Article
Reference
Direct Search for Dirac Magnetic Monopoles in pp Collisions at s√=1.96 TeV
CDF Collaboration
CAMPANELLI, Mario (Collab.), et al.
Abstract
We search for pair-produced Dirac magnetic monopoles in 35.7 pb−1 of proton-antiproton collisions at s√=1.96 TeV with the Collider Detector at Fermilab (CDF). We find no monopole candidates corresponding to a 95% confidence-level cross-section limit σ360 GeV/c2.
CDF Collaboration, CAMPANELLI, Mario (Collab.), et al . Direct Search for Dirac Magnetic Monopoles in pp Collisions at s√=1.96 TeV. Physical Review Letters , 2006, vol. 96, no. 20, p.
201801
DOI : 10.1103/PhysRevLett.96.201801
Available at:
http://archive-ouverte.unige.ch/unige:38318
Disclaimer: layout of this document may differ from the published version.
1 / 1
Direct Search for Dirac Magnetic Monopoles in p p Collisions at p s
1:96 TeV
A. Abulencia,23D. Acosta,17J. Adelman,13T. Affolder,10T. Akimoto,53M. G. Albrow,16D. Ambrose,16S. Amerio,42 D. Amidei,33A. Anastassov,50K. Anikeev,16A. Annovi,44J. Antos,1M. Aoki,53G. Apollinari,16J.-F. Arguin,32 T. Arisawa,55A. Artikov,14W. Ashmanskas,16A. Attal,8F. Azfar,41P. Azzi-Bacchetta,42P. Azzurri,44N. Bacchetta,42 H. Bachacou,28W. Badgett,16A. Barbaro-Galtieri,28V. E. Barnes,46B. A. Barnett,24S. Baroiant,7V. Bartsch,30G. Bauer,31
F. Bedeschi,44S. Behari,24S. Belforte,52G. Bellettini,44J. Bellinger,57A. Belloni,31E. Ben-Haim,16D. Benjamin,15 A. Beretvas,16J. Beringer,28T. Berry,29A. Bhatti,48M. Binkley,16D. Bisello,42M. Bishai,16R. E. Blair,2C. Blocker,6
K. Bloom,33B. Blumenfeld,24A. Bocci,48A. Bodek,47V. Boisvert,47G. Bolla,46A. Bolshov,31D. Bortoletto,46 J. Boudreau,45S. Bourov,16A. Boveia,10B. Brau,10C. Bromberg,34E. Brubaker,13J. Budagov,14H. S. Budd,47S. Budd,23
K. Burkett,16G. Busetto,42P. Bussey,20K. L. Byrum,2S. Cabrera,15M. Campanelli,19M. Campbell,33F. Canelli,8 A. Canepa,46D. Carlsmith,57R. Carosi,44S. Carron,15A. Carter,13M. Casarsa,52A. Castro,5P. Catastini,44D. Cauz,52
M. Cavalli-Sforza,3A. Cerri,28L. Cerrito,41S. H. Chang,27J. Chapman,33Y. C. Chen,1M. Chertok,7G. Chiarelli,44 G. Chlachidze,14F. Chlebana,16I. Cho,27K. Cho,27D. Chokheli,14J. P. Chou,21P. H. Chu,23S. H. Chuang,57K. Chung,12
W. H. Chung,57Y. S. Chung,47M. Ciljak,44C. I. Ciobanu,23M. A. Ciocci,44A. Clark,19D. Clark,6M. Coca,15 A. Connolly,28M. E. Convery,48J. Conway,7B. Cooper,30K. Copic,33M. Cordelli,18G. Cortiana,42A. Cruz,17J. Cuevas,11 R. Culbertson,16D. Cyr,57S. DaRonco,42S. D’Auria,20M. D’onofrio,19D. Dagenhart,6P. de Barbaro,47S. De Cecco,49 A. Deisher,28G. De Lentdecker,47M. Dell’Orso,44S. Demers,47L. Demortier,48J. Deng,15M. Deninno,5D. De Pedis,49 P. F. Derwent,16C. Dionisi,49J. Dittmann,4P. DiTuro,50C. Do¨rr,25A. Dominguez,28S. Donati,44M. Donega,19P. Dong,8 J. Donini,42T. Dorigo,42S. Dube,50K. Ebina,55J. Efron,38J. Ehlers,19R. Erbacher,7D. Errede,23S. Errede,23R. Eusebi,47 H. C. Fang,28S. Farrington,29I. Fedorko,44W. T. Fedorko,13R. G. Feild,58M. Feindt,25J. P. Fernandez,46R. Field,17 G. Flanagan,34L. R. Flores-Castillo,45A. Foland,21S. Forrester,7G. W. Foster,16M. Franklin,21J. C. Freeman,28Y. Fujii,26
I. Furic,13A. Gajjar,29M. Gallinaro,48J. Galyardt,12J. E. Garcia,44M. Garcia Sciverez,28A. F. Garfinkel,46C. Gay,58 H. Gerberich,23E. Gerchtein,12D. Gerdes,33S. Giagu,49P. Giannetti,44A. Gibson,28K. Gibson,12C. Ginsburg,16 K. Giolo,46M. Giordani,52M. Giunta,44G. Giurgiu,12V. Glagolev,14D. Glenzinski,16M. Gold,36N. Goldschmidt,33
J. Goldstein,41G. Gomez,11G. Gomez-Ceballos,11M. Goncharov,51O. Gonza´lez,46I. Gorelov,36A. T. Goshaw,15 Y. Gotra,45K. Goulianos,48A. Gresele,42M. Griffiths,29S. Grinstein,21C. Grosso-Pilcher,13U. Grundler,23 J. Guimaraes da Costa,21C. Haber,28S. R. Hahn,16K. Hahn,43E. Halkiadakis,47A. Hamilton,32B.-Y. Han,47R. Handler,57 F. Happacher,18K. Hara,53M. Hare,54S. Harper,41R. F. Harr,56R. M. Harris,16K. Hatakeyama,48J. Hauser,8C. Hays,15 H. Hayward,29A. Heijboer,43B. Heinemann,29J. Heinrich,43M. Hennecke,25M. Herndon,57J. Heuser,25D. Hidas,15
C. S. Hill,10D. Hirschbuehl,25A. Hocker,16A. Holloway,21S. Hou,1M. Houlden,29S.-C. Hsu,9B. T. Huffman,41 R. E. Hughes,38J. Huston,34K. Ikado,55J. Incandela,10G. Introzzi,44M. Iori,49Y. Ishizawa,53A. Ivanov,7B. Iyutin,31
E. James,16D. Jang,50B. Jayatilaka,33D. Jeans,49H. Jensen,16E. J. Jeon,27M. Jones,46K. K. Joo,27S. Y. Jun,12 T. R. Junk,23T. Kamon,51J. Kang,33M. Karagoz-Unel,37P. E. Karchin,56Y. Kato,40Y. Kemp,25R. Kephart,16U. Kerzel,25
V. Khotilovich,51B. Kilminster,38D. H. Kim,27H. S. Kim,27J. E. Kim,27M. J. Kim,12M. S. Kim,27S. B. Kim,27 S. H. Kim,53Y. K. Kim,13M. Kirby,15L. Kirsch,6S. Klimenko,17M. Klute,31B. Knuteson,31B. R. Ko,15H. Kobayashi,53
K. Kondo,55D. J. Kong,27J. Konigsberg,17K. Kordas,18A. Korytov,17A. V. Kotwal,15A. Kovalev,43J. Kraus,23 I. Kravchenko,31M. Kreps,25A. Kreymer,16J. Kroll,43N. Krumnack,4M. Kruse,15V. Krutelyov,51S. E. Kuhlmann,2
Y. Kusakabe,55S. Kwang,13A. T. Laasanen,46S. Lai,32S. Lami,44S. Lammel,16M. Lancaster,30R. L. Lander,7 K. Lannon,38A. Lath,50G. Latino,44I. Lazzizzera,42C. Lecci,25T. LeCompte,2J. Lee,47J. Lee,27S. W. Lee,51R. Lefe`vre,3 N. Leonardo,31S. Leone,44S. Levy,13J. D. Lewis,16K. Li,58C. Lin,58C. S. Lin,16M. Lindgren,16E. Lipeles,9T. M. Liss,23 A. Lister,19D. O. Litvintsev,16T. Liu,16Y. Liu,19N. S. Lockyer,43A. Loginov,35M. Loreti,42P. Loverre,49R.-S. Lu,1
D. Lucchesi,42P. Lujan,28P. Lukens,16G. Lungu,17L. Lyons,41J. Lys,28R. Lysak,1E. Lytken,46P. Mack,25 D. MacQueen,32R. Madrak,16K. Maeshima,16P. Maksimovic,24G. Manca,29F. Margaroli,5R. Marginean,16C. Marino,23
A. Martin,58M. Martin,24V. Martin,37M. Martı´nez,3T. Maruyama,53H. Matsunaga,53M. E. Mattson,56R. Mazini,32 P. Mazzanti,5K. S. McFarland,47D. McGivern,30P. McIntyre,51P. McNamara,50R. McNulty,29A. Mehta,29 S. Menzemer,31A. Menzione,44P. Merkel,46C. Mesropian,48A. Messina,49M. von der Mey,8T. Miao,16N. Miladinovic,6
J. Miles,31R. Miller,34J. S. Miller,33C. Mills,10M. Milnik,25R. Miquel,28S. Miscetti,18G. Mitselmakher,17 A. Miyamoto,26N. Moggi,5B. Mohr,8R. Moore,16M. Morello,44P. Movilla Fernandez,28J. Mu¨lmensta¨dt,28 A. Mukherjee,16M. Mulhearn,31Th. Muller,25R. Mumford,24P. Murat,16J. Nachtman,16S. Nahn,58I. Nakano,39
A. Napier,54D. Naumov,36V. Necula,17C. Neu,43M. S. Neubauer,9J. Nielsen,28T. Nigmanov,45L. Nodulman,2 O. Norniella,3T. Ogawa,55S. H. Oh,15Y. D. Oh,27T. Okusawa,40R. Oldeman,29R. Orava,22K. Osterberg,22 C. Pagliarone,44E. Palencia,11R. Paoletti,44V. Papadimitriou,16A. Papikonomou,25A. A. Paramonov,13B. Parks,38
S. Pashapour,32J. Patrick,16G. Pauletta,52M. Paulini,12C. Paus,31D. E. Pellett,7A. Penzo,52T. J. Phillips,15 G. Piacentino,44J. Piedra,11K. Pitts,23C. Plager,8L. Pondrom,57G. Pope,45X. Portell,3O. Poukhov,14N. Pounder,41
F. Prakoshyn,14A. Pronko,16J. Proudfoot,2F. Ptohos,18G. Punzi,44J. Pursley,24J. Rademacker,41A. Rahaman,45 A. Rakitin,31S. Rappoccio,21F. Ratnikov,50B. Reisert,16V. Rekovic,36N. van Remortel,22P. Renton,41M. Rescigno,49 S. Richter,25F. Rimondi,5K. Rinnert,25L. Ristori,44W. J. Robertson,15A. Robson,20T. Rodrigo,11E. Rogers,23S. Rolli,54 R. Roser,16M. Rossi,52R. Rossin,17C. Rott,46A. Ruiz,11J. Russ,12V. Rusu,13D. Ryan,54H. Saarikko,22S. Sabik,32 A. Safonov,7W. K. Sakumoto,47G. Salamanna,49O. Salto,3D. Saltzberg,8C. Sanchez,3L. Santi,52S. Sarkar,49K. Sato,53
P. Savard,32A. Savoy-Navarro,16T. Scheidle,25P. Schieferdecker,31P. Schlabach,16E. E. Schmidt,16M. P. Schmidt,58 M. Schmitt,37T. Schwarz,33L. Scodellaro,11A. L. Scott,10A. Scribano,44F. Scuri,44A. Sedov,46S. Seidel,36Y. Seiya,40 A. Semenov,14F. Semeria,5L. Sexton-Kennedy,16I. Sfiligoi,18M. D. Shapiro,28T. Shears,29P. F. Shepard,45D. Sherman,21 M. Shimojima,53M. Shochet,13Y. Shon,57I. Shreyber,35A. Sidoti,44A. Sill,16P. Sinervo,32A. Sisakyan,14J. Sjolin,41 A. Skiba,25A. J. Slaughter,16K. Sliwa,54D. Smirnov,36J. R. Smith,7F. D. Snider,16R. Snihur,32M. Soderberg,33A. Soha,7
S. Somalwar,50V. Sorin,34J. Spalding,16F. Spinella,44P. Squillacioti,44M. Stanitzki,58A. Staveris-Polykalas,44 R. St. Dennis,20B. Stelzer,8O. Stelzer-Chilton,32D. Stentz,37J. Strologas,36D. Stuart,10J. S. Suh,27A. Sukhanov,17
K. Sumorok,31H. Sun,54T. Suzuki,53A. Taffard,23R. Tafirout,32R. Takashima,39Y. Takeuchi,53K. Takikawa,53 M. Tanaka,2R. Tanaka,39M. Tecchio,33P. K. Teng,1K. Terashi,48S. Tether,31J. Thom,16A. S. Thompson,20 E. Thomson,43P. Tipton,47V. Tiwari,12S. Tkaczyk,16D. Toback,51K. Tollefson,34T. Tomura,53D. Tonelli,44 M. To¨nnesmann,34S. Torre,44D. Torretta,16S. Tourneur,16W. Trischuk,32R. Tsuchiya,55S. Tsuno,39N. Turini,44 F. Ukegawa,53T. Unverhau,20S. Uozumi,53D. Usynin,43L. Vacavant,28A. Vaiciulis,47S. Vallecorsa,19A. Varganov,33
E. Vataga,36G. Velev,16G. Veramendi,23V. Veszpremi,46T. Vickey,23R. Vidal,16I. Vila,11R. Vilar,11I. Vollrath,32 I. Volobouev,28F. Wu¨rthwein,9P. Wagner,51R. G. Wagner,2R. L. Wagner,16W. Wagner,25R. Wallny,8T. Walter,25 Z. Wan,50M. J. Wang,1S. M. Wang,17A. Warburton,32B. Ward,20S. Waschke,20D. Waters,30T. Watts,50M. Weber,28
W. C. Wester III,16B. Whitehouse,54D. Whiteson,43A. B. Wicklund,2E. Wicklund,16H. H. Williams,43P. Wilson,16 B. L. Winer,38P. Wittich,43S. Wolbers,16C. Wolfe,13S. Worm,50T. Wright,33X. Wu,19S. M. Wynne,29A. Yagil,16 K. Yamamoto,40J. Yamaoka,50Y. Yamashita,39C. Yang,58U. K. Yang,13W. M. Yao,28G. P. Yeh,16J. Yoh,16K. Yorita,13
T. Yoshida,40I. Yu,27S. S. Yu,43J. C. Yun,16L. Zanello,49A. Zanetti,52I. Zaw,21F. Zetti,44X. Zhang,23 J. Zhou,50and S. Zucchelli5
(CDF Collaboration)
1Institute of Physics, Academia Sinica, Taipei, Taiwan 11529, Republic of China
2Argonne National Laboratory, Argonne, Illinois 60439, USA
3Institut de Fisica d’Altes Energies, Universitat Autonoma de Barcelona, E-08193, Bellaterra (Barcelona), Spain
4Baylor University, Waco, Texas 76798, USA
5Istituto Nazionale di Fisica Nucleare, University of Bologna, I-40127 Bologna, Italy
6Brandeis University, Waltham, Massachusetts 02254, USA
7University of California, Davis, Davis, California 95616, USA
8University of California, Los Angeles, Los Angeles, California 90024, USA
9University of California, San Diego, La Jolla, California 92093, USA
10University of California, Santa Barbara, Santa Barbara, California 93106, USA
11Instituto de Fisica de Cantabria, CSIC-University of Cantabria, 39005 Santander, Spain
12Carnegie Mellon University, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania 15213, USA
13Enrico Fermi Institute, University of Chicago, Chicago, Illinois 60637, USA
14Joint Institute for Nuclear Research, RU-141980 Dubna, Russia
15Duke University, Durham, North Carolina 27708
16Fermi National Accelerator Laboratory, Batavia, Illinois 60510, USA
17University of Florida, Gainesville, Florida 32611, USA
18Laboratori Nazionali di Frascati, Istituto Nazionale di Fisica Nucleare, I-00044 Frascati, Italy
19University of Geneva, CH-1211 Geneva 4, Switzerland
20Glasgow University, Glasgow G12 8QQ, United Kingdom
21Harvard University, Cambridge, Massachusetts 02138, USA
201801-2
22Division of High Energy Physics, Department of Physics, University of Helsinki, Helsinki, Finland and Helsinki Institute of Physics, FIN-00014, Helsinki, Finland
23University of Illinois, Urbana, Illinois 61801, USA
24The Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, Maryland 21218, USA
25Institut fu¨r Experimentelle Kernphysik, Universita¨t Karlsruhe, 76128 Karlsruhe, Germany
26High Energy Accelerator Research Organization (KEK), Tsukuba, Ibaraki 305, Japan
27Center for High Energy Physics: Kyungpook National University, Taegu 702-701, Korea;
Seoul National University, Seoul 151-742, Korea;
and SungKyunKwan University, Suwon 440-746; Korea
28Ernest Orlando Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, Berkeley, California 94720, USA
29University of Liverpool, Liverpool L69 7ZE, United Kingdom
30University College London, London WC1E 6BT, United Kingdom
31Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, Massachusetts 02139, USA
32Institute of Particle Physics: McGill University, Montre´al, Canada H3A 2T8;
and University of Toronto, Toronto, Canada M5S 1A7
33University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan 48109, USA
34Michigan State University, East Lansing, Michigan 48824, USA
35Institution for Theoretical and Experimental Physics, ITEP, Moscow 117259, Russia
36University of New Mexico, Albuquerque, New Mexico 87131, USA
37Northwestern University, Evanston, Illinois 60208, USA
38The Ohio State University, Columbus, Ohio 43210, USA
39Okayama University, Okayama 700-8530, Japan
40Osaka City University, Osaka 588, Japan
41University of Oxford, Oxford OX1 3RH, United Kingdom
42University of Padova, Istituto Nazionale di Fisica Nucleare, Sezione di Padova-Trento, I-35131 Padova, Italy
43University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19104, USA
44Istituto Nazionale di Fisica Nucleare Pisa, Universities of Pisa, Siena, Italy and Scuola Normale Superiore, I-56127 Pisa, Italy
45University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania 15260, USA
46Purdue University, West Lafayette, Indiana 47907, USA
47University of Rochester, Rochester, New York 14627, USA
48The Rockefeller University, New York, New York 10021, USA
49Istituto Nazionale di Fisica Nucleare, Sezione di Roma 1, University of Rome ‘‘La Sapienza’’, I-00185 Roma, Italy
50Rutgers University, Piscataway, New Jersey 08855, USA
51Texas A&M University, College Station, Texas 77843, USA
52Istituto Nazionale di Fisica Nucleare, University of Trieste/Udine, Italy
53University of Tsukuba, Tsukuba, Ibaraki 305, Japan
54Tufts University, Medford, Massachusetts 02155, USA
55Waseda University, Tokyo 169, Japan
56Wayne State University, Detroit, Michigan 48201, USA
57University of Wisconsin, Madison, Wisconsin 53706, USA
58Yale University, New Haven, Connecticut 06520, USA (Received 13 September 2005; published 26 May 2006)
We search for pair-produced Dirac magnetic monopoles in35:7 pb1of proton-antiproton collisions at s
p 1:96 TeV with the Collider Detector at Fermilab (CDF). We find no monopole candidates corresponding to a 95% confidence-level cross-section limit <0:2 pb for a monopole with mass between 200 and700 GeV=c2. Assuming a Drell-Yan pair-production mechanism, we set a mass limit m >360 GeV=c2.
DOI:10.1103/PhysRevLett.96.201801 PACS numbers: 14.80.Hv, 13.85.Rm
The existence of magnetic monopoles would add sym- metry to Maxwell’s equations without breaking any known physical law. More dramatically, it would make charge quantization a consequence of angular momentum quanti- zation, as first shown by Dirac [1]. With such appeal, monopoles continue to excite interest and have been the subject of numerous experimental searches.
Grand unified theories predict monopole masses of about 1017 GeV=c2, so cosmic ray experiments have searched extensively for high-mass monopoles produced in the early universe [2 –5]. Accelerator searches for low- mass monopoles have looked for the effects of virtual monopole loops [6 –8], but the results have been ques- tioned [9]. Detector materials exposed to radiation from
pp collisions at the Tevatron have been examined for trapped monopoles, but the limit obtained depends on the model for the trapping of monopoles in matter [10]. There have been direct ionization searches using plastic track- etch detectors at accelerators, but the last one was per- formed more than a decade ago [11] with much lower luminosity than is now available. Despite these efforts, magnetic monopoles have not been discovered [12].
Magnetic monopoles have magnetic chargegsatisfying the Dirac quantization condition:
ge
@c n 2()g
e n
268:5n
wherenis an integer andis the fine structure constant. In this search, we consider ann1monopole with mass less than 1 TeV=c2, spin 12, and no hadronic interactions.
Monopoles are accelerated by a magnetic field and are highly ionizing due to the large value ofg=e.
This search uses a35:7 pb1sample ofpp collisions at s
p 1:96 TeV produced by the Fermilab Tevatron and collected by the CDF II detector during 2003 using a special trigger. The detector consists of a magnetic spec- trometer including silicon strip and drift-chamber tracking detectors and a scintillator time-of-flight system, sur- rounded by electromagnetic and hadronic calorimeters and muon detectors [13]. CDF uses a superconducting solenoid to produce a 1.4 T magnetic field. The field is parallel to the beam direction, which is taken as the z direction, with the azimuthal angle, and r the radial distance in the transverse plane.
The important detector components for this search are the central outer tracker (COT) [14] and the time-of-flight (TOF) detector [15], both positioned inside the solenoid.
The coverage of the cylindrical COT extends from a radius of 40 to 137 cm and to pseudorapidityjj 1. The COT consists of eight superlayers, each containing 12 layers of sense wires. The COT makes position measurements for track reconstruction as well as integrated charge measure- ments for determining a particle’s ionization energy loss dE=dx. The COT is surrounded by 216 TOF scintillator bars, which run parallel to the beam line and form a cylinder of radius 140 cm. Each TOF bar is instrumented with a photomultiplier tube (PMT) on each end. The TOF measures both the time and height of PMT pulses; the pulse height is typically used to correct for discriminator- threshold time slewing. Due to their large ionization and production ofrays, monopoles in scintillator with veloc- ity >0:2are expected to produce more than 500 times the light from a minimum-ionizing particle (MIP) [5,12].
We have built and commissioned a highly ionizing particle trigger that requires large light pulses at both ends of a TOF scintillator bar. The trigger was designed to detect monopoles efficiently while consuming less than 1 Hz of the CDF data acquisition bandwidth. The continu- ous low rate operation allowed us to validate the trigger performance for our entire data sample. The electronics
response of the TOF has been calibrated [16,17] to account for nonlinearities and channel-to-channel differences. The trigger thresholds of about 30 MIPs are well below the expected response to a monopole and have a negligible effect on the trigger efficiency.
In the CDF detector, a monopole is accelerated along the uniform solenoidal magnetic field in a parabola slightly distorted by relativistic effects. Because no other particle mimics this behavior, the TOF acceptance must be esti- mated from Monte Carlo simulation. We have extended the
GEANT3 simulation [17– 20] to handle magnetic mono- poles, including the acceleration from the magnetic field, energy loss, and multiple scattering [21]. We do not simu- late bremsstrahlung as this is a negligible effect for mono- poles in the mass range we consider.
Because the monopole-photon coupling is large and nonperturbative, there is no universally accepted field- theoretic calculation of magnetic-monopole production.
However, monopole interactions with matter, such as scat- tering, require only a replacement of the electric charge with the monopole’s effective chargeg. This has led the authors of Ref. [10] to adopt a heuristic production model by making the same replacement for Drell-Yan monopole pair production, which we take as our primary benchmark.
Either a monopole or antimonopole must reach the TOF detector in order to cause a trigger. To calculate the TOF acceptance for the heuristic pair-production mechanism, we produce lepton Drell-Yan events withPYTHIA[22], with the lepton mass replaced by the monopole mass, and weight events according to the additional velocity depen- dence. The TOF acceptance for monopole pairs simulated with GEANTis shown in Fig. 1. Light monopoles, accel- erated strongly by the magnetic field, tend to be swept out of the detector before reaching the TOF. Heavy monopoles, produced near threshold, suffer the same fate.
We calculate the effect of material interactions by com- paring the TOF acceptance for the full simulation with a ficticious detector consisting of the TOF only. The material
2] Monopole Mass [GeV/c
0 200 400 600 800 1000
TOF Acceptance
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1
Full Geometry TOF only
Systematic Uncertainty
FIG. 1. The acceptance of the TOF for monopole pairs, as a function of monopole mass, for Drell-Yan monopole pair pro- duction. The band indicates the total systematic uncertainty.
201801-4
in the detector lowers the acceptance by a small amount due to energy loss and multiple scattering. Although we cannot test the model for particle interactions experimen- tally, it is likely that additional corrections will be even smaller, so we assign a systematic error of one-half the total estimated effect, yielding a 3% systematic error for intermediate-mass monopoles. This method likely over- estimates the uncertainty; varying the energy-loss model between a naive model where e!gand the full treat- ment of Ref. [21] has a negligible effect.
The TOF acceptance depends on the monopole produc- tion kinematics. To quantify this dependence, we consider separately the Drell-Yan mechanism without the additional velocity dependence and with monopole production uni- form in the cosine of the polar angle in the center of mass frame. The total variation in the acceptance is 10%. We therefore present results for our benchmark mechanism only, with the understanding that mass limits for other production mechanisms can be inferred from the cross- section limit with reasonable accuracy.
During each event, the TOF electronics makes a single measurement for each PMT. Light from other particles, called spoilers, can reach a PMT before the light from monopoles, starting the charge integration. If the monopole light does not reach the PMT within the 20 ns charge integration window, the monopole’s light will not be inte- grated and the trigger will not fire. Our studies show that pure Monte Carlo simulation underestimates the effect of spoilers seen in data. We therefore estimate the spoiler fraction by embedding Monte Carlo produced monopoles in realZ!eedata. Because these are high-mass cen- tral events produced by a Drell-Yan mechanism, we expect the distribution of other particles in the event to be similar to that of a monopole-pair-production event. We exclude the bars with signals from the electrons and count the number of spoiler events, which have real pulses arriving more than 20 ns before the simulated pulse from a mag- netic monopole.
The systematic uncertainty is dominated by the uncer- tainty in the time needed to integrate enough of the mono- pole’s charge to cause a trigger. To quantify this effect, we note that rise times for TOF pulses are typically less than 1 ns and redo the calculation with a 15 ns integration window. We take one-half the difference as a systematic uncertainty. Other effects, such as the dependence on luminosity, are much smaller for our sample. For a 400 GeV=c2 monopole, the spoiler fraction is 2%1%
with a 3% systematic uncertainty.
Massive monopoles can have low velocities causing them to arrive at the TOF too late to cause a trigger. The timing acceptance is calculated with a Monte Carlo simu- lation by requiring pulses to arrive within the 54 ns timing window. Only heavy monopoles move slowly enough to be affected: a900 GeV=c2monopole is out of time in 10% of events. This is a negligible effect on lighter monopoles.
Monopoles curve in the rz plane, in sharp contrast to electrically charged particles, which curve in therplane.
A specialized reconstruction program isolates monopole candidates using data from the COT. Candidates consist of coincident track segments composed entirely of hits with large ionization, consistent with a straight line in the plane perpendicular to the magnetic field.
The COT electronics encodes the integrated charge as the width of a hit, which is the ionization measurement used for monopole candidate selection. A typical MIP produces hit widths of about 20 ns. An extrapolation of the nonlinear COT response for ordinary particles predicts that monopoles would produce hit widths of about 230 ns (1000 MIPs), still within the dynamic range of the COT.
We do not use this extrapolation. Instead we cut in the tail of the width distribution from ordinary tracks, found to be at 140 ns (50 MIPs) in minimum-bias data collected with an open trigger highly efficient for inelasticpp collisions.
Hits with charge below this amount are not considered by the monopole reconstruction. As magnetic monopoles have much greater ionization than the tracks used to de- termine this cut, it has a negligible effect on the efficiency.
The default COT tracking algorithm first reconstructs track segments in each of eight superlayers. It checks for hits loosely consistent with a straight line, using a tolerance of 20 ns. The identified hits in each segment are then fit to a circular trajectory. In the monopole algorithm, the seg- ments are required to be composed entirely of high- ionization hits. Also, because a monopole can be as slow as 0:1 with changing transverse velocity, the usual timing assumption (tflightr=c) cannot be used. Instead, the time of flight to each superlayer is varied betweenr=c and10r=cin 5 ns increments.
A monopole candidate consists of several-coincident, low-curvature segments. From Monte Carlo simulation,
COT Width Cut [ns]
0 50 100 150 200
Number of Candidates
10-1 1 10 102 103 104 105 106
Trigger Sample Min-Bias Data CDF Run II
Monopole Width Threshold Trigger Sample Min-Bias Data
FIG. 2. Number of monopole candidates as a function of COT width cut in offline reconstruction, in 100 000 minimum-bias events and the entire 130 000 event trigger sample. A 100 ns width cut corresponds to 15 MIPs. We expect monopoles to ionize more than 1000 MIPs or 232 ns.
we choose a loose cut on the segment curvature <
0:001 cm1, which for an electron would correspond to pT>4 GeV=c. Likewise, thetolerance is a loose 0.2 ra- dians. The remaining cuts are on the minimum number of hits needed in a segment and on the total number of -coincident segments required for a monopole candidate.
By ignoring the width cut, the segment-finding algorithm efficiency is measured in an independent data sample using high-pTtracks. In this manner, we choose a highly efficient cut requiring seven coincident superlayers with at least eight hits in each segment. This has a 94% efficiency with a 1% statistical uncertainty. For these cuts, the effi- ciency for finding high-mass monopole pairs calculated with the Monte Carlo simulation is nearly 100%. The efficiency for high-pTelectrons in simulation, after remov- ing the width cut, is also nearly 100%. There are real detector effects contributing a small inefficiency.
As an ionizing particle passes through matter, the most energetic electrons formrays. For highly relativistic low- mass monopoles, the large number ofrays confuses the segment-finding algorithm, lowering the efficiency. We check thatGEANTis properly producingrays by compar- ing the efficiency of monopoles to kinematically equiva- lent heavy ions simulated in the absence of a magnetic field. We scale the efficiency determined from Monte Carlo simulation to make the high-mass monopole efficiency agree with the high-pT track efficiency. As the small inefficiency from real detector effects cannot be measured directly on monopoles, we take one-half of the total in- efficiency as a systematic uncertainty: 3% for400 GeV=c2 monopoles.
To estimate how effectively the monopole reconstruc- tion rejects background, we use minimum-bias data. In8 105 events, the event most like a monopole has two coin- cident superlayers with seven hits per segment. Our mono- pole requirements are much more stringent. We require a sevenfold coincidence of eight hits or more, resulting in extremely small background. In the trigger sample the background is similarly small; the event most like a mono- pole has two coincident superlayers with six hits per seg- ment. In Fig. 2, we count the number of monopole candidates passing looser cuts on the hit width.
None of the 130 000 events from the monopole trigger sample passes the candidate requirements, and we report a limit [17]. Monopole production limits are typically re- ported by the cross-section upper limit as a function of monopole mass to minimize the dependence on a particular production model. The expected number of eventsNfrom a process with cross sectionand detector efficiency with acceptanceafter integrated luminosityLis given byN L. We calculate the cross-section limit for zero ob- served events, based on the efficiency summarized in Table I and a 6% uncertainty in the luminosity measure- ment [23]. We find the cross section for which pseudoex- periments with efficiency and luminosity chosen randomly according to their uncertainties yield one or more mea- sured events 95% of the time.
Our cross-section exclusion limit is shown in Fig. 3. Our limit excludes monopole pair production for cross sections greater than 0.2 pb at the 95% confidence level for mono- pole masses between 200 and700 GeV=c2. For the Drell- Yan mechanism, this implies a mass limit of m >
360 GeV=c2at the 95% confidence level. This is currently the best limit from a direct search. Additional Run II data will improve the sensitivity: another300 pb1 extends the mass reach by100 GeV=c2.
We thank the Fermilab staff and the technical staffs of the participating institutions for their vital contributions.
This work was supported by the U.S. Department of Energy and National Science Foundation; the Italian Istituto Nazionale di Fisica Nucleare; the Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science and Technology of Japan; the Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada; the National Science Council of the Republic of China; the Swiss National Science Foun- dation; the A.P. Sloan Foundation; the Bundesmini- sterium fu¨r Bildung und Forschung, Germany; the TABLE I. Efficiency of the monopole search with statistical
and systematic uncertainties for a monopole mass of 400 GeV=c2. The full mass dependence is accounted for in the limit.
Effect Efficiency
TOF geometric (MC) 70%3%3%
TOF response 100%
TOF spoilers 98%1%3%
TOF timing (MC) 99%1%1%
COT width cut 100%
COT segment finding 94%1%3%
2] Monopole Mass [GeV/c
200 400 600 800
Cross Section [pb]
10-3 10-2 10-1 1 10 102 103
Drell-Yan cross section 95% CL limit
CDF Run II
95% CL Limit
FIG. 3. The 95% CL cross-section upper limit versus magnetic-monopole mass. The theory curve for Drell-Yan mono- pole pair production intersects at the mass limit m >
360 GeV=c2. The cross-section limit is 2 orders of magnitude more stringent then the results of a previous direct search in this energy range [11].
201801-6
Korean Science and Engineering Foundation and the Korean Research Foundation; the Particle Physics and Astronomy Research Council and the Royal Society, UK;
the Russian Foundation for Basic Research; the Comisio´n Interministerial de Ciencia y Tecnologı´a, Spain; in part by the European Community’s Human Potential Programme under Contract No. HPRN-CT-2002-00292; and the Academy of Finland.
[1] Paul A. M. Dirac, Proc. R. Soc. A133, 60 (1931).
[2] I. De Mitri, hep-ex/0207051.
[3] S. D. Wick, T. W. Kephart, T. J. Weiler, and P. L.
Biermann, Astropart. Phys.18, 663 (2003).
[4] S. Cecchiniet al.(SLIM), Nuovo Cimento Soc. Ital. Fis. C 24C, 639 (2001).
[5] M. Ambrosio et al. (MACRO), Eur. Phys. J. C 25, 511 (2002).
[6] I. F. Ginzburg and A. Schiller, Phys. Rev. D 57, R6599 (1998).
[7] M. Acciarriet al.(L3), Phys. Lett. B345, 609 (1995).
[8] B. Abbottet al.(D0), Phys. Rev. Lett.81, 524 (1998).
[9] L. P. Gamberg, G. R. Kalbfleisch, and K. A. Milton, Found. Phys.30, 543 (2000).
[10] G. R. Kalbfleisch, W. Luo, K. A. Milton, E. H. Smith, and M. G. Strauss, Phys. Rev. D69, 052002 (2004).
[11] M. Bertaniet al., Europhys. Lett.12, 613 (1990).
[12] G. Giacomelli and L. Patrizii, hep-ex/0302011.
[13] R. Blair et al.,The CDF-II Detector: Technical Design Report, Report No. FERMILAB-PUB-96-390-E.
[14] T. Affolder et al., Nucl. Instrum. Methods Phys. Res., Sect. A526, 249 (2004).
[15] C. Grozis et al., Int. J. Mod. Phys. A 16S1C, 1119 (2001).
[16] G. Baueret al.,The Time-of-Flight Trigger at CDF, Report No. FERMILAB-PUB-05-331-E.
[17] M. J. Mulhearn, Ph.D. thesis, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, 2004.
[18] R. Brun, F. Bruyant, M. Maire, A. C. McPherson, and P. Zanarini,GEANT3, Report No. CERN-DD/EE/84-1.
[19] G. Bauer et al., Nucl. Instrum. Methods Phys. Res., Sect. A545, 503 (2005).
[20] P. Schieferdecker, Undergraduate thesis, Ludwig Maximillian University, 2001.
[21] S. P. Ahlen, Phys. Rev. D17, 229 (1978).
[22] T. Sjostrand, L. Lonnblad, and S. Mrenna, hep-ph/
0108264.
[23] S. Klimenko, J. Konigsberg, and T. M. Liss, Report No. FERMILAB-FN-0741, 2003.
