4.8 Article

Odderon Exchange from Elastic Scattering Differences between pp and p(p)over-bar Data at 1.96 TeV and from pp Forward Scattering Measurements

期刊

PHYSICAL REVIEW LETTERS
卷 127, 期 6, 页码 -

出版社

AMER PHYSICAL SOC
DOI: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.127.062003

关键词

-

资金

  1. NSF
  2. Magnus Ehrnrooth Foundation (Finland)
  3. Waldemar von Frenckell Foundation (Finland)
  4. Academy of Finland
  5. Finnish Academy of Science and Letters (The Vilho Yrjo and Kalle Vaisala Fund)
  6. Circles of Knowledge Club (Hungary)
  7. NKFIH/OTKA [K 133046]
  8. Human Resources Development Operational Programme (EFOP) [3.6.1-162016-00001]
  9. Nylands nation vid Helsingfors universitet (Finland)
  10. MSMT CR (the Czech Republic)
  11. Janos Bolyai Research Scholarship of the Hungarian Academy of Sciences
  12. New National Excellence Program of the Hungarian Ministry of Human Capacities
  13. Polish Ministry of Science and Higher Education [MNiSW DIR/WK/2018/13]
  14. LLC (FRA) [DE-AC02-07CH11359]
  15. Department of Energy and National Science Foundation (U.S.)
  16. Alternative Energies and Atomic Energy Commission and National Center for Scientific Research/National Institute of Nuclear and Particle Physics (France)
  17. Ministry of Education and Science of the Russian Federation, National Research Center Kurchatov Institute of the Russian Federation, and Russian Foundation for Basic Research (Russia)
  18. National Council for the Development of Science and Technology and Carlos Chagas Filho Foundation for the Support of Research in the State of Rio de Janeiro (Brazil)
  19. Department of Atomic Energy and Department of Science and Technology (India)
  20. Administrative Department of Science, Technology and Innovation (Colombia)
  21. National Council of Science and Technology (Mexico)
  22. National Research Foundation of Korea (Korea)
  23. Foundation for Fundamental Research on Matter (Netherlands)
  24. Science and Technology Facilities Council and The Royal Society (United Kingdom)
  25. Ministry of Education, Youth and Sports (Czech Republic)
  26. Bundesministerium fur Bildung und Forschung (Federal Ministry of Education and Research) and Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft (German Research Foundation) (Germany)
  27. Science Foundation Ireland (Ireland)
  28. Swedish Research Council (Sweden)
  29. China Academy of Sciences and National Natural Science Foundation of China (China)
  30. Ministry of Education and Science of Ukraine (Ukraine)
  31. Science and Technology Facilities Council [ST/S000879/1] Funding Source: researchfish

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The study compared the elastic cross sections measured by D0 Collaboration and TOTEM Collaboration at different center-of-mass energies, revealing disagreement in certain regions and providing evidence for the existence of the odderon. By combining these results with other analyses, it was suggested as the first observation of the exchange of a colorless, C-odd gluonic compound.
We describe an analysis comparing the p (p) over bar elastic cross section as measured by the D0 Collaboration at a center-of-mass energy of 1.96 TeV to that in pp collisions as measured by the TOTEM Collaboration at 2.76, 7, 8, and 13 TeVusing a model-independent approach. The TOTEM cross sections, extrapolated to a center-of-mass energy of root s = 1.96 TeV, are compared with the D0 measurement in the region of the diffractive minimum and the second maximum of the pp cross section. The two data sets disagree at the 3.4s level and thus provide evidence for the t-channel exchange of a colorless, C-odd gluonic compound, also known as the odderon. We combine these results with a TOTEM analysis of the same C-odd exchange based on the total cross section and the ratio of the real to imaginary parts of the forward elastic strong interaction scattering amplitude in pp scattering for which the significance is between 3.4s and 4.6s. The combined significance is larger than 5 sigma and is interpreted as the first observation of the exchange of a colorless, C-odd gluonic compound.

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

4.8
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