Vector vs. Scalar NSI’s, Light Mediators,
Transcript of Vector vs. Scalar NSI’s, Light Mediators,
Vector vs. Scalar NSI’s,Light Mediators,
and other considerations
Tatsu Takeuchi, Virginia TechApril 27, 2019 Amherst Center for Fundamental Interactions“Neutrino-Electron Scattering at Low Energies”
Collaboratorsv Sofiane M. Boucenna (INFN, Italy)
v David Vanegas Forero (U. of Campinas, Brazil)v Patrick Huber (Virginia Tech)
v Ian Shoemaker (Virginia Tech)
v Chen Sun (Brown)
Non-Standard Interactions:v Effects of new physics at low energies can be expressed via dimension-six four-fermion operatorsv There are five types:
v Operators relevant for neutrino-electron scattering are those in which two of the operators are neutrinos and the other two operators are electrons
Fierz Identities
Fierz Identities for Chiral Fieldsv LL, RR cases
v LR, RL cases
Fierz Transformation Example:
v neutrino-electron interaction from W exchange :
v neutrino-electron interaction from Z exchange :
New Physics:
v Vector exchange:
v Scalar exchange:
Fierz Transformed New Physics:
v Charged vector exchange:
vCharged scalar exchange:
Vector and Scalar NSI:v Vector NSI’s :
v See talk by Chen Sun from yesterday
v Scalar NSI’s :
v Shao-Feng Ge and Stephen J. Parke, arXiv:1812.08376
Effect of Scalar NSI to Neutrino Propagation:v Shao-Feng Ge and Stephen J. Parke, arXiv:1812.08376
v In matter:
v Mass matrix is shifted:
Bounds from Borexino:v Shao-Feng Ge and Stephen J. Parke, arXiv:1812.08376
v electron-neutrino survival probability:
Vector NSI’sScalar NSI’s
Further points to consider:v The Ge-Parke analysis assumes Dirac massesv If neutrino masses are Majorana
v There is also a matter potential effect:
Can we generate large NSI’s?
v Generating large NSI’s from heavy mediators is very difficult
v Can light mediators help us?
Interactions must be SU(2) x U(1) invariant:
v Case 1:
Constrained by ! → #$$ : %&'() < 10-.
v Case 2:
Constrained by µ → $0(0', ! → $0(0&, ! → #0(0( : %&'() < 10-2
Farzan-Shoemaker Modelv Y. Farzan and I. M. Shoemaker, “Lepton Flavor Violating Non-Standard Interactions via Light Mediators,” JHEP07(2016)033, arXiv:1512.09147
v Is the model truely viable?
"qCµ⌧ ⇠ 0.005 ! "µ⌧ ⇠ 0.06
Farzan-Shoemaker Model : Fermion Contentv SU(3)C × SU(2)L × U(1)Y × U(1)’ gauge theoryv Quarks:
v Leptons:
v Extra (heavy) fermions for anomaly cancellation (?)
Qi =
uLi
dLi
�⇠
✓3, 2,+
1
6, 1
◆, uRi ⇠
✓3, 1,+
2
3, 1
◆, dRi ⇠
✓3, 1,�1
3, 1
◆
L0 =
⌫L0
`L0
�⇠
✓1, 2,�1
2, 0
◆, `R0 ⇠ (1, 1,�1, 0) ,
L+ =
⌫L+
`L+
�⇠
✓1, 2,�1
2,+⇣
◆, `R+ ⇠ (1, 1,�1,+⇣) ,
L� =
⌫L�`L�
�⇠
✓1, 2,�1
2,�⇣
◆, `R� ⇠ (1, 1,�1,�⇣) ,
Farzan-Shoemaker Model : Scalar Contentv Higgses:
v Yukawa couplings:
H =
H
+
H0
�⇠
✓1, 2,+
1
2, 0
◆,
H++ =
H
+++
H0++
�⇠
✓1, 2,+
1
2,+2⇣
◆,
H�� =
H
+��
H0��
�⇠
✓1, 2,+
1
2,�2⇣
◆.
3X
i=1
3X
j=1
⇣�ijdRiH
†Qj + �̃ijuRi
eH†Qj
⌘+ h.c.
+X
j=0,+,�
�fj `RjH
†Lj
�+ h.c.
+⇣c�`R+H
†��L� + c+`R�H
†++L+
⌘+ h.c.
Farzan-Shoemaker Model : Symmetry Breakingv Higgs VEV’s:
v Assume (no Z-Z’ or !-Z’ mixing at tree-level)
v Gauge boson masses:
hH0i =vp2, hH0
++i =v+p2, hH0
��i =v�p2,
v+ = v� =wp2
MW =g22
pv2 + w2 , MZ =
pg21 + g222
pv2 + w2 , MZ0 = 2⇣g0w
Farzan-Shoemaker Model : Z’ Mass & Couplingv The mass of the Z’ is chosen to be:
so that the decays
cannot occurv Range of the Z’-exchange force comparable to that of strong interactions → Z’ interactions between quarks can be sizable but still be masked by the strong force (?)v Z’ coupling to the leptons are strongly constrained by:
135MeV < MZ0 < 200MeV
⇡0 ! � + Z 0 , Z 0 ! µ+ + µ�
⌧ ! µ+ Z 0
Farzan-Shoemaker Model : Problemsv U(1) charges are ill defined in models with multiple U(1)’s → They necessarily mix under renormalization group running(See W. A. Loinaz and T. Takeuchi, Phys.Rev. D60 (1999) 115008)
v Constraint on !g’ does not allow the generation of Z’ mass in the 135∼200 MeV range without making the Higgs VEV w too large for the W and Z masses→ Need to introduce a SM-singlet scalar
v Full MNS neutrino mixing matrix cannot be generated.The U(1)’ singlet lepton cannot mix with the non-singlet leptons.→ Need to introduce a more scalars
v Not clear whether the fermions necessary for anomaly cancelation can be made heavy → Even more scalars?
Constraints on the Z’ couplings revisited:v Z’-quark couplingv Z’-lepton coupling
v Semi-Empirical Mass Formula of Nuclei:
v Coulomb term:
EB = aV A� aSA2/3 � aC
Z2
A1/3� aA
(A� 2Z)2
A± �(A,Z)
EC =3
5
Q2
R=
3
5
(eZ)2
(r0A1/3)= (0.691MeV)
(1.25 fm)
r0
Z2
A1/3
Z’ potential energy:v Z’ potential energy term:
where
EZ0 =3
5
Q02
Rf(mR) =
3
5
(3g0A)2
(r0A1/3)f(mr0A
1/3)
= (0.691MeV)(1.25 fm)
r0
✓3g0
e
◆2
A5/3f(mr0A1/3)
f(x) ⌘ 15
4x5
"1� x2 +
2x3
3� (1 + x)2e�2x
#
= 1� 5x
6+
3x2
7� x3
6+ · · ·
0 2 4 6 8 10x
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.0
Result of Fit:v Our result from fit to stable nuclei (90% C.L. left) compared to Figure from Farzan-Shoemaker paper (JHEP07(2016)033 right)
g'
mZ' [MeV]
r0=1.2 fmr0=1.22 fmr0=1.25 fmr0=1.3 fm
10-6
10-5
10-4
10-3
10-2
10-1
100
1 10 100
Excluded
Result of Fit:
r0=1.30 fm
r0=1.22 fm
-2.0 -1.5 -1.0 -0.5 0.00
50
100
150
200
Log10(g′)
MZ′ /MeV
Coupling to the electron from photon-Z’ mixing:v Recall that ! → #$$ is strongly bounded:
%(!' → #'$'$() < 1.8 × 10',
v At tree level the Z’ does not couple to electronsv But Z’ and the photon can mix!
Optical Theorem:
photon-photon and photon-Z’ correlations:
Separation of Isovector and Isoscalar parts:
Dolinsky Isoscalar + BW resonance
Total R ratio
0.5 1.0 1.5 2.00.1
1
10
100
1000
s /GeV
R
Running of the effective coupling to electrons:
Resulting bounds:
Does this bound apply?v For the Z’ decay into an electron-positron decay to be observable, the Z’ must decay inside the detector
v Belle central drift chamber:Z’ must decay within 0.88 m to 1.7 m
Two-body decay bound:v Argus (1995)
v Belle has 2000 times more statistics and is expected to improve the bound to 1×10$% (Yoshinobu and Hayasaka, Nucl. Part. Phys. Proc. 287-288 (2017) 218-220)
Conclusion :v Both g’ and g’! are more tightly bound than originally assumed
v Constructing viable models that predict sizable neutrino NSI’s is not easy!