Advertisement

Z’ Diagnostics at Future Colliders

  • M. Cvetič

Abstract

We summarize the status of heavy gauge boson (Z’) diagnostics at future hadron and e+e- colliders. The emphasis is on the model independent determination of gauge couplings of Z’ to quarks and leptons at the pp (CERN LHC) and e+e- (NLC) colliders. For MZ’ ~1 TeV, the NLC would have a capability to probe all the quark and lepton charges to around 10-20%, provided heavy flavor tagging and longitudinal polarization of the electron beam is available. On the other hand, at the LHC primarily the magnitude of normalized couplings can be determined, with typical uncertainties by about a factor of 2 smaller, however, still comparable to the ones at the NLC. The complementarity between the diagnostic power of the two types of machines is emphasized.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. [1]
    M. Cvetič, F. del Aguila, and P. Langacker, Proceedings of the Workshop on Physics and Experiments at Linear e + e - Colliders,Waikoloa, Hawaii, April 26–30, 1993, F. Harris et al. eds. (World Scientific 1993), p. 490.Google Scholar
  2. [2]
    A. Djouadi, A. Leike, T. Riemann, D. Schaile and C. Verzegnassi, in the Proceedings of the Workshop on Physics and Experiments with Linear e + e - Colliders, September 1991, Saariselkeä, Finland, R. Orava ed., Vol. II, p. 515; A. Djouadi, A. Leike, T. Riemann, D. Schaile and C. Verzegnassi, Z. Phys. C56 (1992) 289.Google Scholar
  3. [3]
    J. Hewett and T. Rizzo, in the Proceedings of the Workshop on Physics and Experiments with Linear e +e- Colliders, September 1991, Saariselkeä, Finland, R. Orava ed., Vol. II, p. 489; ibidem p. 501.Google Scholar
  4. [4]
    F. del Aguila and M. Cvetic, U. Pennsylvania preprint, UPR-590-T (December 1993) Phys. Rev.D in press.Google Scholar
  5. [5]
    A. Leike, DESY preprint DESY 91–154 (November 1993), to be published in Z. Phys. C.Google Scholar
  6. [6]
    P. Langacker, R. Robinett, and J. Rosner, Phys. Rev. D30, 1470 (1984).ADSGoogle Scholar
  7. [7]
    F. del Aguila, M. Cvetie, and P. Langacker, Phys. Rev. D48, R969 (1993).ADSGoogle Scholar
  8. [8]
    A. Fiandrino and P. Taxil, Phys. Rev. D44, 3409 (1991) and Phys. Lett. B292, 242 (1992).Google Scholar
  9. [9]
    J. Anderson, M. Austern, and B. Cahn, Phys. Rev. Lett. 69, 25 (1992) and Phys. Rev. D46, 290 (1992).Google Scholar
  10. [10]
    M. Cvetie and P. Langacker, Phys. Rev. D46, 4943 (1992).ADSGoogle Scholar
  11. [11]
    A. Henriques and L. Poggioli, ATLAS Collaboration, Note PHYS-NO-010 (October 1992); T. Rizzo, ANL-HEP-PR-93–18 (March 1993).Google Scholar
  12. [12]
    P. Mohapatra, Mod. Phys. Lett. A8, 771 (1993).ADSGoogle Scholar
  13. [13]
    T. Rizzo, Phys. Lett. B192, 125 (1987).ADSGoogle Scholar
  14. [14]
    M. Cvetie and P. Langacker, Phys. Rev. D46, R14 (1992).ADSGoogle Scholar
  15. [15]
    T. Rizzo, Phys. Rev. D47, 965 (1993).ADSGoogle Scholar
  16. [16]
    F. del Aguila, B. Alles, L. Ametller and A. Grau, Phys. Rev. D48, 425 (1993).ADSGoogle Scholar
  17. [17]
    J. Hewett and T. Rizzo, Phys. Rev. D47, 4891 (1993).ADSGoogle Scholar
  18. [18]
    LEP Collaborations, CERN preprint, CERN/PPE/93–157 (August 1993).Google Scholar
  19. [19]
    P. Langacker and M. Luo, Phys. Rev. D44, 817 (1991).ADSGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 1995

Authors and Affiliations

  • M. Cvetič
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of PhysicsUniversity of PennsylvaniaPhiladelphiaUSA

Personalised recommendations