Measurement ofp¯psingle diffraction dissociation at √s=546 and 1800 GeV

Abe, F.; Albrow, M.; Amidei, D.; Anway-Wiese, C.; Apollinari, G.; Ataç, M.; Auchincloss, P.; Azzi, P.; Bacchetta, N.; Baden, A.; Badgett, W.; Bailey, M. W.; Bamberger, A.; Barbaro, P. de; Barbaro‐Galtieri, A.; Barnes, V. E.; Barnett, B. A.; Bauer, G.; Baumann, Thomas; Bedeschi, F.; Behrends, S.; Belforte, S.; Bellettini, G.; Bellinger, J.; Benjamin, D.; Benlloch, J.; Bensinger, J. R.; Beretvas, A.; Berge, J. P.; Bertolucci, S.; Biery, K.; Bhadra, S.; Binkley, M.; Bisello, D.; Blair, R. E.; Blocker, C.; Bodek, A.; Bolognesi, V.; Booth, A. W.; Boswell, C.; Brandenburg, G.; Brown, D. N.; Buckley-Geer, E.; Budd, H. S.; Busetto, G.; Byon-Wagner, A.; Byrum, K. L.; Campagnari, C.; Campbell, M.; Caner, A.; Carey, Robert M.; Carithers, W.; Carlsmith, D.; Carroll, J. T.; Cashmore, R. J.; Castro, A.; Cen, Y.; Cervelli, F.; Chadwick, K.; Chapman, J. D.; Chapin, T. J.; Chiarelli, G.; Chinowsky, W.; Cihangir, S.; Clark, A.; Cobal, M.; Connor, D.; Contreras, M.; Cooper, J.; Cordelli, M.; Crane, D.; Cunningham, J. D.; Day, C.; DeJongh, F.; Dell’Agnello, S.; Dell’Orso, M.; Demortier, L.; Denby, B.; Derwent, P. F.; Devlin, T.; Dickson, M.; Drucker, R. B.; Dunn, A.; Einsweiler, K.; Elias, J. E.; Ely, R.; Eno, S. C.; Errede, S.; Etchegoyen, A.; Farhat, B.; Frautschi, M.; Feldman, G. J.; Flaugher, B.; Foster, G. W.; Franklin, M.; Freeman, J.; Fuess, T. A.; Fukui, Y.; Garfinkel, A. F.; Gauthier, A.; Geer, S.; Gerdes, D. W.; Giannetti, P.; Giokaris, N.; Giromini, P.; Gladney, L.; Gold, M.; Gonzalez, J.; Goulianos, K.; Grassmann, H.; Grieco, G.; Grindley, R.; Grosso-Pilcher, C.; Haber, C.; Hahn, S. R.; Handler, R.; Hara, K.; Harral, B.; Harris, R. M.; Hauger, S. A.; Hauser, J.; Hawk, C.; Hessing, T. L.; Hollebeek, R.; Holloway, L.; Hölscher, A.; Hong, S.; Houk, G.; Hu, P.; Hubbard, B.; Huffman, B. T.; Hughes, R. E.; Hurst, P.; Huth, J.; Hylen, J.; Incagli, M.; Ino, T.; Iso, H.; Jessop, C.; Johnson, R. P.; Joshi, U.; Kadel, R. W.; Kamon, T.; Kanda, S.; Kardelis, D. A.; Karliner, I.; Kearns, E.; Keeble, L.; Kephart, R.; Kesten, P.; Keup, R. M.; Keutelian, H.; Kim, D.; Kim, S. B.; Kim, S. H.; Kim, Y. K.; Kirsch, L.; Kondo, K.; Königsberg, J.; Kordas, K.; Kovacs, E.; Krasberg, M.; Kuhlmann, S. E.; Kuns, E.; Laasanen, A. T.; Lammel, S.; Lamoureux, J. I.; Leone, S.; Lewis, J. D.; Li, W.; Limon, P.; Lindgren, M.; Liss, T. M.; Lockyer, N. S.; Loreti, M.; Low, E. H.; Lucchesi, D.; Luchini, C. B.; Lukens, P.; Maas, P.; Maeshima, K.; Mangano, M.; Marriner, J. P.; Mariotti, M.; Markeloff, R.; Markosky, L. A.; Matthews, J. A. J.; Mattingly, R.; McIntyre, P.; Menzione, A.; Meschi, E.; Meyer, T. C.; Mikamo, S.; Miller, Michael L.; Mimashi, T.; Miscetti, S.; Mishina, M.; Miyashita, S.; Morita, Y.; Moulding, S.; Muêller, J.; Mukherjee, A.; Müller, Th.; Nakae, L. F.; Nakano, I.; Nelson, Charles A.; Neuberger, D.; Newman-Holmes, C.; Ng, J. S. T.; Ninomiya, M.; Nodulman, L.; Ogawa, S.; Paoletti, R.; Papadimitriou, V.; Para, A.; Paré, E.; Park, S.; Patrick, J.; Pauletta, G.; Pescara, L.; Phillips, T. J.; Piacentino, Antonio; Plunkett, R.; Pondrom, L.; Proudfoot, J.; Ptohos, F.; Punzi, G.; Quarrie, D. R.; Ragan, K.; Redlinger, G.; Rhoades, J.; Roach, M.; Rimondi, F.; Ristori, L.; Robertson, W. J.; Rodrigo, T.; Rohaly, T.; Roodman, A.; Sakumoto, W. K.; Sansoni, A.; Sard, R. D.; Savoy-Navarro, A.; Scarpine, V.; Schlabach, P.; Schmidt, E. E.; Schneider, O.; Schub, M. H.; Schwitters, R. F.; Sciacca, G.; Scribano, A.; Segler, S.; Seidel, S.; Seiya, Y.; Sganos, G.; Shaw, N. M.; Sheaff, M.; Shochet, M.; Siegrist, J.; Sill, A.; Sinervo, P.; Skarha, J.; Sliwa, K.; Smith, D. A.; Snider, F. D.; Song, L.; Song, T.; Spahn, M.; Sphicas, P.; Spies, A.; Denis, R. St.; Stančo, L.; Stefanini, A.; Sullivan, G. W.; Sumorok, K.; Swartz, R. L.; Takano, Mikio; Takikawa, K.; Tarem, S.; Tartarelli, G. F.; Tether, S.; Theriot, D.; Timko, M.; Tipton, P.; Tkaczyk, S.; Tollestrup, A.; Tonnison, J.; Trischuk, W.; Tsay, Y.; Tseng, J. C-L.; Turini, N.; Ukegawa, F.; Underwood, D. G.; Vejcik, S.; Vidal, R.; Wagner, R. G.; Wagner, R. L.; Wainer, N.; Walker, R.; Walsh, J.; Warburton, A.; Watts, G.; Watts, T.; Webb, Richard; Wendt, C.; Wenzel, H.; Wester, W. C.; Westhusing, T.; White, S.; Wicklund, A. B.; Wicklund, E.; Williams, H. H.; Winer, B. L.; Wolinski, J.; Wu, D. Y.; Wu, X.; Wyss, J.; Yagil, A.; Yasuoka, K.; Ye, Y.; Yeh, G. P.; Yoh, J.; Yokoyama, Masaru; Yun, J. C.; Zanetti, A.; Zetti, F.; Zhang, S.; Zhang, W.; Zucchelli, S.

doi:10.1103/physrevd.50.5535

Cited by 114 publications

(108 citation statements)

References 28 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…(26) and the eikonal factor η(b, s) found in our fit to the combined pp andpp data. We show the result and the CDF [30] measurements of diffractive dissociation in this process in Fig. 10.…”

Section: E the Edge And Diffraction Dissociationmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The kinematic regions in which this can be measured and distinguished experimentally from other inelastic processes, are quite limited. It is typical to require, for example, a very large ratio of the final center-of-mass momentum p ′ of the surviving particle to its initial momentum p, p ′ /p 0.85 in the CDF experiments [30], and further conditions on the detectability and mass of the dissociated system. There appear, in fact, to be no universally accepted experimental criteria for extracting this cross section, with the results typically depending on how the distributions in the momentum transfer t and M 2 X are modeled.…”

Section: E the Edge And Diffraction Dissociationmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…We do not specify the dependence of the dissociation process on M X , but think of f SD as giving the characteristic b dependence of the mass-dependent amplitudes averaged The curve gives the upper bound on the inclusive cross section for single-particle diffractive dissociationp + p →p + X calculated using σSD ≤ (σtot − 2σ elas )/2 and our eikonal fit to the pp andpp cross section data from 5 GeV to 70 TeV. The data shown for σSD are from CDF [30].…”

Section: E the Edge And Diffraction Dissociationmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Eikonal fit toppandp¯pscattering and the edge in the scattering amplitude

Block

Durand

et al. 2015

Phys. Rev. D

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

We make a detailed eikonal fit to current data on the total and elastic scattering cross sections, the ratios ρ of the real to the imaginary parts of the forward elastic scattering amplitudes, and the logarithmic slopes B of the differential cross sections dσ/dt at t = 0, for proton-proton and antiproton-proton scattering at center-of-mass energies W from 5 GeV to 57 TeV. The fit allows us to investigate the structure of the eikonal amplitudes in detail, including the impact-parameter structure of the energy-independent edge in the scattering amplitude shown to exist by Block et al.[1]. We show that the edge region has an essentially fixed shape with a peak at approximately the "black disk" radius Rtot = σtot/2π of the scattering amplitude, a constant width t edge ≈ 1 fm, and migrates to larger impact parameters with increasing energy proportionally to Rtot. We comment on possible physical mechanisms which could lead to the edge. We show that the eikonal results for the cross sections and ρ values are described to high accuracy by analytic expressions of the forms used in earlier analyses by Block and Halzen, and extend the result to the elastic-scattering slope parameter B. These expressions provide simple extrapolations of the results to much higher energies where the cross sections approach the black disk limit with σ elas , σ inel → σtot/2 and B → σtot/8π. Finally, we calculate the survival probabilities for large rapidity gaps in the scattering.

show abstract

Section: E the Edge And Diffraction Dissociationmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: E the Edge And Diffraction Dissociationmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: E the Edge And Diffraction Dissociationmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Eikonal fit toppandp¯pscattering and the edge in the scattering amplitude

Block

Durand

et al. 2015

Phys. Rev. D

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Experimentally, a measure of this is the ratio of inelastic diffraction to the elastic pp cross sections at t = 0: At ≥ 100 GeV this ratio decreases with increasing energy, from about 0.3-0.35 at ~ 60 GeV, to 0.15 at the Tevatron. Extrapolation to the LHC [84] gives R( = 14 TeV) = 0.06-0.07. On the other hand, in the Pomeron-pole picture this ratio is expected to increase with energy, because of the increasing range of diffractive masses available with increasing energy.…”

Section: Soft Single Diffractionmentioning

confidence: 99%

A full-acceptance detector at the LHC (FELIX)

Ageev¹,

Akhobadze²,

Alvero³

et al. 2002

J. Phys. G: Nucl. Part. Phys.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The FELIX collaboration had proposed the construction of a full-acceptance detector for the LHC. The primary mission of FELIX was the study of QCD: to provide comprehensive and definitive observations of a very broad range of strong-interaction processes. This document contains an extensive discussion of this physics menu. In a further paper the FELIX detector will be reviewed. Contents HISTORYWith the advent of the large hadron collider (LHC), we are on the threshold of a new era in high-energy physics. With instrumentation in the form of dedicated experiments of unprecedented precision and complexity, the LHC will move significantly beyond the current high-energy frontier, and dramatically improve our understanding of particle physics at the highest energies and shortest distances accessible to man.As currently planned, however, the LHC experimental programme is incomplete. Moreover, these deficiencies continue and extend what has been a gap in the experimental programme of all hadron colliders. The problem lies in the design of the detectors instrumenting hadron colliders: they are all optimized for rare, high-pt events. These 'general purpose' detectors are anything but that. Rather, they are designed to explore extreme shortdistance phenomena. Without intending to demean the efforts of the collaborations which have built or are building these detectors, it is nevertheless these events in which the theorists are most confident that they understand the physics, and are in many ways experimentally most accessible.While there is no doubt that such physics and such detectors should be the centrepiece of any programme of hadron collider physics, it seems much less clear that they should be the only item on the agenda. Indeed, it can be argued that a full-acceptance detector, capable of detecting and measuring each particle in an event well, may have the greatest discovery potential. Alas, the absence of any experimental effort in this direction in the collider era has meant that both theoretical investigations and experimental design of such detectors has languished, to the point that many in the community have come to think of high-pt physics as the last frontier in particle physics.The FELIX collaboration sought to rectify this situation. With support from the CERN administration, some 160 physicists collaborated in preparing the FELIX LoI. Many of these could not officially join the collaboration, and so their help could only be acknowledged. While the FELIX proposal was never officially killed, it was nevertheless effectively killed without the collaboration making a formal presentation to the LHC committee.All of this, of course, is history, and not very pleasant history at that. The motivation for a full-acceptance detector remains, however, and interest on the part of the broader community, despite the implications of this history, remains high. Because of this, the FELIX collaboration, together with those who helped but were not members, believes that it is important to document the physics of a ...

show abstract

“…If a proton fragments, the decay products may not be detected through BSC inefficiency, estimated from data to be 0.08±0.01. The fragmention probability at the pIP p(p * ) vertex was taken from the ratio of single diffractive fragmentation to elastic scattering at the Tevatron [18] to be 0.24±0.05.…”

Section: Pacs Numbersmentioning

confidence: 99%

Observation of Exclusive Charmonium Production andγγ→μ+μ−inpp¯Collisions at
Aaltonen¹,
Adelman²,
Akimoto³
et al. 2009
Phys. Rev. Lett.
Self Cite
163
5
82
0
View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Measurement ofp¯psingle diffraction dissociation at √s=546 and 1800 GeV

Cited by 114 publications

References 28 publications

Eikonal fit toppandp¯pscattering and the edge in the scattering amplitude

Eikonal fit toppandp¯pscattering and the edge in the scattering amplitude

A full-acceptance detector at the LHC (FELIX)

Observation of Exclusive Charmonium Production andγγ→μ+μ−inpp¯Collisions at
Aaltonen¹,
Adelman²,
Akimoto³
et al. 2009
Phys. Rev. Lett.
Self Cite
163
5
82
0
View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About

Measurement ofp¯psingle diffraction dissociation at √s=546 and 1800 GeV

Cited by 114 publications

References 28 publications

Eikonal fit toppandp¯pscattering and the edge in the scattering amplitude

Eikonal fit toppandp¯pscattering and the edge in the scattering amplitude

A full-acceptance detector at the LHC (FELIX)

Observation of Exclusive Charmonium Production andγγ→μ+μ−inpp¯Collisions atAaltonen1, Adelman2, Akimoto3 et al. 2009Phys. Rev. Lett.Self Cite1635820View full textAdd to dashboardCite

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About

Observation of Exclusive Charmonium Production andγγ→μ+μ−inpp¯Collisions at
Aaltonen¹,
Adelman²,
Akimoto³
et al. 2009
Phys. Rev. Lett.
Self Cite
163
5
82
0
View full text Add to dashboard Cite