An experimental approach to optimise and test perturbative QCD toO(α s 2 )
- 17 Downloads
- 30 Citations
Abstract
Production rates of multijet hadronic final states observed ine+e− annihilation are compared with recent QCD calculations using renormalisation group improved perturbation theory toO(α s 2 ). The scale parameter\(\Lambda _{\overline {MS} } \) and the renormalisation scaleμ2 are adjusted in order to reproduce the observed 2-,3-, and 4-jet event production rates. Small scales ofμ2≈0.002·E cm 2 provide a significantly better description of the overall 4-jet production rates and of 2-and 3-jet rates at small jet pair masses than calculations usingμ2=E cm 2 . The adjusted value of\(\Lambda _{\overline {MS} } \) depends on the choice ofμ2. It decreases by a factor of two when going fromμ2=E cm 2 toμ2=0.002·E cm 2 and results in\(\Lambda _{\overline {MS} } = 95 MeV \pm 30 MeV\) MeV±30 MeV for 0.001≦μ2/E cm 2 ≦0.020. The predictions of an Abelian vector theory complete toO(α s 2 ) are not compatible with the observed dynamics of jet production. The experimental evidence for the energy dependence of α s , obtained from 3-jet event production rates observed in the center of mass energy range between 22 GeV and 56 GeV, does not depend on the detailed choice ofμ2.
Keywords
Production Rate Renormalisation Group Energy Dependence Vector Theory Mass EnergyPreview
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
References
- 1.H. Fritzsch, M. Gell-Mann, 16th Intern. Conf. on High Energy Physics, Chicago-Batavia (1972); H. Fritzsch, M. Gell-Mann, H. Leutwyler: Phys. Lett. 47B (1973) 365; D. Gross, F. Wilczek; Phys. Rev. Lett. 30 (1973) 1343; H.D. Politzer: Phys. Rev. Lett. 30 (1973) 1346Google Scholar
- 2.S. Bethke; Habilitationsschrift, University of Heidelberg 1987 (unpublished)Google Scholar
- 3.S. Bethke: Proc. XXIIIrd Rencontre de Moriond, Les Arcs (France), 1988; LBL Report LBL-25247 (1988)Google Scholar
- 4.JADE Coll. S. Bethke et al.: Phys. Lett. B 213 (1988) 235Google Scholar
- 5.TASSO-Coll. W. Braunchweig et al.: Phys. Lett. B 214 (1988) 286Google Scholar
- 6.AMY Coll. I. Park, et al.: Phys. Rev. Lett. 62 (1989) 1713Google Scholar
- 7.Mark-II Coll. S. Bethke et al.: Z. Phys. C—Particles and Fields 43 (1989) 325Google Scholar
- 8.JADE Coll. W. Bartel et al.: Z. Phys. C—Particles and Fields 33 (1986) 23Google Scholar
- 9.G. Kramer, B. Lampe: J. Math. Phys. 28 (1987) 945; Z. Phys. C. 34 (1987) 497; Fortschr. Phys. 37 (1989) 181 G. Kramer: private communicationGoogle Scholar
- 10.G. Kramer, B. Lampe: Z. Phys. C—Particles and Fields 39 (1988) 101Google Scholar
- 11.S.J. Brodsky, G.P. Lepage, P.B. Mackenzie: Phys. Rev. D 28 (1983) 228Google Scholar
- 12.Ya. I. Azimov et al.: Z. Phys. C—Particles and Fields 27 (1985) 65; Yu. L. Dokshitzer et al.: Rev. Mod. Phys. 60 (1988) 373Google Scholar
- 13.G. Cohen-Tannoudji, W. Ochs: Z. Phys. C—Particles and Fields 39 (1988) 513Google Scholar
- 14.N.K. Falck, G. Graudenz, G. Kramer: DESY-88-106 (1988); DESY-89-027 (1989)Google Scholar
- 15.T. Sjöstrand: Comp. Phys. Commun. 39 (1986) 347; T. Sjöstrand: Comp. Phys. Commun. 43 (1987) 367; M. Bengtsson, T. Sjöstrand: Nucl Phys. B289 (1987) 810Google Scholar
- 16.M. Glück, E. Reya: Phys. Rev. D 16 (1977) 3242Google Scholar
- 17.G. Kramer: Springer Tracts of Modern Physics, Vol. 102. Berlin, Heidelberg, New York: Springer 1984; DESY 83-068 (1983)Google Scholar
- 18.JADE Coll. W. Bartel et al.: Phys. Lett 119B (1982) 239Google Scholar
- 19.K. Fabricius et al.: Z. Phys. C—Particles and Fields 11 (1982) 315Google Scholar
- 20.P.M. Stevenson: Phys. Rev. D 23 (1981) 2916Google Scholar
- 21.S.L. Wu: Proc. Int. Symp. on Lepton and Photon Interactions, Hamburg 1987Google Scholar
- 22.F. Gutbrod et al.: Z. Phys. C—Particles and Fields 35 (1987) 543Google Scholar
- 23.CELLO Collaboration: contributed paper to the Munich conference (1988)Google Scholar
- 24.N. Magnussen, PhD thesis Univ. of Wuppertal (1988)Google Scholar