4.7 Article

Observation of Odderon effects at LHC energies: a real extended Bialas-Bzdak model study

期刊

EUROPEAN PHYSICAL JOURNAL C
卷 81, 期 7, 页码 -

出版社

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1140/epjc/s10052-021-09381-5

关键词

-

资金

  1. Ministry of Human Capacities [UNKP-18-2]
  2. NKFIH [FK-123842, FK-123959, K133046]
  3. COST Action Theory of hot matter and relativistic heavy-ion collisions (THOR) of the European Union [CA15213]
  4. [EFOP 3.6.1-16-2016-00001]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The study applies the unitarily extended Bialas-Bzdak model to describe the differential cross-section of elastic proton-proton and proton-antiproton collisions, finding significant differences between the two at different energies. The results provide statistically significant evidence for a crossing-odd component of the elastic scattering amplitude at at least the 7.08 sigma level.
The unitarily extended Bialas-Bzdak model of elastic proton-proton scattering is applied, without modifications, to describe the differential cross-section of elastic proton-antiproton collisions in the TeV energy range, and to extrapolate these differential cross-sections to LHC energies. In this model-dependent study we find that the differential cross-sections of elastic proton-proton collision data at 2.76 and 7 TeV energies differ significantly from the differential cross-section of elastic proton-antiproton collisions extrapolated to these energies. The elastic proton-proton differential cross-sections, extrapolated to 1.96 TeV energy with the help of this extended Bialas-Bzdak model do not differ significantly from that of elastic proton-antiproton collisions, within the theoretical errors of the extrapolation. Taken together these results provide a model-dependent, but statistically significant evidence for a crossing-odd component of the elastic scattering amplitude at the at least 7.08 sigma level. From the reconstructed Odderon and Pomeron amplitudes, we determine the s dependence of the corresponding total and differential cross-sections.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据