Export citation

Export citation

Choose format for download:

Download Citation
  • Access by Xinjiang University

Detecting and studying e+eH0A0,H+H in the MSSM: Implications of supersymmetric decays and discriminating GUT scenarios

John F. Gunion

James Kelly

  • Davis Institute for High Energy Physics, Department of Physics, University of California, Davis, California 95616

  • Davis Institute for High Energy Physics, Department of Physics, University of California, Davis, California 95616
  • Department of Physics, University of Wisconsin, Madison, Wisconsin 53706

Phys. Rev. D 56, 1730 – Published 1 August, 1997

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevD.56.1730

Abstract

We demonstrate that supersymmetric decays, as typified by the predictions of several grand unified theory (GUT)-scale boundary condition choices, do not prevent detection of ZH0A0,H+H, at a 14TeV e+e or μ+μ collider operating at anticipated luminosity. For much of the parameter space the relative branching ratios for various supersymmetric (SUSY) and non-SUSY decays can be measured with sufficient accuracy that different GUT-scale boundary condition choices can be distinguished from one another at a very high confidence level.

References (13)

  1. P. Langacker and M. Luo, Phys. Rev. D 44, 817 (1991); U. Amaldi, W. de Boer, and H. Furstenau, Phys. Lett. B 260, 447 (1991); J. Ellis, S. Kelley, and D. Nanopoulos, 260, 131 (1991).
  2. See J. F. Gunion, H. E. Haber, G. L. Kane, and S. Dawson, The Higgs Hunters Guide (Addison-Wesley, New York, 1990), and references therein.
  3. J. F. Gunion, A. Stange, and S. Willenbrock, in Electroweak Symmetry Breaking and New Physics at the TeV Scale, edited by T. L. Barklow, S. Dawson, H. E. Haber, and J. L. Siegrist (World Scientific, Singapore, in press).
  4. J. F. Gunion, J. Kelly, and J. Ohnemus, Phys. Rev. D 51, 2101 (1995).
  5. A. Djouadi, J. Kalinowski, P. Ohmann, and P. M. Zerwas, Z. Phys. C 74, 93 (1997).
  6. Proceedings of the First Workshop on the Physics Potential and Development of μ+μ Colliders, Napa, California, 1992 [Nucl. Instrum. Methods Phys. Res. 350, 24 (1994)]; Proceedings of the Second Workshop on the Physics Potential and Development ofμ+μ Colliders, Sausalito, California, 1994, edited by D. Cline, AIP Conf. Proc. No. 352 (AIP, New York, 1995); Proceedings of the 9th Advanced ICFA Beam Dynamics Workshop: Beam Dynamics and Technology Issues forμ+μ Colliders, Montauk, Long Island, 1995, edited by J. C. Gallardo, AIP Conf. Proc. No. 372 (AIP, New York, 1996).
  7. J. F. Gunion and H. E. Haber, Phys. Rev. D 37, 2515 (1988).
  8. For a review and references, see, A. B. Lahanas and D. V. Nanopoulos, Phys. Rep. 145, 1 (1987).
  9. A. Brignole, L. E. Ibanez, and C. Munoz, Nucl. Phys. B422, 125 (1994); B436, 747(E) (1994); see also, V. S. Kaplunovsky and J. Louis, Phys. Lett. B 306, 269 (1993).
  10. G. Anderson and D. Castano, Phys. Rev. D 52, 1693 (1995).
  11. H. Baer, F. Paige, S. Protpopescu, and X. Tata, in Proceedings of the Workshop On Physics at Current Accelerators and Supercolliders, edited by J. Hewett, A. White, and D. Zeppenfeld, Argonne National Laboratory, Argonne, 1993 (unpublished).
  12. We thank C. H. Chen for making his program available to us.
  13. H. Baer, J. F. Gunion, C. Kao, and H. Pois, Phys. Rev. D 51, 2159 (1995).

Outline

Information

Sign In to Your Journals Account

Filter

Filter

Article Lookup

Enter a citation