1 / 11

Diffractive Higgs Production at the Tevatron and LHC

Diffractive Higgs Production at the Tevatron and LHC. Workshop on low x physics, Antwerp 2002. Brian Cox, Jeff Forshaw and Beate Heinemann. Phys. Lett. B 540 (2002) 263-268. Do we all disagree, and, if so, why? How sensitive are the predictions to the parameters of the pomeron trajectory?

calvin
Télécharger la présentation

Diffractive Higgs Production at the Tevatron and LHC

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Diffractive Higgs Production at the Tevatron and LHC Workshop on low x physics, Antwerp 2002 Brian Cox, Jeff Forshaw and Beate Heinemann Phys. Lett. B 540 (2002) 263-268 • Do we all disagree, and, if so, why? • How sensitive are the predictions to the parameters of the pomeron trajectory? • Can we check the LHC predictions in Run II? http://www.pomwig.com

  2. WHAT IS POMWIG ? • No doubt that Ingelman – Schlein works at HERA • Pomwig uses measured structure functions and flux from H1 OR user defined structure functions / flux PLUS all HERWIG hard sub-processes / hadronisation etc.

  3. What do we calculate? “Inclusive” (Central-inelastic) process p+p p + gap + H + X + gap + p Khoze, Martin & Ryskin, hep-ph/0207313

  4. What do we calculate?

  5. Enberg ~ 2 fb Results CDF measured   44  20 nb S2 = 0.1 S2 ~ 0.02 s ~6fb

  6. Higgs cross sections IP + IR, IP= 1.20, IR=0.57 (POMWIG defaults),  0.1 MH = 115 GeV

  7. What effect does the intercept have? H1 fit 2

  8. S2 = 0.02 fb fb Are these diagrams as large a contribution as KMR calculate? S2 = 0.1 (CDF data) Theory: S2 = 0.05 Khoze, Martin & Ryskin, hep-ph/0207313

  9. Can we see the exclusive contribution in the data? POMWIG does well at differential distributions Appleby & Forshaw, Phys.Lett.B451 108-114 (2002) Mass dist. similar (KMR hep-ph/0207313) Exclusive limit ~ 3.7 nbCDF Phys. Rev. Lett 85 4215 (2000) Exclusive calculation~ 1 nb (Khoze, Martin & Ryskin, hep-ph/0111078, 0006005)

  10. Exclusive vs. C.inel IP+IR IP+IR IP IP • Cross section depends critically on invariant mass of diffractive system (and available phase space for emission) consistent with CDF data CDF cuts: 0.035 <  < 0.095 0.01 <  < 0.03 KMR cuts: Dh < 2

  11. fb fb Summary • KMR and CFH agree, but CFH miss out LO piece, accounted for by larger gap survival factor • BDPR very large – can’t be accounted for by lower IP intercept • crucial (and possible) to observe exclusive dijet production in different mass ranges (~1 nb ET > 7 GeV) at Run II to check these conclusions.

More Related