Export citation

Export citation

Choose format for download:

Download Citation
  • Access by Xinjiang University

Fourth-generation quark mass limits in CKM-element space

Christian J. Flacco*, Daniel Whiteson, and Matthew Kelly

  • Department of Physics and Astronomy, University of California, Irvine, California 92697, USA

  • *cflacco@mac.com
  • daniel@uci.edu
  • mkelly@uci.edu

Phys. Rev. D 83, 114048 – Published 27 June, 2011

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevD.83.114048

Abstract

We present a reanalysis of CDF data to extend limits on individual fourth-generation quark masses from particular flavor-mixing rates to the entire space of possible mixing values. Measurements from CDF have set individual limits on masses, mb and mt, at the level of 335–385 GeV assuming specific and favorable flavor-mixing rates. We consider the space of possible values for the mixing rates and find that the CDF data imply limits of 290 GeV and greater over a wide range of mixing scenarios. We also analyze the limits from the perspective of a four-generation Cabibbo-Kobayashi-Maskawa (CKM) matrix. We find that present experimental constraints on CKM elements do not suggest further constraints on fourth-generation quark masses.

See Also

Direct Mass Limits for Chiral Fourth-Generation Quarks in All Mixing Scenarios

Christian J. Flacco, Daniel Whiteson, Tim M. P. Tait, and Shaouly Bar-Shalom
Phys. Rev. Lett. 105, 111801 (2010)

Article Text

References (15)

  1. P. H. Frampton, P. Q. Hung, and M. Sher, Phys. Rep. 330, 263 (2000); B. Holdom, W. S. Hou, T. Hurth, M. L. Mangano, S. Sultansoy, and G. Unel, Beyond the 3rd SM generation at the LHC era workshop, Geneva, Switzerland, 2008; PMC Phys. A 3, 4 (2009).
  2. B. Holdom, Phys. Rev. Lett. 57, 2496 (1986); 58, 177(E) (1987); W. A. Bardeen, C. T. Hill, and M. Lindner, Phys. Rev. D 41, 1647 (1990); C. Hill, M. Luty, and E. A. Paschos, 43, 3011 (1991); P. Q. Hung and G. Isidori, Phys. Lett. B 402, 122 (1997).
  3. P. Q. Hung and Chi Xiong, Nucl. Phys. B847, 160 (2011); Phys. Lett. B 694, 430 (2011); H. J. He, C. T. Hill, and T. M. P. Tait, Phys. Rev. D 65, 055006 (2002).
  4. M. Hashimoto and V. A. Miransky, Phys. Rev. D 81, 055014 (2010).
  5. M. Hashimoto, Phys. Rev. D 81, 075023 (2010).
  6. A. Lister (CDF Collaboration), ICHEP 2008; CDF CollaborationarXiv:0810.3349; J. Conway et al., CDF public conference note CDF/PUB/TOP/PUBLIC/10110.
  7. L. Scodellaro (CDF collaboration), ICHEP 2010; D. Whiteson et al., CDF public conference note CDF/PUB/TOP/PUBLIC/10243.
  8. G. D. Kribs, T. Plehn, M. Spannowsky, and T. M. P. Tait, Phys. Rev. D 76, 075016 (2007); Nucl. Phys. B, Proc. Suppl. 177–178, 241 (2008); M. S. Chanowitz, Phys. Rev. D 79, 113008 (2009); V. A. Novikov, A. N. Rozanov, and M. I. Vysotsky, Phys. At. Nucl. 73, 636 (2010) and references therein; J. Erler and P. Langacker, Phys. Rev. Lett. 105, 031801 (2010).
  9. C. J. Flacco, D. Whiteson, T. M. P. Tait, and S. Bar-Shalom, Phys. Rev. Lett. 105, 111801 (2010).
  10. T. Aaltonen et al. (CDF Collaboration), Phys. Rev. Lett. 104, 091801 (2010).
  11. In all cases, the procedures in this article yield maximally conservative extensions of the available experimental data.

  12. R. Bonciani, S. Catani, M. L. Mangano, and P. Nason, Nucl. Phys. B529, 424 (1998); M. Cacciari, S. Frixione, M. L. Mangano, P. Nason, and G. Ridolfi, J. High Energy Phys. 04 (2004) 068.
  13. M. Bobrowski, A. Lenz, J. Riedl, and J. Rohrwild, Phys. Rev. D 79, 113006 (2009).
  14. P. Meade and M. Reese, arXiv:hep-ph/0703031v2.
  15. Y. Chao, K.-F. Chen, S.-K. Chen, W.-S. Hou, B.-Y. Huang, and Y.-J. Lei, arXiv:1101.0592v1.

Outline

Information

Sign In to Your Journals Account

Filter

Filter

Article Lookup

Enter a citation