficult to extract n Can use cutoff in MD from parton distributions For n>6, cross section unobservable at LHC Quantum gravity theory above MD unknown -> Calculation only reliable at energies below MD

10/22/08

Helsinki

34

Missing ET analysis pp -> jet + ETMiss

Jet energies > 1 TeV

Dominant backgrounds:

ν ν + W-> τ ν } Use lepton veto + W-> e ν

Jet + Z -> Jet Jet

Veto isolated leptons (<10 GeV within ∆R=0.2) Instrumental background to ETMiss is small

10/22/08

Helsinki

35

High PT jet cross section ETJet > 1 TeV |η

Jet

|<3

100fb-1 of data expected SM Background ~500 events

SM Background

No prediction for n>4

10/22/08

Helsinki

36

Lepton veto and trigger Veto efficiency = 98% per lepton Reject 0.2% signal 23.3% JWτ 74.3% JWe 61.1% JWµ

10/22/08

Helsinki

37

Jet multiplicity - signal scenarios Jet multiplicity in signal increased by gg production process and higher mass Mean ~2.5

10/22/08

Helsinki

38

Jet multiplicity background Background: lower jet multiplicity Lower mass Less gg production Mean ~2.0 But at high ET, mean ~4 is similar

10/22/08

Helsinki

39

PT and η distributions PT of jet is harder in signal

Discrimination in η is too poor to be useful

10/22/08

Helsinki

40

Rejection of W(τν) background W(τν ) background has jet near missing ET Cut at

δφ =0.5

Reject : 6% signal 27% W(τν ) 11% total background

10/22/08

Helsinki

41

Final missing ET distributions Signal and backgrounds after cuts for 100fb-1

10/22/08

Helsinki

42

Missing ET signal Signal: Excess of events at high ET Dominant background Z->νν

10/22/08

Helsinki

43

Calibration of Z-> νν background Use Z-> ee Two isolated electrons, PT>15, Mee within 10 GeV of MZ Account for acceptance differences e,

µ, ν

BR’s differ by factor 3, so calibration sample has less statistics

10/22/08

Helsinki

44

Background estimates ETmiss >

Type

1 TeV

jZ(νν)

120.6

414.0

jW(τν)

34.5

122.7

jW(eν)

2.7

8.8

jW(µυ)

3.3

11.0

Total

161.1

556.5

jZ(νν)

36.1

124.7

jW(τν)

9.2

30.1

jW(eν)

0.6

2.0

jW(µυ)

0.9

2.9

Total

46.9

159.7

jZ(νν)

11.1

37.4

jW(τν)

2.8

9.6

jW(eν)

0.1

0.6

jW(µυ)

0.2

0.8

14.3

48.4

1.2 TeV

1.4 TeV

Low L 30fb-1

Total 10/22/08

Helsinki

High L 100fb-1

45

Signal event numbers ET>1TeV n

MD

2

4

187.6

49.5

18.7

5

77.6

20.4

6

38.7

7 3

4

10/22/08

S

S/sqrtB S/sqr7 B

S/sqrB

S/sqr7 B

645.4

92.8

35.1

7.7

272.8

39.1

14.8

10.2

3.9

128.8

18.5

7.0

19.7

5.2

2.0

66.5

9.5

3.6

8

11.6

3.1

1.2

39.4

5.7

2.2

4

142.5

37.8

14.3

479.8

68.9

26.1

5

46.2

12.3

4.6

159.8

23.0

8.7

6

18.8

5.0

1.9

64.0

9.2

3.5

7

8.5

2.3

0.9

29.4

4.2

1.6

4

97.1

25.6

9.7

324.4

46.6

17.6

5

25.2

6.6

2.5

86.7

12.5

4.7

6

8.6

2.3

0.9

28.4

4.2

1.6

Helsinki

S

46

Discovery potential 5σ discovery limits, ET>1 TeV, 100fb-1 n

MDmin

MDMax (TeV)

R

2

~4

7.5

10 µm

3

~4.5

5.9

300 pm

4

~5

5.3

1 pm

10/22/08

Helsinki

47

Single photon signal at LHC Potential confirmation of discovery

pp ® Gg

pp ® g Z ® gnn

Main background Other backgrounds from W small, not simulated. Require Etγ > 60 GeV and |η|<2.5 for trigger Signal in region Etγ > 500 GeV Calibrate background with γ Z-> ee sample pTe>20 GeV, invariant mass within 10 GeV of Z Sample is 6x smaller than sample, use S/sqr(6B)

10/22/08

Helsinki

48

Significance of single photon signal Background

ETMiss

Type

High L 100fb-1

500 GeV

γZ(νν)

80.7

γW(τν)

2.2

Total

Signal n

MD (TeV)

2

3

194.4

21.4

8.7

4

61.8

6.8

2.8

4

49.2

5.4

2.2

3

S

82.9 S/sqr(B)

S/sqr(6B)

Only useful if n and MD small 10/22/08

Helsinki

49

Extracting n and MD

d 4s mGn- 2 Sn- 1 ds m = å 2 2 n +2 dm dpT jet,g dy jet,g dyG 2 MD dt

i, j

f i (x1 ) f j (x 2 ) x1 x2

Cannot separate n and MD at fixed energy Run LHC at 10 TeV as well as 14 TeV MD limited kinematically by pdfs -> can separate n and MD with precise cross section measurement

10/22/08

Helsinki

50

Variation with ECM at LHC Cross section ratio (10 TeV/14TeV) Need to measure to 5% to distinguish n=2,3 Need O(10) more L at 10 TeV Need luminosity to <5%

10/22/08

Helsinki

51

Virtual graviton processes at LHC s-channel graviton exchange contributes to

qq ® gg gg ® gg

qq ® ll gg ® ll

Potential information from angular distribution differences and interference between SM background and graviton exchange

ATL-PHYS-2001-012

10/22/08

Helsinki

52

Diphoton production at LHC SM background peaks at high

η

Signal events central

10/22/08

Helsinki

53

Diphoton signals at LHC γγ invariant mass distributions (log scale) Signal can be optimised with cut on Mγγ>Mmin

10/22/08

Helsinki

54

Cut value

Diphoton reach at LHC 5σ reach for diphoton signal for 10 fb-1 and 100 fb-1 Can optimise reach at any n with cut on Mmin

10/22/08

Helsinki

55

Dilepton signals at LHC Invariant mass of l+lpair (log scale)

10/22/08

Helsinki

56

Forward-backward asymmetry in dileptons

Interference between G and SM modifies predicted FB asymmetry 100fb-1 10/22/08

Helsinki

57

Dilepton reach at LHC 5σ reach for diphoton signal for 10 fb-1 and 100 fb-1 Can optimise reach at any n with cut on Mmin

10/22/08

Helsinki

58

Limits from the Tevatron Searches performed by D0 and CDF D0 Run I data taken without B field -> use EM clusters only Fake background from miss id jets No evidence for excess events

hep-ex/0108015 10/22/08

Helsinki

59

D0 data Compare data and MC in Mass/cosθ * plane Data compatible with expected backgrounds from SM and miss ID jets

hep-ex/0103009

10/22/08

Helsinki

60

D0 LED Signature Dedicated MC generator includes SM, ED and interference terms. Signal appears at large M, low cosθ * MD>1.44 TeV for n=3 MD>0.97 TeV for n=7 Run II will extend reach to 3-4 TeV Luminosity? 2? 10? 30 fb1

10/22/08

Helsinki

61

Single photons at the NLC Finding signal is one thing…

n=2,4,6 …interpreting it is another … Single photon+ETMiss signal at NLC

÷ G  ÷ g e e ® G  + -

10/22/08

xg = Helsinki

2E g

SM background + from

e e ® nn g

s 62

Single photon angular distribution at NLC Assume: 500 GeV LC Pol(e-)=80% Pol(e+)=60% Cross-section measured to 1% precision (>270fb-1 required) Distinguish n=2 from n=3 up to MD=4.6 TeV Gravitino production is indistinguishable from n=6! 10/22/08

Helsinki

63

Warped 5-d spacetime Higgs vev suppressed by “Warp Factor”

Gravity

Planck scale brane y

Our brane

x

z

10/22/08

5th space dimension r

Helsinki

x y z

64

Warped Extra dimensions Consider Randall and Sundrum type models as test case Gravity propagates in a 5-D non-factorizable geometry Hierarchy between MPlanck and MWeak generated by “warp factor” Need : no fine tuning Gravitons have KK excitations with scale

This gives a spectrum of graviton excitations which can be detected as resonances at colliders. First excitation is at where Analysis is model independent: this model used for illustration 10/22/08

Helsinki

65

Implementation in Herwig Model implemented in Herwig to calculate general spin-2 resonance cross sections and decays. Can handle fermion and boson final states, including the effect of finite W and Z masses. Interfaced to the ATLAS simulation (ATLFAST) to use realistic model of LHC events and detector resolutions. Coupling Worst case when For m1=500 GeV,

giving smallest couplings.

Λ π =13 TeV

Other choices give larger cross-sections and widths 10/22/08

Helsinki

66

Angular distributions Angular distributions expected of decay products in CM are: qq -> G -> ff gg -> G -> ff qq -> G -> BB gg -> G -> BB

This gives potential to discriminate from Drell-Yan background with 10/22/08

Helsinki

67

Angular distributions of e+e- in graviton frame Angular distributions are very different depending on the spin of the resonance and the production mechanism. =>get information on the spin and couplings of the resonance

10/22/08

Helsinki

68

ATLAS Detector Effects Best channel G->e+e- Good energy and angular resolution Jets: good rate, poor energy/angle resolution, large background Muons: worse mass resolution at high mass Z/W: rate and reconstruction problems.

Main background Drell-Yan Acceptance for leptons:

|η|<2.5

Tracking and identification efficiency included Energy resolution

Mass resolution 10/22/08

Helsinki

69

Graviton Resonance Graviton resonance is very prominent above small SM background, for 100fb-1 of integrated luminosity Plot shows signal for a 1.5 TeV resonance, in the test model. The Drell-Yan background can be measured and subtracted from the sidebands. Detector acceptance and efficiency included. 10/22/08

Helsinki

70

1000 GeV

500 GeV

1.5 TeV

10/22/08

Signal and backgroun d for increasing graviton mass

2.0 TeV

Helsinki

71

Events expected from Graviton resonance Signal

10/22/08

100fb-1

NS

NB

NSMIN=Max (5ÃN B,10)

(σ  



Mass window (GeV)    

   





  

  

   







  

  

   





  

  

  

   



 

  

  

  

   



 

  

  

  

   



 

  

  

  

   



 

  

  

  

   

 

 

  

  

  

   

 

 

  

  

MG (GeV)

Limit

Backgroun d

Mass window is ±3x the mass resolution Helsinki

72

Production Cross Section 10 events produced for 100fb-1 at mG=2.2 TeV.

Searc h limit

With detector acceptance and efficiency, search limit is at 2080 GeV, for a signal of 10 events and S/√B>5

10 events

10/22/08

Helsinki

73

Angular distribution changes with graviton mass Production more from qq because of PDFs as graviton mass rises

10/22/08

Helsinki

74

Angular distribution observed in ATLAS

1.5 TeV resonance mass Production dominantly from gluon fusion Statistics for 100fb-1 of integrated luminosity (1 year at high luminosity) Acceptance removes events at high cos θ ∗

10/22/08

Helsinki

75

Determination of the spin of the resonance

One ATLAS run

With data, the spin can be determined from a fit to the angular distribution, including background and a mix of qq and gg production mechanisms. Establish how much data is needed for such a fit to give a significant determination of the spin: 1. Generate NDY background events (with statistical fluctuations) 2. Add NS signal events 3. Take likelihood ratio for a spin-1 prediction and a spin-2 prediction from the test model 4. Increase NS until the 90% confidence level is reached. 5. Repeat 1-4 many times, to get the average NSMIN needed for spin-2 to be favoured over spin-1 at 90% confidence 6. Repeat 1-5 for 95 and 99% confidence levels 10/22/08

Helsinki

76

Angular distribution observed in ATLAS

Model independent minimum cross sections needed to distinguish spin-2 from spin-1 at 90,95 and 99% confidence. Assumes 100fb-1 of integrated luminosity Discovery limit

10/22/08

Helsinki

For test model case, can establish spin-2 nature of resonance at 90% confidence up to 1720 GeV 77 resonance mass

Graviton discovery contours Confidence limits in plane of Λ π vs graviton mass Coupling = 1/ Λ π Test model has k/MPl=0.01, giving small coupling. For large k/MPl coupling is large enough for width to be measured. (Analysis assumes width<
Helsinki

78

Muon analysis Muon mass resolution much worse than electron at high mass

⇒

Discovery reach in muon channel for MG<1700 GeV Muons may be useful to establish universality of graviton coupling

10/22/08

Helsinki

79

Measurement of the graviton coupling to µ + µConfidence limits in plane of Λ π vs graviton mass

∆σ.B/σ.B

Coupling = 1/ Λ π Test model has k/MPl=0.01, giving small coupling. For large k/MPl coupling is large enough for width to be measured. (Analysis assumes width<
10/22/08

Helsinki

80

Photon analysis

Photon pair mass resolution as good as electrons But background uncertain. For standard model (ptmin=150 GeV) σ HERWIG=0.36 pb Included:

Not included: example

for

FNAL data indicates σ HERWIG is

Graviton mass (GeV) 10/22/08

Helsinki

5x too small ⇒ use 1.8 pb Do not trust cosθ 81 distribution for background.

Measurement of the graviton coupling to γγ Confidence limits in plane of Λ π vs graviton mass Coupling = 1/ Λ π Test model has k/MPl=0.01, giving small coupling. For large k/MPl coupling is large enough for width to be measured. (Analysis assumes width<
Helsinki

82

Graviton to jet-jet backgrounds k/MPl = 0.08 (64x higher crosssection)

10/22/08

Helsinki

83

Graviton to jet-jet signal at 1.9 TeV Significant signal after background subtraction k/MPl = 0.08 (64x higher crosssection)

10/22/08

Helsinki

84

Graviton to jet-jet search reach Reach is limited because of high background

10/22/08

Helsinki

85

Graviton to WW Look for Select 1e, 0 µ, 2 jets, PTmiss from ATLFAST η jet <2 Require Mjj compatible with W mass take highest pT pair in mass window Solve for pzν using W mass constraint Plot MWW look for resonance above SM background SM background from WW, WZ and ttbar

10/22/08

Helsinki

86

Graviton to WW: signal and background WW channel is viable for graviton

10/22/08

Helsinki

87

Graviton to WW channel Efficiency drops at very high jet ET

10/22/08

Reach of W+jets channel - low cuts Helsinki

88

Exploring the extra dimension Check that the coupling of the resonance is universal: measure rate in as many channels as possible: µµ ,γγ , jj,bb,tt,WW,ZZ Use information from angular distribution to separate gg and qq couplings Estimate model parameters k and rc from resonance mass and σ .B For example, in test model with MG=1.5 TeV, get mass to ±1 GeV and σ .B to 14% from ee channel alone (dominated by statistics). Then measure

10/22/08

Helsinki

89

Black hole production Low scale gravity in extra dimensions allows black hole production at colliders. Decay by Hawking radiation (without eating the planet) 8 TeV mass black hole decaying to leptons and jets in ATLAS 8 partons produced with pT>500 GeV Work in progress: Richardson, Harris

10/22/08

Helsinki

90

Black hole production cross-sections at LHC

10000 evs/yr

σ

Classical approximation to cross-section BH (Controversial…) Very large rates for n=2-6 10/22/08

~ p rh2

hep-ph/0111230 Helsinki

91

Black hole decay Decay occurs by Hawking radiation Hawking Temperature TH

TH = (n + 1) /4p rh 1

Black Hole radius rh

h æmh ö n +1 rh ~ ç ÷ M Dc è M D ø

Use observed final state energy spectrum to measure TH and hence n? 10/22/08

Helsinki

92

Particle spectra from black hole decays Example: n=6 extra dimensions MD = 2 TeV Mh = 7-7.5 TeV

All jets

Hawking Temperature TH= 400 GeV Multiplicity N~ Mh/2 TH ~ 9

Isolated e’s

Black body Fit

Electron spectrum deviates from Black body -effect of isolation cut? -recoil effect? Fit gives 388 GeV

10/22/08

Helsinki

93

Extracting n from Black Holes Preliminary!

Fit TH against Black Hole mass No experimental resolution yet (500 GeV bins…) Effect of heating? Input n=6 Fit gives n=5.7+-0.2

10/22/08

Helsinki

94

pb

Black hole production at the Tevatron

105

Rate expected to be large at Tevatron

Events/yr

102 100

Cross-section drops rapidly at high mass

σ

10-2

n=4 extra dimensions

Assume 10fb-1 10-5

Non-observation implies MD>1.4 TeV 1.0

0.7

10/22/08

MD

1.3

1.6

Helsinki

hep-ph/0112186

95

Conclusions Extra dimensional theories provide an exciting alternative to the normal picture of physics beyond the standard model A wide variety of new phenomena are predicted within reach of experiments.

Time to bet on the lottery!

10/22/08

Helsinki

96