How do neutralino interactions differ in amplitude analysis between SM and SUSY?

  • Context: Graduate 
  • Thread starter Thread starter ChrisVer
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Interactions
Join the discussion
Registration is free. Ask a follow-up in this thread, or start your own.
8 replies · 2K views
Messages
3,372
Reaction score
465
Do you have any source where I can check for the neutralino (higgsino or chargino/bino -like) interaction processes?
In general I'm trying to find the amplitudes in the Appendix A of:
http://journals.aps.org/prd/abstract/10.1103/PhysRevD.47.376
But without seeing a Lagrangian, I can't understand the possible contributing channels I think...
 
Last edited:
Physics news on Phys.org
Yes I am able to clear a lot of difficulties I've been having with it. But it's still a little bit complicated.
For example one can have the figures I attached for [itex]χχ \rightarrow ZZ[/itex]... which are 6 in number (n=1,2,3,4 for the neutralinos), and H,h are the two neutral scalar higgs bosons.
So in general I can write the amplitude for each one, right?
However I am not sure how is this kind of amplitudes written... Could someone check if the formula I'm using is correct for the small higgs?

[itex]M= [ \bar{u}_{χ} \gamma^{\mu} u_{χ}] \frac{1}{k^{2} -m_{h}^{2} +i m_{h} \Gamma_{h}} j_{\mu}^{ZZ}[/itex]

where u's are the spinors for the χ neutralinos... k is the momentum of the scalar higgs, [itex]m_{h}[/itex] its mass, [itex]\Gamma_{h}[/itex] its width and [itex]j_{\mu}^{ZZ}[/itex] the current of ZZ bosons (I don't know its form- any help?).
Thanks
 

Attachments

  • neutralinos.jpg
    neutralinos.jpg
    5.4 KB · Views: 396
I think that the [itex]\gamma^{\mu}[/itex] in the [itex]\bar{u}_{\chi}\gamma^{\mu}{u}_{\chi}[/itex] should be removed since the neutralinos couple to a scalar, not a vector. For the coupling of the higgs to the Z see feynman rules references, peskin for example. I think it it something like [itex]\frac{m_{Z}^{2}}{v}[/itex] .
 
I think in general the [itex]M[/itex] is the coupling of the one current with the other through the propagator.
[itex]M= j_{1}^{\mu} [prop]_{\mu \nu} j_{2}^{\nu}[/itex]
No?
A current then is supposed to have an index.
 
Well I tried to think of someway to do it, can someone check the amplitude please?
it's for: [itex]χχ \rightarrow h \rightarrow W^{+} W^{-}[/itex]
Can someone help me with how I can use the Feynman rules I've found?
For the coupling of [itex]χχh[/itex] I have:
[itex]-ig_{2} (c_{L} P_{L} + c_{R} P_{R} )[/itex]
So for this it's better to work with the left and right neutralinos separately and then add the amplitudes ([itex]M= M(χ_{L}χ_{L} \rightarrow W^{+}W^{-}) +M(χ_{R}χ_{R} \rightarrow W^{+}W^{-})[/itex] )

For the [itex]h W^{\pm}[/itex] vertex I found:
[itex]ig_{2} m_{W} n^{\mu \nu} \cos(\beta-\alpha)[/itex]

And the propagator is as given:
[itex]\frac{i}{k^{2}-m_{h}^{2} + i m_{h} \Gamma_{h}}[/itex]

What am I missing to get the [itex]M[/itex] is how to represent the outgoing particles...
is it fine to write for the fermionic neutralinos the [itex]\bar{u}_{χ} \gamma^{\mu} u_{χ'}[/itex] ?
I am not sure...
in any case it's like:

[itex]i M(χ_{j}χ_{j} \rightarrow W^{+}W^{-})= (-ig_{2} c_{j}) \frac{i }{k^{2}-m_{h}^{2} + i m_{h} \Gamma_{h}} ( ig_{2} m_{W} \cos(\beta-\alpha)) n^{\mu \nu} \epsilon_{\mu} \epsilon^{*}_{\nu}[/itex]

is that right?
 
Last edited:
The vertex for the ##\chi\chi h## interaction is what should be within the fermion bilinear. Basically you should have (given your Feynman rules)
$$
-ig_{2} \bar u_\chi (c_L P_L + c_R P_R) u_{\chi'} \frac{i }{k^{2}-m_{h}^{2} + i m_{h} \Gamma_{h}} ( ig_{2} m_{W} \cos(\beta-\alpha)) n^{\mu \nu} \epsilon_{\mu} \epsilon^{*}_{\nu}.
$$
Since the higgs is a scalar, it cannot interact with the vector current of the form ##\bar u \gamma^\mu u##. There is simply no way to contract the free Lorentz index.
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: 1 person
do the self couplings between gauge bosons change from SM to SUSY?
eg the coupling of [itex]Z^0 _{\lambda} (q), W^+_{\mu}(k_+), W^-_{\nu}(k_-)[/itex] is it still
[itex]i g \cos(\theta_{w}) [g^{\mu \nu} (k_{-}-k_{+})^{\lambda}+ g^{\nu \lambda} (-q-k_-)^{\mu} + g^{\mu \lambda} (q+k_+)^{\nu}][/itex]
as given in Peskin Fig 21.9, or is it changed?