Evidence for Z0→e+e− at the CERN p collider

Bagnaia, P.; Banner, M.; Battiston, R.; Bloch, P.; Bonaudi, Franco; Borer, K.; Borghini, M.; Chollet, J.C.; Clark, A.; Conta, C.; Darriulat, P.; Lella, L. Di; Dines-Hansen, J.; Dorsaz, P.A.; Fayard, L.; Fraternali, M.; Froidevaux, D.; Fumagalli, G.; Gaillard, J. M.; Gildemeister, O.; Goggi, V. G.; Grote, H.; Hahn, B.; Hänni, H.; Hansen, J. R.; Hansen, P. H.; Himel, T.; Hungerbühler, V.; Jenni, P.; Kofoed‐Hansen, O.; Lançon, E.; Livan, M.; Loucatos, S.; Madsen, B.; Mani, P.; Mansoulié, B.; Mantovani, G.; Mapelli, L.; Merkel, B.; Mermikides, M.; Möllerud, R.; Nilsson, B.S.; Onions, C.; Parrour, G.; Pastore, F.; Plothow‐Besch, H.; Polverel, M.; Repellin, J. P.; Rimoldi, A.; Rothenberg, A.; Roussarie, A.; Sauvage, G.; Schacher, J.; Siegrist, J.; Steiner, H.; Stimpfl, G.; Stocker, F.; Teiger, J.; Vercesi, V.; Weidberg, A. R.; Zaccone, H.; Zakrzewski, J.; Zeller, W.

doi:10.1016/0370-2693(83)90744-x

Cited by 511 publications

(108 citation statements)

References 11 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…INTRODUCTION The 1983 observation of the W and Z vector bosons [1][2][3][4] provided important evidence for the electroweak (EW) sector of the standard model (SM) of particle physics [5][6][7]. Increasingly precise measurements of the vector boson masses, with a precision of 2.1 MeV, corresponding to 2 parts in 10 5 for the Z boson mass [8], and their properties compiled over the course of the following 30 years have verified the structure of the electroweak theory, which has been further confirmed by the recent discovery of the Higgs boson with mass 125.7 GeV.…”

Section: References 41mentioning

confidence: 99%

Measurement of theWboson mass with the D0 detector

Abazov¹,

Abbott²,

Acharya³

et al. 2014

Phys. Rev. D

160

275

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

We give a detailed description of the measurement of the W boson mass, MW , performed on an integrated luminosity of 4.3 fb −1 , which is based on similar techniques as used for our previous measurement done on an independent data set of 1 fb −1 of data. The data were collected using the D0 detector at the Fermilab Tevatron Collider. This data set yields 1.68 × 10 6 W → eν candidate events. We measure the mass using the transverse mass, electron transverse momentum, and missing transverse energy distributions. The MW measurements using the transverse mass and the electron transverse momentum distributions are the most precise of these three and are combined to give MW = 80.367 ± 0.013 (stat) ± 0.022 (syst) GeV = 80.367 ± 0.026 GeV. When combined with our earlier measurement on 1 fb −1 of data, we obtain MW = 80.375 ± 0.023 GeV.

show abstract

Section: References 41mentioning

confidence: 99%

Measurement of theWboson mass with the D0 detector

Abazov¹,

Abbott²,

Acharya³

et al. 2014

Phys. Rev. D

160

275

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…For example, experiments have confirmed the existence of the top quark, the W ± and the Z bosons, as predicted by the standard model [1,2,3,4,5]. The latest experimental averages for the masses of the top quark, W ± and Z are respectively 173.1 ± 0.6(stat.)±1.1(syst.)…”

Section: Chapter 1: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 90%

A search for the Standard Model Higgs boson in the process ZH → ℓ+ℓ-b$\bar{b}$ in 4.1 fb-1 of CDF II data

Shalhout¹

2010

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…Almost exactly 100 years later, in 1968, Glashow, Salam and Weinberg made another conceptual leap by unifying Maxwell's electromagnetism -in the form of its quantum field theory descendent called quantum electrodynamics or QED and formalized in the 1940s by Feynman, Dyson, Schwinger and Tomonaga -with the theory of the weak interactions. The existence of electroweak interactions was experimentally established with the discovery of the W and Z bosons by the UA1 and UA2 collaborations in 1983 in proton-antiproton collisions [7][8][9][10].…”

Section: Electroweak Theorymentioning

confidence: 99%

Measurement of σ(p$\bar{p}$→Z) Br(Z→τ+τ-) and search for Higgs bosons decaying to τ+τ- at √s= 1.96 TeV

Galea

2008

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Acknowledgements 135 1 IntroductionThe state of the matter regarding the way we understand the universe today is that matter doesn't really matter. A long winding road took us in several hundred years from believing that we were conveniently located in the center of the universe, to realizing that while that may well be true, there are uncountable such centers everywhere else (and for sure the Sun does not revolve around the Earth). The road took us then further to being proud that we are made of stars, only a few decades ago. What a truly astounding discovery that was, to finally find out how all chemical elements were produced, namely in the center of a star somewhere! From there, however, we soon went on to understanding just how small we really are in this incredibly large world which, on top of it all, is still expanding at a rate given by the Hubble constant. So here we are now, with new reasons to feel special again: according to the latest astronomical measurements, the matter that we are made of, the chairs on which we sit, this whole planet in fact, the Sun, the Milky Way at the border of which we are happily rotating around a black hole at 32,000 km/h, all other galaxies and the gas between them -all this constitutes only 5 % of the universe. Out of which more than 80 % is just free hydrogen and helium, the stars accounting for another 10 % and the neutrinos for 9.94 %. As Rocky Kolb once put it, who would go through the trouble to learn chemistry fully knowing that they would study only 0.03 % of the universe? The rest of 95 % of the world, the astronomers tell us, is made of 25 % dark matter (named like that because it does not emit radiation, and its presence can only be deduced from the gravitational influence on galaxies and clusters of galaxies) and 70 % dark energy, the existence of which is indirectly infered from the time evolution of the Hubble constant (which, as it turns out, is not constant after all), besides other arguments such as the age of the universe and structure formation. We know today equally much about the dark matter and the dark energy. Namely very close to nothing [1,2].Had I known this five and a half years ago when I started my doctoral studies, would I still have chosen to go into particle physics? The answer is: probably yes. This is a very exciting time in science, when astrophysics grows closer and closer to the type of research we do these days at accelerator laboratories. What if, one day, we will discover in high energy collisions a particle which will be a good candidate for dark matter? The physics of the two infinities, the infinitely large and the infinitely small, need each other. Besides, even though the facts listed above are based on very serious and most up to date research of hundreds of very smart people, one never knows if in a while from now -which may not even be longer than a few years, or a few decadessomeone reading this will not be laughing unstoppably at how ignorant people used to be in 2007. After all, very respectable and knowledgeable men of ...

show abstract

Evidence for Z0→e+e− at the CERN p collider

Cited by 511 publications

References 11 publications

Measurement of theWboson mass with the D0 detector

Measurement of theWboson mass with the D0 detector

A search for the Standard Model Higgs boson in the process ZH → ℓ<sup>+</sup>ℓ<sup>-</sup>b$\bar{b}$ in 4.1 fb<sup>-1</sup> of CDF II data

Measurement of σ(p$\bar{p}$→Z) Br(Z→τ<sup>+</sup>τ<sup>-</sup>) and search for Higgs bosons decaying to τ<sup>+</sup>τ<sup>-</sup> at √s= 1.96 TeV

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About