Past exam of the nuclear and particle physics course of the University of Oxford / 2021 (A16728W1)

Source paper: www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/oxford_physics_past_papers_2/response/2340696/attach/9/Physics%20Papers%202020.pdf?cookie_passthrough=1

The cover dates this paper to 2021; the public attachment is named 2020. The supplied copy has two missing figures on paper page 3 and no recoverable content on paper pages 4–5. The solutions below cover all recoverable labelled parts, with explicit limits where a missing figure prevents a numerical or labelled identification. No questions from the absent pages have been reconstructed.

TODO: recover source pages 4–5 and the missing track and resonance plots needed for question 2(c)–(e). Their source-specific conclusions remain incomplete.

All three interactions respect color charge; quark flavor is conserved by the strong interaction and the electromagnetic interaction, but can change in the weak interaction. These statements concern charges and net numbers, rather than an unchanging inventory of particles.

A quark transforms in the fundamental representation of the color charge gauge group $SU(3{)}_C$. The strong interaction can change an individual quark's colour by exchanging a gluon, which itself carries color charge. For example, the colour flow $q_r\to q_b+g_{r\bar{b}}$ is allowed: demanding that the outgoing quark remain red would be incorrect. At each interaction vertex the full colour flow is conserved. The colourless photon, W boson, and Z boson instead couple to a quark with an identity factor ${\delta }_{ab}$ in colour space. A weak charged current can therefore change $d_r$ to $u_r$, but cannot turn $d_r$ into $u_b$ without another coloured participant. External isolated hadrons are colour singlets; confinement prevents direct observation of a free coloured state.

For each quark flavor $f$, define the net quark flavor number $F_f=N_f-N_{\bar{f}}$. The strong interaction and electromagnetic interaction preserve every $F_f$: pair creation $g\to s\bar{s}$, for example, changes neither net strangeness nor any other $F_f$. Their quark couplings are diagonal in quark flavor. The weak charged current contains ${\bar{u}}_i{\gamma }^{\mu }(1-{\gamma }^5)V_{ij}{d}_j$, where $V$ is the Cabibbo-Kobayashi-Maskawa matrix, and changes these net numbers. Weak neutral currents are diagonal in tree-level Feynman diagrams; flavor-changing neutral currents can occur through higher-order Feynman diagrams.

The observed hierarchy of mean lifetimes and decay channels supplies evidence: associated strange-particle production through the strong interaction preserves net strangeness, whereas a kaon's weak interaction decay to pions changes it. The electromagnetic interaction process ${\pi }^0\to \gamma \gamma$ has zero net quark flavor before and after annihilation. Neutrino oscillations show that individual lepton family numbers are not exact conserved quantities. Within the usual effectively massless-neutrino approximation, charged current decays such as ${\mu }^{-}\to e^{-}{\bar{\nu }}_e{\nu }_{\mu }$ preserve family numbers only when the emitted neutrinos are counted.

Evidence for three colours includes the hadronic R ratio $R=3{\sum }_f{Q}_f^2$, the colour multiplicities in W boson decay widths, and three-jet events revealing gluon radiation. These test Quantum chromodynamics and its colour structure together; they are not direct measurements of a named red or blue charge on a free quark.

Two mechanisms are a tau lepton pair with two leptonic decays, and a W boson pair with two leptonic decays. With equal beam energies, the laboratory is the centre-of-mass frame, and four-momentum conservation gives $E_{\mathrm{miss}}=\sqrt{s}-E_{e^{-}}-E_{{\mu }^{+}}$ in natural units.

For the first mechanism,There are four escaping neutrinos. Each tau lepton decay proceeds through a virtual W boson. The fixed-charge final state has branching fraction $B_{\mu }{B}_e$; the factor two for the inclusive $e^{\pm }{\mu }^{\mp }$ sample does not apply when the charges are specified.

For the second mechanism,There are two escaping neutrinos. The leading Feynman diagrams comprise both $s$-channel photon/Z boson exchange and $t$-channel electron neutrino exchange. Their scattering amplitudes interfere; the complete set is needed for a consistent high-energy prediction. In particular, the neutrino-exchange diagram alone does not define an independently observable production rate.

A tau lepton pair has enhanced production at the Z boson particle resonance, $\sqrt{s}\simeq 91\mathrm{GeV}$. The four-neutrino missing energy has a broad continuous distribution. To derive a useful schematic, neglect daughter masses and parent spin correlations. In an unpolarized tau lepton rest frame, the Michel spectrum for $x=2E_{\ell }^{\ast }/m_{\tau }$ isA Lorentz boost gives $E_{\ell }/E_{\tau }=x(1+{\beta }_{\tau }u)/2$, with $u=\cos {\theta }^{\ast }$ uniform on $[-1,1]$ in this approximation. For ${\beta }_{\tau }\simeq 1$, the charged-daughter probability density function in $z=E_{\ell }/E_{\tau }$ isFor two independent decays, $y=E_{\mathrm{miss}}/\sqrt{s}=1-(z_1+z_2)/2$ has the convolutionand $⟨y⟩=0.65$. It vanishes at both endpoints and peaks on the larger-missing-energy side. This is a shape illustration, not the exact polarized Z boson prediction; spin correlations, acceptance, and radiative effects alter it.

The W boson process turns on near $\sqrt{s}=2m_W\simeq 161\mathrm{GeV}$. At exact on-shell production threshold, each neutrino has energy $m_W/2$, soThe cross section vanishes at the ideal two-body threshold, so this narrow limiting spectrum must not be called the maximum-rate spectrum. The large W boson-pair rate occurs above threshold, around $200\mathrm{GeV}$. There ${\beta }_W=\sqrt{1-4m_W^2/s}$ and each neutrino hasThusAn isotropic independent-decay schematic is triangular, centered at $E_{\mathrm{miss}}/\sqrt{s}=1/2$, with endpoints approximately $0.20$ and $0.80$ at $200\mathrm{GeV}$. Actual W boson particle polarizations and their correlations change this shape; their V-A interaction is not isotropic for a fixed helicity. The finite decay width, beam spread, and radiation also smear the edges.

The phrase “maximum rate” also needs a production regime: a Z boson peak is a resonant maximum, whereas pure photon-mediated tau lepton production has its continuum maximum near $4.2\mathrm{GeV}$. Indeed, ${\sigma }_{\gamma }\propto {\beta }_{\tau }(3-{\beta }_{\tau }^2)/s$ has $s=(1+\sqrt{21})m_{\tau }^2$. The displayed high-boost curve describes the resonant regime; at the continuum maximum use ${\beta }_{\tau }\simeq 0.532$ in the boost formula. An observed event-rate maximum additionally depends on collider luminosity and detection efficiency.

The ideal two-shower event fraction is $B_e^2$, approximately $4\%$ in simple channel counting or $3.18\%$ using the measured tau lepton electronic branching fraction. The selected particle decay chain isThe electron and Positron each make a contained electromagnetic shower; muons penetrate, and generic hadrons do not deposit all their energy as a contained electromagnetic shower.

To estimate $B_e$, use lepton universality and neglect final masses and Quantum chromodynamics corrections. The electronic and muonic decay widths each carry weight one. The accessible inclusive hadronic channels have weights $3|V_{ud}{|}^2$ and $3|V_{us}{|}^2$, where three is the color multiplicity in a decay width. The charm quark is inaccessible in physical tau lepton hadronic decays. With $|V_{ud}{|}^2+|V_{us}{|}^2\simeq 1$, the total weight is $1+1+3=5$, givingThe 2021 measured value $B_e=0.1782$ instead gives $B_e^2=0.0317552$.^[ref] The difference reflects effects omitted by the simple free-channel estimate, especially the hadronic contribution to the total decay width.

There are two tau leptons per produced pair and two per selected pair, so the fraction of all produced tau leptons belonging to these two-shower events is also $B_e^2$. The unrestricted fraction of individual tau leptons decaying electronically is $B_e$; these are different selections. A real high-energy shower cut gives an additional acceptance factor: $N_{\mathrm{selected}}/N_{\mathrm{pairs}}=B_e^2{\epsilon }_{ee}$, which cannot be computed without the cut and detector response. No factor of two is needed for the unique $e^{+}{e}^{-}$ assignment.

For a purely electromagnetic interaction continuum with five active quark flavors, the usual estimate is $N_{e^{+}{e}^{-}}/N_{\mathrm{had}}=3/11$. The unspecified particle resonance and the word “total” require qualifications before this can be treated as a unique physical prediction.

In natural units, neglecting final masses, single-photon annihilation givesHere $\alpha$ is the fine-structure constant, $Q_f$ the quark electric charge in elementary-charge units, and the factor three counts orthogonal colour final states. Consequently the inverse hadronic R ratio isWith $u,d,s,c,b$ accessible, the denominator is $3[2(2/3{)}^2+3(1/3{)}^2]=11/3$. The corresponding values for $u,d,s$ and $u,d,s,c$ are $1/2$ and $3/10$. Inclusive Quantum chromodynamics corrections increase the hadronic denominator, approximately by $1+{\alpha }_s/\pi$ away from thresholds and particle resonances. These are annihilation ratios before selection and detection efficiency corrections, not ratios of uncorrected detector counts.

A future muon-collider Higgs resonance is a plausible reading of part (c), since its narrow decay width makes a detuning of a few $\mathrm{MeV}$ relevant. Even then, two further assumptions are necessary. First, being a few $\mathrm{MeV}$ below the Higgs boson peak does not eliminate it: for detuning $\Delta =\sqrt{s}-m_H$, the ideal narrow Breit-Wigner resonance cross section retains the relative factorFor ${\Gamma }_H=4\mathrm{MeV}$ and $\Delta =-4\mathrm{MeV}$ this is $1/5$, not zero. Resonant hadronic production can still change the requested denominator substantially.

Second, at $\sqrt{s}\simeq 125\mathrm{GeV}$ the Z boson continuum is not negligible. A more complete annihilation estimate including both tree-level Feynman diagrams usesHere $s_W^2$ is the squared sine of the weak mixing angle, $T_3^f$ is weak isospin, and $N_c^f$ is one for a lepton and three for a quark. Thus the continuum ratio is $F_e/[3(2F_u+3F_d)]$, rather than necessarily $3/11$. For example, $s_W^2=0.231$, $m_Z=91.1876\mathrm{GeV}$ and ${\Gamma }_Z=2.4952\mathrm{GeV}$ give approximately $0.102$ at $125\mathrm{GeV}$ before Quantum chromodynamics corrections.

If the unspecified particle resonance instead means the Z boson, detuning by a few $\mathrm{MeV}$ is tiny compared with its $2.5\mathrm{GeV}$ decay width. The resonant ratio remains approximately $\Gamma (Z\to e^{+}{e}^{-})/\Gamma (Z\to \mathrm{hadrons})=1/20.767\simeq 0.0482$.^[ref] This is a concrete counterexample to treating any slight downward detuning as permission to discard the particle resonance. The source supplies neither its identity nor the detuning and selection needed for a unique all-process ratio. The boxed continuum formula is the charge-counting answer under its stated approximation; a literal total must also include remaining resonant and other accepted hadronic channels.

In ordinary perturbative Standard Model reactions all three interactions conserve electric charge, four-momentum, total angular momentum, baryon number, and total lepton number. The last two are accidental conservation laws of these perturbative processes, not exact nonperturbative statements: electroweak sphalerons violate $B+L$ while preserving baryon-minus-lepton number. Total color charge is respected throughout.

The strong interaction and electromagnetic interaction also conserve each net quark flavor number, including strangeness, charm and bottom flavour. The weak charged current can change them through the Cabibbo-Kobayashi-Maskawa matrix. Isospin is an approximate strong interaction symmetry in the small light-quark mass difference limit; the different electric charges of $u$ and $d$ break it in the electromagnetic interaction. Approximate flavor symmetry is distinct from exact net-flavour-number conservation by those interactions.

Parity conservation and charge conjugation symmetry hold for the electromagnetic interaction and, assuming a negligible strong CP parameter, the strong interaction. The weak interaction violates both, and also violates CP symmetry in suitable processes. CPT symmetry holds under the usual local Lorentz invariant quantum field theory assumptions. Individual lepton family numbers are conserved in the conventional massless-neutrino approximation but not in neutrino oscillations; an assertion of exact family conservation in all observed reactions would therefore be false.

The magnetic rigidity gives the momentum, the bending direction gives the sign of electric charge, and the calorimetric energy then gives the mass. For planar tracks perpendicular to a uniform magnetic field, the Lorentz force and circular motion giveTrace each track away from its production or decay vertex. With the magnetic field into the page, a positive track bends counterclockwise and a negative track bends clockwise. For example, a positive particle initially travelling left accelerates downwards. The known incoming negative pion fixes the sign convention experimentally. A radius alone does not distinguish electric charge signs.

For a calibrated total energy $E$, the relativistic energy-momentum relation givesIf the calorimeter instead supplies only kinetic energy $T$, solve $(T+m{c}^2{)}^2=p^2{c}^2+m^2{c}^4$ to obtainCompare with candidate pion, kaon, and proton masses, together with the electric charge sign and shower behavior. An electron makes an electromagnetic shower; a muon is penetrating; a hadron generally requires a hadronic calorimeter and its own calibration. If either energy escapes or the response is uncalibrated, simply substituting a deposited signal for $E$ need not identify the particle correctly. The absent figure prevents attaching identities to individual drawn tracks, but the requested identification procedure does not require its geometry.

The labels X and Y cannot be uniquely assigned from the surviving text: their decay vertices and daughter tracks were contained in the missing figure. The available conservation laws nevertheless specify how the assignment would be obtained.

The initial ${\pi }^{-}p$ state has $(Q,B,S)=(0,1,0)$, with $S$ denoting strangeness. At a primary strong interaction vertex all three numbers must be reproduced. A final Lambda baryon or Sigma baryon has $B=1$, $S=-1$ and therefore needs accompanying $S=+1$, for example a neutral kaon $K^0=d\bar{s}$ or a positive kaon $K^{+}=u\bar{s}$, with the remaining electric charge balanced. At later weak interaction decay vertices, strangeness need not be conserved; it would be wrong to enforce it there.

A displaced $p{\pi }^{-}$ pair with the appropriate invariant mass identifies ${\Lambda }^0\to p{\pi }^{-}$. A displaced ${\pi }^{+}{\pi }^{-}$ pair can identify $K_S^0\to {\pi }^{+}{\pi }^{-}$ after an invariant mass and kinematic check. For a candidate radiative Sigma-to-Lambda transition, the neutral parent satisfiesin natural units. Its photon energy in the parent rest frame is $(m_{\Sigma }^2-m_{\Lambda }^2)/(2m_{\Sigma })$. With known charged four-momenta, each unobserved neutral momentum is the difference between the incoming and visible outgoing momenta at its vertex; its inferred direction must agree with the dashed segment.

This information cannot establish which dashed segment was called X. For a concrete ambiguity, bothobey the primary electric charge, baryon number, and strangeness constraints and can yield a neutral kaon decay plus a displaced Lambda baryon decay. Their distinct neutral segments and the extra photon would be resolved by the missing topology and kinematics. The supplied possible Sigma baryon decay alone is insufficient to label X and Y. A labelled answer is therefore a source gap, rather than a completed identification.

The conversion from a measured beam peak to a particle resonance mass is fixed, but the missing graph supplies neither the peak position nor its width. Let $T_R$ be the incoming pion kinetic energy at the peak and $\Delta T$ the full width at half maximum after allowing for instrumental resolution. With a stationary proton and natural units,Thus the peak invariant mass isThe width must also be transformed to the centre-of-mass frame. To first order about the peak,For a broad feature, transform the two half-height positions separately: if they are $T_{-}$ and $T_{+}$, then the corresponding width in invariant mass is $\sqrt{(m_p+m_{\pi }{)}^2+2m_p{T}_{+}}-\sqrt{(m_p+m_{\pi }{)}^2+2m_p{T}_{-}}$. An energy-dependent numerator or width can also displace the observed maximum from the resonance pole parameter.

The low-energy ${\pi }^{+}p$ channel is normally dominated by ${\Delta }^{++}(1232)$, a Delta baryon with $Q=2$, $B=1$ and $I=3/2$. As an external reference example, not a reading of the absent plot, $M=1232\mathrm{MeV}$ and $\Gamma =117\mathrm{MeV}$ give $T_R\simeq 190\mathrm{MeV}$, $\Delta T\simeq 154\mathrm{MeV}$ and $\tau \simeq 5.63\times 10^{-24}\mathrm{s}$.^[ref] The actual graphical estimates remain unavailable. In particular, using the laboratory width directly in $\tau =\hslash /\Delta T$ misses the factor $m_p/M$.

A constant-width Breit-Wigner resonance cross section is the simplest nonrelativistic curve; a P-wave scattering width and relativistic kinematics explain important expected distortions. A comparison to specific observed deviations cannot be made without the missing plot.

Write $E$ for the centre-of-mass frame kinetic energy, $\mu =m_p{m}_{\pi }/(m_p+m_{\pi })$ for the reduced mass, and $k$ for the relative wave number. The nonrelativistic relations areFor an isolated particle resonance of spin $J$, averaging over the initial proton spin and using the zero pion spin givesFor the nearly elastic ${\Delta }^{++}$ state, $J=3/2$ and ${\Gamma }_{\pi p}\simeq \Gamma$, soFreezing $k$ at $k_R$ gives a symmetric Lorentzian centered at $E_R$, with full width at half maximum $\Gamma$ and height $8\pi /k_R^2$. This is the local curve to sketch. If the displayed variable is the beam kinetic energy $T$, its width is $\Delta T\simeq (m_p+m_{\pi })\Gamma /m_p$ within this nonrelativistic approximation. Keeping $k(E)$ changes the prefactor and hence the symmetry. Extending a constant-width approximation all the way to $E=0$ produces a spurious divergence, so it is not a valid threshold model.

The pion has intrinsic parity $-1$ and the proton has $+1$. The positive parity and $J=3/2$ of the Delta baryon require odd orbital angular momentum, with the lowest choice $l=1$. The finite-range partial-wave threshold law gives ${\Gamma }_{\pi p}(k)\propto k^{2l+1}=k^3$ near threshold. Inserting this in the elastic numerator makes ${\sigma }_{\mathrm{el}}\propto k^4$ away from the pole as $k\to 0$, rather than diverging. Equivalently the elastic scattering phase shift has ${\delta }_1=O(k^3)$, and ${\sin }^2{\delta }_1/k^2=O(k^4)$. Away from threshold, form factors and other channels modify the simple cubic width.

At the illustrative peak of part (d), the incident pion kinetic energy is comparable to its rest energy, so a nonrelativistic pion treatment is already inaccurate. The exact relative momentum iswith $\sqrt{s}=\sqrt{(m_p+m_{\pi }{)}^2+2m_{p}T}$. Relative to the symmetric local estimate, this changes the horizontal conversion, peak normalization and tails. The illustrative $1232\mathrm{MeV}$ peak has $p_{\ast }\simeq 227\mathrm{MeV}/c$, giving $8\pi (\hslash c{)}^2/(p_{\ast }c{)}^2\simeq 190\mathrm{mb}$ before small inelastic effects.

Finally, nonresonant partial waves can interfere with the resonant scattering amplitude, higher particle resonances and inelastic scattering channels can enter, and instrumental resolution can broaden a measured peak. These are physically distinct possible deviations; the missing data do not justify claiming any particular one was actually observed. Both the missing graphical overlay and its data-specific explanation remain source gaps.