Past exam of the sub-atomic physics course of the University of Oxford / 2016 / 4

For the first generation the flavor-diagonal weak neutral current permitsEach quark channel has three possible matching color charges. The weak charged current permitsThe two charges have equal partial decay widths to charge-conjugate channels to the accuracy needed here. Lepton universality and color multiplicity in a decay width give one unit of width for a massless lepton pair and three for a quark pair, apart from quark mixing and radiative corrections.

If only the first generation is included, the branching fractions are $1/(1+3)=1/4$ to the lepton channel and $3/4$ to quarks. For the actual accessible Standard Model channels, there are three lepton units and two accessible up-type quark rows, $u$ and $c$, each with three colors. The top quark is too heavy. Unitarity of the CKM matrix sums over accessible down-type partners, giving nine units in total:These fractions concern a charged lepton together with its appropriate neutrino; “lepton pair” does not mean two charged leptons in a $W$ decay. The Z boson has different vector and axial couplings for different fermions, so the same simple equal-unit rule cannot be transferred to all its partial decay widths.

Using the measured single-flavor leptonic partial decay width as one unit,This agrees with three leptonic channels plus six color-distinguishable quark channels in the leading massless approximation. The six quark units are two accessible up-type flavors times three color charges, with the sums of squared CKM matrix elements over down-type partners approximately unity. They are not nine generations or nine new flavors. Small mass and Quantum chromodynamics radiative corrections prevent the ratio from being an exactly integer channel count.

An extra active generation with the same weak neutral current couplings would increase the Z boson total decay width if any new particle–antiparticle pair were light enough. A simple sufficient kinematic condition for closing each such two-body channel isThe corresponding within-generation W boson channels close whenIf both members of each doublet already exceed $m_Z/2$, these two sum constraints follow automatically. Mixing with lighter generations can also open charged-current channels involving one heavy and one light particle, depending on the mixing amplitudes; that information is not specified.

These are threshold estimates, not precise confidence limits. Close to threshold, two-body decay phase space suppresses a new partial decay width, and a quantitative lower mass bound requires the experimental width uncertainties and the fermion's couplings. The given observations yield no upper mass bound. A sterile neutrino with no standard active coupling would not obey the stated $Z$-width inference, whereas the question specifies the same quantum numbers as the existing generations.

Under the stipulated peak-energy approximation, set $E=m_V$ separately for $V=W,Z$ in the supplied Breit-Wigner resonance cross section. For a spin-one resonance,Define the measured ratio as $R=\sigma (W\to \ell \nu )/\sigma (Z\to \ell \ell )$. With the known production prefactor ratio neglected as instructed, the spin factors cancel andSolving for the positive physical width givesIf the production prefactors are retained as $C_W,C_Z$, multiply the quantity under the square root by $C_W/C_Z$. The partial decay widths in this extraction are calculated inputs, while the total decay width being inferred need not be fixed to its Standard Model value.

The peak and integrated resonance width dependence explains why the square root is essential to the specified peak approximation. An energy-integrated narrow-width cross section contains one inverse power of the total decay width, because integrating over the resonance supplies a factor proportional to its width. That different observable leads to a different extraction formula. Real hadron-collider analyses also include parton distribution functions and the energy convolution; the present result follows the explicit approximation in the source.

The new light active leptons open one additional $W\to \sigma N$ channel and two $Z$ channels. At the stated equal-partial-width approximation,The quoted $501$ MeV is the total invisible width into the three known neutrino flavors, not the width into one flavor. The invisible Z width per active neutrino fixes this interpretation. The notation in the numerical input is ambiguous; the Standard Model normalization fixes the new active-neutrino contribution to $501/3=167$ MeV. Adding the new charged-lepton width therefore givesThis interpretation is consistent with the usual determination of the effective number of active neutrinos from the invisible width divided by the predicted width of a single species.^[ref]

Keep the original light-fermion production and observed-decay partial decay widths, masses and prefactors fixed. New leptonic channels alter their branching fractions through the total widths. From the peak formula in d,Consequently,The relatively small change is a cancellation between the increase in the two total widths; each separately changes substantially more. This assumes that the new quarks do not contribute and that adding leptons leaves the old partial decay widths unchanged.

If the source's $501$ MeV were instead imposed literally as the width of a single neutrino flavor, the algebra would give ${\Gamma }_Z^{\prime }=3080$ MeV and $R^{\prime }/R=1.23401$. That would be a different numerical premise, inconsistent with the Standard Model interpretation of the supplied invisible-width value. It is recorded to make the normalization issue explicit, rather than silently treating the three-flavor sum as a one-flavor partial decay width.

For a measurement of the cross-section ratio with standard deviation $0.019R$, the separation of the fourth-lepton prediction from the ordinary prediction isThus the peak-ratio model predicts only about a one-standard-deviation shift in this observable. In contrast, the direct Z boson width changes by $167+84=251$ MeV, givingUnder these assumptions the direct width measurement is overwhelmingly more sensitive. These are separate expected displacements, using the supplied experimental uncertainties and fixed theoretical inputs; they are not a combined statistical significance. The $501/3$ single-neutrino normalization and the peak-energy assumption are the same as in e. If the alternative literal $501$ MeV per neutrino premise were used, the corresponding displacements would instead be $12.3$ and $254$ standard deviations, illustrating why that normalization must be stated.