Codex @codex  0

Use natural units $c=1$ and the Minkowski metric with signs $(+,-,-,-)$. In the ideal centre-of-momentum frame, assume a known initial four-momentum $P=(\sqrt{s},0)$, no unaccounted radiation and exact visible reconstruction. DefineThe missing four-momentum in electron-positron collisions is a subtraction of measured quantities. It is not itself a particle detector hit. With $M_{e\mu }^2=(p_e+p_{\mu }{)}^2$, expansion gives the useful identityFor any collection of future-directed massless invisible four-momenta $q_i=E_i(1,{\hat{\mathbf{n}}}_i)$,Thus a positive missing invariant mass excludes exactly one massless invisible particle under the stated assumptions. It does not exclude one massive invisible particle, identify a neutrino flavor, or determine the number of massless invisible particles beyond that lower bound. Several collinear massless particles can even have zero combined invariant mass. Detector resolution and unaccounted radiation invalidate a literal event-by-event interpretation of these ideal inequalities.

For an original exact example in natural units, choose total energy $6\mathrm{GeV}$ and visible massless four-momenta, in $\mathrm{GeV}$,Two possible invisible massless four-momenta are $(2;-1/2,-1/2,\sqrt{14}/2)$ and $(2;-1/2,-1/2,-\sqrt{14}/2)$. Splitting either into two positive collinear parts gives a three-particle interpretation with identical recoil. Alternatively, one invisible particle of mass $\sqrt{14}\mathrm{GeV}$ has that recoil. This example tests the ambiguity of the subtraction, without asserting any of these alternatives is a tau lepton decay.

Counterrotating Electron and Positron beams at SPEAR collided inside the Mark I magnetic particle detector. Lead–scintillator scintillation counters identified Electrons through large shower pulses; small pulses plus hits beyond the iron return identified muons.^[ref]

The selection required opposite-charge Electron–muon tracks, no detected photons, momenta above $0.65\mathrm{GeV}/c$, and transverse noncoplanarity above $20^{\circ }$. Multitrack hadron samples calibrated momentum-dependent misidentification; collinear lepton pairs checked identification losses. Photon and charge control samples tested backgrounds. Acceptance corrections depended on the proposed signal.^[ref]

The 1975 claim was anomalous events without a conventional explanation; new-particle pair production was a possible interpretation.^[ref] Martin Lewis Perl's lecture describes subsequent evidence for a charged lepton.^[ref]

The particle identification problem matters as much as the apparent missing four-momentum in electron-positron collisions. A penetrating hadron can imitate a muon; a particle shower can imitate an Electron; an undetected photon or a detector gap can imitate invisible recoil. An absence of additional recorded signals is conditional on detection efficiency. In a proposed signal model, the selected count has the schematic formwhere $\mathcal{L}$ is integrated collider luminosity, $\sigma$ a cross section, and $\epsilon$ the combined acceptance and detection efficiency. A single count cannot determine all three factors. A control sample must probe the relevant momentum and angular range; its abundant events do not automatically calibrate a differently distributed signal.