tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2846514233477399562.post2900768966068738348..comments2024-01-08T09:37:04.406+01:00Comments on RÉSONAANCES: New Year, Same Old SongJesterhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08947218566941608850noreply@blogger.comBlogger8125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2846514233477399562.post-84457884098588158972012-02-02T15:33:13.584+01:002012-02-02T15:33:13.584+01:00"What is interesting is that the LHC sensitiv..."What is interesting is that the LHC sensitivity now reaches the cross sections predicted by popular version of the Randall-Sundrum model, excluding Kaluza-Klein gluons ligher than about 1.5 TeV." <br /><br />I never understand statements like this. the second clause should read "excluding Randall-Sundrum gluons lighter than about 1.5 TeV." There are other viable Kaluza-Klein models that haven't been tested at all against LHC data (outside of half-assed analyses).Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2846514233477399562.post-8612096914241847042012-02-01T00:43:28.338+01:002012-02-01T00:43:28.338+01:00There is no reason for the branching fraction to b...There is no reason for the branching fraction to be 100%, but the result on slide 24 is given in a form that allows you to easily rescale the limit to the branching fraction in your favorite model. <br />If the outlier is new physics it would be a leptonically decaying W' with mass above 2.4 TeV, but not necessarily a KK particle; there are many models predicting W primes.Jesterhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08947218566941608850noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2846514233477399562.post-89927296210056970362012-02-01T00:07:32.023+01:002012-02-01T00:07:32.023+01:00With regard to the t' limits, is there any goo...With regard to the t' limits, is there any good reason why searches for a t' tend to assume a 100% branching ratio for t' -> b W?<br /><br />According to <a href="http://arxiv.org/abs/1108.1218" rel="nofollow">1108.1218</a>, the only directly measured element of the third row of the CKM matrix is V_{tb} = 0.88 \pm 0.07, so V_{t'd} and V_{t's} could be as large as the best values of |V_{td}| and |V_{ts}| currently inferred assuming 3 x 3 unitarity, i.e. 0.0086 and 0.041 respectively. It would be very interesting to know how far the lower limit on m_t' could be relaxed by less restrictive assumptions on the CKM' matrix.<br /><br />With regard to the W' search, would I be correct in thinking that if the outlier at 2.4 TeV is not a fluke, the only well-motivated theoretical interpretation would be a KK recurrence of W, with mass > 2.4 TeV?Chris Austinhttp://chrisaustin.infonoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2846514233477399562.post-32242778952905470072012-01-31T23:55:17.610+01:002012-01-31T23:55:17.610+01:00The multilepton results that CMS showed today are ...The multilepton results that CMS showed today are not new, Matt Strassler discussed them last October, see e.g. http://profmattstrassler.com/2011/10/21/quick-summary-of-the-multi-lepton-situation-at-the-lhc/<br />Not sure which multijet searches you mention.Jesterhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08947218566941608850noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2846514233477399562.post-2796764347490529022012-01-31T19:45:55.506+01:002012-01-31T19:45:55.506+01:00What about the CMS search for multilepton and mult...What about the CMS search for multilepton and multijet signatures of susy ?<br /><br />Lubos wrote about it recently.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2846514233477399562.post-36167734089412326452012-01-31T17:34:13.761+01:002012-01-31T17:34:13.761+01:00The figure is from the search for heavy metastable...The figure is from the search for heavy metastable charged particles also updated today by CMS, see slide 33Jesterhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08947218566941608850noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2846514233477399562.post-695239347887006022012-01-31T17:25:39.954+01:002012-01-31T17:25:39.954+01:00fat fingers, image url:
http://vixra.files.wordpr...fat fingers, image url:<br /><br />http://vixra.files.wordpress.com/2012/01/hscp.jpg?w=450Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2846514233477399562.post-5161400344342888942012-01-31T17:25:08.023+01:002012-01-31T17:25:08.023+01:00What is this figure about:
http://blog.vixra.org/...What is this figure about:<br /><br />http://blog.vixra.org/2012/01/31/hscp/<br /><br />was posted at http://blog.vixra.org/2012/01/31/hscp/ but the post has now been deleted.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com