| 1. |
- Schael, S, et al.
(författare)
-
Precision electroweak measurements on the Z resonance
- 2006
-
Ingår i: Physics Reports. - : Elsevier BV. - 0370-1573 .- 1873-6270. ; 427:5-6, s. 257-454
-
Forskningsöversikt (refereegranskat)abstract
- We report on the final electroweak measurements performed with data taken at the Z resonance by the experiments operating at the electron-positron colliders SLC and LEP. The data consist of 17 million Z decays accumulated by the ALEPH, DELPHI, L3 and OPAL experiments at LEP, and 600 thousand Z decays by the SLID experiment using a polarised beam at SLC. The measurements include cross-sections, forward-backward asymmetries and polarised asymmetries. The mass and width of the Z boson, m(Z) and Gamma(Z), and its couplings to fermions, for example the p parameter and the effective electroweak mixing angle for leptons, are precisely measured: m(Z) = 91.1875 +/- 0.0021 GeV, Gamma(Z) = 2.4952 +/- 0.0023 GeV, rho(l) = 1.0050 +/- 0.0010, sin(2)theta(eff)(lept) = 0.23153 +/- 0.00016. The number of light neutrino species is determined to be 2.9840 +/- 0.0082, in agreement with the three observed generations of fundamental fermions. The results are compared to the predictions of the Standard Model (SM). At the Z-pole, electroweak radiative corrections beyond the running of the QED and QCD coupling constants are observed with a significance of five standard deviations, and in agreement with the Standard Model. Of the many Z-pole measurements, the forward-backward asymmetry in b-quark production shows the largest difference with respect to its SM expectation, at the level of 2.8 standard deviations. Through radiative corrections evaluated in the framework of the Standard Model, the Z-pole data are also used to predict the mass of the top quark, m(t) = 173(+10)(+13) GeV, and the mass of the W boson, m(W) = 80.363 +/- 0.032 GeV. These indirect constraints are compared to the direct measurements, providing a stringent test of the SM. Using in addition the direct measurements of m(t) and m(W), the mass of the as yet unobserved SM Higgs boson is predicted with a relative uncertainty of about 50% and found to be less than 285 GeV at 95% confidence level. (c) 2006 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
|
|
| 4. |
- Engebretson, Mark J., et al.
(författare)
-
Interhemispheric Comparisons of Large Nighttime Magnetic Perturbation Events Relevant to GICs
- 2020
-
Ingår i: Journal of Geophysical Research - Space Physics. - : American Geophysical Union (AGU). - 2169-9380 .- 2169-9402. ; 125:8
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- Nearly all studies of impulsive magnetic perturbation events (MPEs) with large magnetic field variability (dB/dt) that can produce dangerous geomagnetically induced currents (GICs) have used data from the Northern Hemisphere. Here we present details of four large‐amplitude MPE events (|ΔBx| > 900 nT and |dB/dt| > 10 nT/s in at least one component) observed between 2015 and 2018 in conjugate high‐latitude regions (65–80° corrected geomagnetic latitude), using magnetometer data from (1) Pangnirtung and Iqaluit in eastern Arctic Canada and the magnetically conjugate South Pole Station in Antarctica and (2) the Greenland West Coast Chain and two magnetically conjugate chains in Antarctica, AAL‐PIP and BAS LPM. From one to three different isolated MPEs localized in corrected geomagnetic latitude were observed during three premidnight events; many were simultaneous within 3 min in both hemispheres. Their conjugate latitudinal amplitude profiles, however, matched qualitatively at best. During an extended postmidnight interval, which we associate with an interval of omega bands, multiple highly localized MPEs occurred independently in time at each station in both hemispheres. These nighttime MPEs occurred under a wide range of geomagnetic conditions, but common to each was a negative interplanetary magnetic field Bz that exhibited at least a modest increase at or near the time of the event. A comparison of perturbation amplitudes to modeled ionospheric conductances in conjugate hemispheres clearly favored a current generator model over a voltage generator model for three of the four events; neither model provided a good fit for the premidnight event that occurred near vernal equinox.
|
|
