4.7 Article

Testing the Majorana nature of gluinos and neutralinos

Journal

PHYSICAL REVIEW D
Volume 78, Issue 9, Pages -

Publisher

AMER PHYSICAL SOC
DOI: 10.1103/PhysRevD.78.095007

Keywords

-

Funding

  1. Korean Government (MOERHRD, Basic Research Promotion Fund) [KRF-2007-521-C00065]
  2. Bundesministerium fur Bildung und Forschung [05HT6PDA]
  3. Marie Curie Training Research Networks UniverseNet [MRTN-CT-2006-035863]
  4. ForcesUniverse [MRTN-CT-2004-005104]
  5. The Quest for Unification [MRTNCT-2004-503369]
  6. U.S. DOE, Division of HEP [DE-AC-0206CH11357]
  7. National Research Foundation of Korea [52314001, R11-2000-077-03002-0] Funding Source: Korea Institute of Science & Technology Information (KISTI), National Science & Technology Information Service (NTIS)

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Gluinos and neutralinos, supersymmetric partners of gluons and neutral electroweak gauge and Higgs bosons, are Majorana particles in the minimal supersymmetric standard model (MSSM). Decays of such self-conjugate particles generate charge symmetric ensembles of final states. Moreover, production channels of supersymmetric particles at colliders are characteristically affected by the Majorana nature of particles exchanged in the production processes. The sensitivity to the Majorana character of the particles can be quantified by comparing the predictions with Dirac exchange mechanisms. A consistent framework for introducing gluino and neutralino Dirac fields can be designed by extending the N = 1 supersymmetry of the MSSM to N = 2 in the gauge sector. We examine to which extent like-sign dilepton production in the processes qq -> (q) over tilde(q) over tilde and e(-)e(-) -> (e) over tilde (-)(e) over tilde (-) is affected by the exchange of either Majorana or Dirac gluinos and neutralinos, respectively, at the Large Hadron Collider (LHC) and in the prospective e(-)e(-) mode of a lepton linear collider.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available