Presentation is loading. Please wait.

Presentation is loading. Please wait.

Feb, 2006M. Block, Aspen Winter Physics Conference 1 A robust prediction of the LHC cross section Martin Block Northwestern University.

Published byDulcie Hines Modified over 8 years ago

Similar presentations

Presentation on theme: "Feb, 2006M. Block, Aspen Winter Physics Conference 1 A robust prediction of the LHC cross section Martin Block Northwestern University."— Presentation transcript:

1 Feb, 2006M. Block, Aspen Winter Physics Conference 1 A robust prediction of the LHC cross section Martin Block Northwestern University

2 Feb, 2006M. Block, Aspen Winter Physics Conference 2 1) Data selection: The “Sieve” Algorithm---“Sifting data in the real world”, M. Block, Nucl. Instr. and Meth. A, 556, 308 (2006). 3) Fitting the accelerator data---“New evidence for the Saturation of the Froissart Bound”, M. Block and F. Halzen, Phys. Rev. D 72, 036006 (2005). OUTLINE 2) New fitting constraints---“New analyticity constraints on hadron-hadron cross sections”, M. Block, arXiv:hep-ph/0601210 (2006).

3 Feb, 2006M. Block, Aspen Winter Physics Conference 3 Part 1: “Sifting Data in the Real World”, M. Block, arXiv:physics/0506010 (2005); Nucl. Instr. and Meth. A, 556, 308 (2006). “Fishing” for Data

4 Feb, 2006M. Block, Aspen Winter Physics Conference 4 Generalization of the Maximum Likelihood Function, P

5 Feb, 2006M. Block, Aspen Winter Physics Conference 5 Hence,minimize  i  (z), or equivalently, we minimize  2   i  2 i

6 Feb, 2006M. Block, Aspen Winter Physics Conference 6 Problem with Gaussian Fit when there are Outliers

7 Feb, 2006M. Block, Aspen Winter Physics Conference 7

8 Feb, 2006M. Block, Aspen Winter Physics Conference 8 Robust Feature:  (z)  1/  i 2 for large  i 2

9 Feb, 2006M. Block, Aspen Winter Physics Conference 9 Lorentzian Fit used in “Sieve” Algorithm

10 Feb, 2006M. Block, Aspen Winter Physics Conference 10 Why choose normalization constant  =0.179 in Lorentzian  0 2 ? Computer simulations show that the choice of  =0.179 tunes the Lorentzian so that minimizing  0 2, using data that are gaussianly distributed, gives the same central values and approximately the same errors for parameters obtained by minimizing these data using a conventional  2 fit. If there are no outliers, it gives the same answers as a  2 fit. Hence, when using the tuned Lorentzian  0 2, much like in keeping with the Hippocratic oath, we do “no harm”.

11 Feb, 2006M. Block, Aspen Winter Physics Conference 11

12 Feb, 2006M. Block, Aspen Winter Physics Conference 12

13 Feb, 2006M. Block, Aspen Winter Physics Conference 13

14 Feb, 2006M. Block, Aspen Winter Physics Conference 14

15 Feb, 2006M. Block, Aspen Winter Physics Conference 15

16 Feb, 2006M. Block, Aspen Winter Physics Conference 16 You are now finished! No more outliers. You have: 1) optimized parameters 2) corrected goodness-of-fit 3) squared error matrix.

17 Feb, 2006M. Block, Aspen Winter Physics Conference 17 Part 2: “New analyticity constraints on hadron-hadron cross sections”, M. Block, arXiv:hep-ph/0601210 (2006)

18 Feb, 2006M. Block, Aspen Winter Physics Conference 18 M. Block and F. Halzen, Phys. Rev. D 72, 036006 (2005); arXiv:hep-ph/0510238 (2005). K. Igi and M. Ishida, Phys. Lett. B 262, 286 (2005).

19 Feb, 2006M. Block, Aspen Winter Physics Conference 19

20 Feb, 2006M. Block, Aspen Winter Physics Conference 20

21 Feb, 2006M. Block, Aspen Winter Physics Conference 21 This is FESR(2) derived by Igi and Ishida, which follows from analyticity, just as dispersion relations do.

22 Feb, 2006M. Block, Aspen Winter Physics Conference 22 Derivation of new analyticity constraints Theoretical high energy cross section parametrization Experimental low energy cross section

23 Feb, 2006M. Block, Aspen Winter Physics Conference 23

24 Feb, 2006M. Block, Aspen Winter Physics Conference 24 so that:  exp’t (   ( 0 ), d  exp’t (   d  d  ( 0 )  d, or, its practical equivalent,  exp’t (   ( 0 ),  exp’t (   ( 1 ), for     for both pp and pbar-p exp’t cross sections We can also prove that for odd amplitudes:  odd ( 0 ) =  odd ( 0 ).

25 Feb, 2006M. Block, Aspen Winter Physics Conference 25 Francis, personally funding ICE CUBE Part 3: Fitting the accelerator data---“New evidence for the Saturation of the Froissart Bound”, M. Block and F. Halzen, Phys. Rev. D 72, 036006 (2005).

26 Feb, 2006M. Block, Aspen Winter Physics Conference 26

27 Feb, 2006M. Block, Aspen Winter Physics Conference 27

28 Feb, 2006M. Block, Aspen Winter Physics Conference 28

29 Feb, 2006M. Block, Aspen Winter Physics Conference 29 ln 2 (s/s 0 ) fit  =0.5, Regge- descending trajectory 7 parameters needed, including f + (0), a dispersion relation subtraction constant

30 Feb, 2006M. Block, Aspen Winter Physics Conference 30 Only 3 Free Parameters However, only 2, c 1 and c 2, are needed in cross section fits ! These anchoring conditions, just above the resonance regions, are analyticity conditions!

31 Feb, 2006M. Block, Aspen Winter Physics Conference 31 Cross section fits for E cms > 6 GeV, anchored at 4 GeV, pp and pbar p, after applying “Sieve” algorithm

32 Feb, 2006M. Block, Aspen Winter Physics Conference 32  -value fits for E cms > 6 GeV, anchored at 4 GeV, pp and pbar p, after applying “Sieve” algorithm

33 Feb, 2006M. Block, Aspen Winter Physics Conference 33 What the “Sieve” algorithm accomplished for the pp and pbar p data Before imposing the “Sieve algorithm:  2 /d.f.=5.7 for 209 degrees of freedom; Total  2 =1182.3. After imposing the “Sieve” algorithm: Renormalized  2 /d.f.=1.09 for 184 degrees of freedom, for  2 i > 6 cut; Total  2 =201.4. Probability of fit ~0.2. The 25 rejected points contributed 981 to the total  2, an average  2 i of ~39 per point.

34 Feb, 2006M. Block, Aspen Winter Physics Conference 34 Stability of “Sieve” algorithm Fit parameters are stable, essentially independent of cut  2 i We choose  2 i = 6, since R  2 min /  giving  0.2 probability for the goodness-of-fit.

35 Feb, 2006M. Block, Aspen Winter Physics Conference 35 log 2 ( /m p ) fit compared to log( /m p ) fit: All known n-n data

36 Feb, 2006M. Block, Aspen Winter Physics Conference 36 Comments on the “Discrepancy” between CDF and E710/E811 cross sections at the Tevatron Collider If we only use E710/E811 cross sections at the Tevatron and do not include the CDF point, we obtain: R  2 min /  probability=0.29  pp (1800 GeV) = 75.1± 0.6 mb  pp (14 TeV) = 107.2± 1.2 mb If we use both E710/E811 and the CDF cross sections at the Tevatron, we obtain: R  2 min /  =184, probability=0.18  pp (1800 GeV) = 75.2± 0.6 mb  pp (14 TeV) = 107.3± 1.2 mb, effectively no changes Conclusion : The extrapolation to high energies is essentially unaffected!

37 Feb, 2006M. Block, Aspen Winter Physics Conference 37 Cross section and  -value predictions for pp and pbar-p The errors are due to the statistical uncertainties in the fitted parameters LHC prediction Cosmic Ray Prediction

38 Feb, 2006M. Block, Aspen Winter Physics Conference 38 The popular parameterization  pp  s 

39 Feb, 2006M. Block, Aspen Winter Physics Conference 39

40 Feb, 2006M. Block, Aspen Winter Physics Conference 40 A 2- parameter   fit of the Landshoff-Donnachie variety:  ± = As  + Bs  ± Ds   using 4 analyticity constraints Horrible  2 /d.f.

41 Feb, 2006M. Block, Aspen Winter Physics Conference 41 1) Already known to violate unitarity and the Froissart bound at high energies. 2) Now, without major complicated low energy modifications, violates analyticity constraints at low energies. No longer a simple parametrization!

42 Feb, 2006M. Block, Aspen Winter Physics Conference 42

43 Feb, 2006M. Block, Aspen Winter Physics Conference 43 More LHC predictions Nuclear slope B = 19.39 ± 0.13 (GeV/c) -2  elastic = 30.79 ± 0.34 mb Differential Elastic Scattering

44 Feb, 2006M. Block, Aspen Winter Physics Conference 44 Saturating the Froissart Bound  pp and  pbar-p log 2 ( /m) fits, with world’s supply of data Cosmic ray points & QCD-fit from Block, Halzen and Stanev: Phys. Rev. D 66, 077501 (2000).

45 Feb, 2006M. Block, Aspen Winter Physics Conference 45 CONCLUSIONS  The Froissart bound for  p,  p and pp collisions is saturated at high energies. 3) At cosmic ray energies,  we can make accurate estimates of  pp and B pp from collider data. 4) Using a Glauber calculation of  p-air from  pp and B pp, we now have a reliable benchmark tying together colliders to cosmic rays. 2) At the LHC,  tot = 107.3  1.2 mb,  = 0.132  0.001.

46 Feb, 2006M. Block, Aspen Winter Physics Conference 46 Saturating the Froissart Bound  pp and  pbar-p log 2 ( /m) fits, with world’s supply of data Cosmic ray points & QCD-fit from Block, Halzen and Stanev: Phys. Rev. D 66, 077501 (2000).

47 Feb, 2006M. Block, Aspen Winter Physics Conference 47 All cross section data for E cms > 6 GeV, pp and pbar p, from Particle Data Group

48 Feb, 2006M. Block, Aspen Winter Physics Conference 48 All  data (Real/Imaginary of forward scattering amplitude), for E cms > 6 GeV, pp and pbar p, from Particle Data Group

49 Feb, 2006M. Block, Aspen Winter Physics Conference 49  2 renorm =  2 obs / R -1  renorm = r  2  obs, where  is the parameter error

50 Feb, 2006M. Block, Aspen Winter Physics Conference 50

51 Feb, 2006M. Block, Aspen Winter Physics Conference 51 Cross section fits for E cms > 6 GeV, anchored at 2.6 GeV,  + p and  - p, after applying “Sieve” algorithm

52 Feb, 2006M. Block, Aspen Winter Physics Conference 52  -value fits for E cms > 6 GeV, anchored at 2.6 GeV,  + p and  - p, after applying “Sieve” algorithm

53 Feb, 2006M. Block, Aspen Winter Physics Conference 53  p log 2 ( /m) fit, compared to the  p even amplitude fit M. Block and F. Halzen, Phys Rev D 70, 091901, (2004)

54 Feb, 2006M. Block, Aspen Winter Physics Conference 54 All cross section data for E cms > 6 GeV,  + p and  - p, from Particle Data Group

55 Feb, 2006M. Block, Aspen Winter Physics Conference 55 All  data (Real/Imaginary of forward scattering amplitude), for E cms > 6 GeV,  + p and  - p, from Particle Data Group

56 Feb, 2006M. Block, Aspen Winter Physics Conference 56 Cross section fits for E cms > 6 GeV, anchored at 2.6 GeV,  + p and  - p, after applying “Sieve” algorithm

57 Feb, 2006M. Block, Aspen Winter Physics Conference 57  -value fits for E cms > 6 GeV, anchored at 2.6 GeV,  + p and  - p, after applying “Sieve” algorithm

58 Feb, 2006M. Block, Aspen Winter Physics Conference 58  p log 2 ( /m) fit, compared to the  p even amplitude fit M. Block and F. Halzen, Phys Rev D 70, 091901, (2004)

59 Feb, 2006M. Block, Aspen Winter Physics Conference 59 Part 3: The Glauber calculation: Obtaining the p-air cross section from accelerator data, M. Block and R. Engel Ralph Engel, At Work

60 Feb, 2006M. Block, Aspen Winter Physics Conference 60 Glauber calculation: B (nuclear slope) vs.  pp, as a function of  p-air  pp from ln 2 (s) fit and B from QCD-fit HiRes Point

61 Feb, 2006M. Block, Aspen Winter Physics Conference 61 Glauber calculation with inelastic screening, M. Block and R. Engel (unpublished) B (nuclear slope) vs.  pp, as a function of  p-air  pp from ln 2 (s) fit and B from QCD-fit HiRes Point

62 Feb, 2006M. Block, Aspen Winter Physics Conference 62 k = 1.287

63 Feb, 2006M. Block, Aspen Winter Physics Conference 63  p-air as a function of  s, with inelastic screening  p-air inel = 456  17(stat)+39(sys)-11(sys) mb

64 Feb, 2006M. Block, Aspen Winter Physics Conference 64 To obtain  pp from  p-air

65 Feb, 2006M. Block, Aspen Winter Physics Conference 65

66 Feb, 2006M. Block, Aspen Winter Physics Conference 66 The published cosmic ray data (the Diamond and Triangles) are the problem

67 Feb, 2006M. Block, Aspen Winter Physics Conference 67 CONCLUSIONS  The Froissart bound for pp collisions is saturated at high energies. 2) At cosmic ray energies,  we have accurate estimates of  pp and B pp from collider data. 3) The Glauber calculation of  p-air from  pp and B pp is reliable. 4) The HiRes value (almost model independent) of  p-air is in reasonable agreement with the collider prediction. 5) We now have a good benchmark, tying together colliders with cosmic rays

68 Feb, 2006M. Block, Aspen Winter Physics Conference 68

Download ppt "Feb, 2006M. Block, Aspen Winter Physics Conference 1 A robust prediction of the LHC cross section Martin Block Northwestern University."

Similar presentations

Modeling of Data. Basic Bayes theorem Bayes theorem relates the conditional probabilities of two events A, and B: A might be a hypothesis and B might.

Modeling of Data. Basic Bayes theorem Bayes theorem relates the conditional probabilities of two events A, and B: A might be a hypothesis and B might.
Integral and derivative dispersion relations, analysis of the forward scattering data J.R. Cudell *, E. Martynov *+, O.V.Selyugin *# * Institut de Physique,

Integral and derivative dispersion relations, analysis of the forward scattering data J.R. Cudell *, E. Martynov *+, O.V.Selyugin *# * Institut de Physique,
Sept. 7-13, 2005M. Block, Prague, c2cr 20051 The Elusive p-air Cross Section.

Sept. 7-13, 2005M. Block, Prague, c2cr The Elusive p-air Cross Section.
June 6 th, 2011 N. Cartiglia 1 “Measurement of the pp inelastic cross section using pile-up events with the CMS detector” 1 2 4 3 8 5 6 7 How to use pile-up.

June 6 th, 2011 N. Cartiglia 1 “Measurement of the pp inelastic cross section using pile-up events with the CMS detector” How to use pile-up.
L.V. Fil’kov, V.L. Kashevarov Lebedev Physical Institute Dipole and quadrupole polarizabilities of the pion NSTAR 2007.

L.V. Fil’kov, V.L. Kashevarov Lebedev Physical Institute Dipole and quadrupole polarizabilities of the pion NSTAR 2007.
R Measurement at charm resonant region Haiming HU BES Collaboration Charm 2007 Cornell University Ithaca, NY. US.

R Measurement at charm resonant region Haiming HU BES Collaboration Charm 2007 Cornell University Ithaca, NY. US.
4/28/05 M. BlockAspen Cosmic Ray Workshop1 The Elusive p-air Cross Section Martin Block Northwestern University 1)Sifting data in the real world 2) Obtaining.

4/28/05 M. BlockAspen Cosmic Ray Workshop1 The Elusive p-air Cross Section Martin Block Northwestern University 1)Sifting data in the real world 2) Obtaining.
G. Cowan Lectures on Statistical Data Analysis 1 Statistical Data Analysis: Lecture 10 1Probability, Bayes’ theorem, random variables, pdfs 2Functions.

G. Cowan Lectures on Statistical Data Analysis 1 Statistical Data Analysis: Lecture 10 1Probability, Bayes’ theorem, random variables, pdfs 2Functions.
Diffractive x-sections and event final states at the LHC Konstantin Goulianos The Rockefeller University / Diffraction Day.

Diffractive x-sections and event final states at the LHC Konstantin Goulianos The Rockefeller University / Diffraction Day.
Diffraction, saturation, and pp cross-sections at the LHC Diffraction, saturation and pp cross sections at the LHC Konstantin Goulianos The Rockefeller.

Diffraction, saturation, and pp cross-sections at the LHC Diffraction, saturation and pp cross sections at the LHC Konstantin Goulianos The Rockefeller.
April 15-19, 2007M. Block, Aspen Workshop Cosmic Ray Physics 2007 1 Imposing the Froissart Bound on Hadronic Interactions: Part I, p-air cross sections.

April 15-19, 2007M. Block, Aspen Workshop Cosmic Ray Physics Imposing the Froissart Bound on Hadronic Interactions: Part I, p-air cross sections.
September 17-20, 2003.Kenichi Hatakeyama1 Soft Double Pomeron Exchange in CDF Run I Kenichi Hatakeyama The Rockefeller University for the CDF Collaboration.

September 17-20, 2003.Kenichi Hatakeyama1 Soft Double Pomeron Exchange in CDF Run I Kenichi Hatakeyama The Rockefeller University for the CDF Collaboration.
April 15-19, 2007M. Block, Aspen Workshop Cosmic Ray Physics 2007 1 Imposing the Froissart Bound on Hadronic Interactions: Part II, Deep Inelastic Scattering.

April 15-19, 2007M. Block, Aspen Workshop Cosmic Ray Physics Imposing the Froissart Bound on Hadronic Interactions: Part II, Deep Inelastic Scattering.
1. Introduction 2.     3.  p    n 4.     5.     A   A 6. Discussion 7. Summary Bosen Workshop 2007 Review on.

1. Introduction 2.     3.  p    n 4.     5.     A   A 6. Discussion 7. Summary Bosen Workshop 2007 Review on.
Diffractive and Total pp cross sections at LHC K. Goulianos EDS 2009, June 29-July 3 1 Diffractive and Total pp Cross Sections at LHC Konstantin Goulianos.

Diffractive and Total pp cross sections at LHC K. Goulianos EDS 2009, June 29-July 3 1 Diffractive and Total pp Cross Sections at LHC Konstantin Goulianos.
Sept. 12-15, 2005M. Block, Phystat 05, Oxford PHYSTAT 05 - Oxford 12th - 15th September 2005 Statistical problems in Particle Physics, Astrophysics and.

Sept , 2005M. Block, Phystat 05, Oxford PHYSTAT 05 - Oxford 12th - 15th September 2005 Statistical problems in Particle Physics, Astrophysics and.
Diffractive and total pp cross sections at the LHC and beyond Konstantin Goulianos The Rockefeller University

Diffractive and total pp cross sections at the LHC and beyond Konstantin Goulianos The Rockefeller University
Rao-Cramer-Frechet (RCF) bound of minimum variance (w/o proof) Variance of an estimator of single parameter is limited as: is called “efficient” when the.

Rao-Cramer-Frechet (RCF) bound of minimum variance (w/o proof) Variance of an estimator of single parameter is limited as: is called “efficient” when the.
M. Giorgini University of Bologna, Italy, and INFN Limits on Lorentz invariance violation in atmospheric neutrino oscillations using MACRO data From Colliders.

M. Giorgini University of Bologna, Italy, and INFN Limits on Lorentz invariance violation in atmospheric neutrino oscillations using MACRO data From Colliders.
880.P20 Winter 2006 Richard Kass 1 Maximum Likelihood Method (MLM) Does this procedure make sense? The MLM answers this question and provides a method.

880.P20 Winter 2006 Richard Kass 1 Maximum Likelihood Method (MLM) Does this procedure make sense? The MLM answers this question and provides a method.

Similar presentations

Ads by Google