Branching ratios | Higgs phenomenology

In summary, the conversation discusses the study of Higgs phenomenology and its branching ratios (BRs). The reasoning behind the BRs for different channels is explored, including the impact of coupling constants, intermediate particles, and mass differences. The discussion also touches on the Feynman diagrams (FDs) associated with certain channels and the factors that influence their BRs. A sudden minimum in the BRs for Higgs decays to Z bosons is also discussed, along with the role of virtuality and on-shell effects. The conversation ends with a request for further discussion and input from others.
  • #1
JD_PM
1,131
158
TL;DR Summary
I want to understand why some branching ratios (BRs) are greater than others and discuss some other features of the attached plot. Besides, I want to figure out the Feynman diagrams (FDs) I do not find in the literature.

I will bold the ideas I would like to discuss so that they are easier to identify.
Hi everyone!

I am studying Higgs phenomenology, in particular its BRs

HiggsBR.png
HiggsBR.Data.png


My line of reasoning is this: I first had a look at the decays where the Higgs particle couples directly (i.e. without intermediate particles) to the products; those are ##H^0 \to b \bar b, \ H^0 \to \tau \bar \tau## and ##H^0 \to c \bar c \ ## (##H^0 \to t \bar t## is of course not allowed due to conservation of energy; the top quark is about ##t \approx 172 \ GeV## while ##H^0 \approx 125 \ GeV##). Given that the coupling constant is ##m/v##, where the vacuum expectation value is given by ##v \approx 246 \ GeV##, it makes sense to think that the more massive the particle is the stronger it couples to the Higgs particle. Indeed, for those three ratios that argument seems to hold. Do you think it is OK?

Here comes the fun.

Once intermediate particles come into play I do not really understand why some channels have greater BRs than others. Next, let us look at the "massless" channels ##H^0 \to \gamma \gamma, \ H^0 \to gg##. I studied the golden channel ##H^0 \to \gamma \gamma## (Mandl & Shaw, page 446)

hiqddqhuhduishduqshduisqhhsd.png


OK so W boson and quarks (only the top quark couples significantly to ##H^0## though) are the intermediators.
I struggle to find information in the literature regarding the decay channel ##H^0 \to gg##. I looked up Higgs decay to gluon in Google Scholar and checked the first five but found no (modern i.e. not in terms of ) FD. One could guess and say "well, the gluon is massless as well so we could expect to have the exact same diagrams that for ##H^0 \to \gamma \gamma##" (this is actually the same guess a PF user made back in 2014). I do not think this is right, as the BRs differ quite significantly so I expect the associated FDs to differ as well. Hence

What are the FDs associated to ##H^0 \to gg## and why does its BR differ that significantly with ##H^0 \to \gamma \gamma## (despite both products being massless)?

Regarding FDs, I have the same issue with the channel ##H^0 \to Z \gamma##: I do not find them in the literature.

Finally, let me comment on the last two channels: ##H^0 \to W W^*## and ##H^0 \to Z Z^*##. I have studied they have essentially the same FD (b and c below)

jrifjizofjiueofhjiosqhyfsroipugfesûg.png


My argument to explain their difference in BRs is based on their coupling constants: we know that the Higgs particle couples to W and Z bosons as follows

HWWCoupling.png
HZZCoupling.png

We also know that ##M_W^2 = \frac{g^2v^2}{4}## and ##M_Z^2 = \frac{g^2v^2}{4 \cos \theta_W}## so we deduce that the ##HWW## coupling goes as ##M^2_W/v## whereas the ##HZZ## coupling goes as ##M^2_Z/v##. Hence this reasoning leads to think that we should expect a greater BR for Z.

This is wrong and by far... How to explain their BR then?

Last comment: in the plot we observe a sudden minimum in ZZ... why?


I appreciate to discuss with you all

Thank you! :biggrin:
 
  • Like
Likes ohwilleke
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #2
JD_PM said:
Summary:: I want to understand why some branching ratios (BRs) are greater than others and discuss some other features of the attached plot. Besides, I want to figure out the Feynman diagrams (FDs) I do not find in the literature.

I will bold the ideas I would like to discuss so that they are easier to identify.

I do not think this is right, as the BRs differ quite significantly so I expect the associated FDs to differ as well.
Even if the diagrams are similar, the gg amplitudes come with additional colour factors.
 
  • Like
Likes ohwilleke
  • #3
Hi, these are interesting questions.

1) H to gg
-FD ?
Same with gg to H production. Gluon radiations through quark triangle.
-Why BR(H to gamma gamma) << BR(H to gg)?
There is another factor, the coupling constant.
You can compare alpha_s (~ 0.1) and alpha_em (~1/137) to understand difference between two BRs.

2) FD of H to Zgamma
It is same with H to gamma gamma. Replace one gamma to Z.

3) BR(H to WW) vs BR(H to ZZ*)
H to W-W+ channel has factor of two bigger BR compared to ZZ since W- and W+ are not identical particles.
(JHEP03(2018)110)

4) Sudden minimum of BR(H to ZZ*)
If mH < 2mW, there is suppression coming from virtuality of W* and Z*.
If 2mW < mH < 2mZ, H to WW channel gets enhancement from on-shell effect.
Because of this enhancement, BR(H to ZZ) shows sudden minimum.
After mH > 2mZ, BR(H to ZZ) and BR(H to WW) show almost flat values until mH = 2mtop.
 
  • Like
Likes ohwilleke, JD_PM and mfb
  • #4
Orodruin said:
Even if the diagrams are similar, the gg amplitudes come with additional colour factors.

Thank you.

SBoh said:
Hi, these are interesting questions.

1) H to gg
-FD ?
Same with gg to H production. Gluon radiations through quark triangle.
-Why BR(H to gamma gamma) << BR(H to gg)?
There is another factor, the coupling constant.
You can compare alpha_s (~ 0.1) and alpha_em (~1/137) to understand difference between two BRs.

Oh, I see! At low energies, on expects to have a small EM fine structure constant ##\alpha \approx \frac{1}{137}## and a significant (so no perturbation techniques can be used) QCD constant.##g_s \approx 0.1##. I am just wondering why the latter value is not that well-known (I guess that the reason is due to not being really useful, as one cannot use perturbation theory?).

SBoh said:
3) BR(H to WW) vs BR(H to ZZ*)
H to W-W+ channel has factor of two bigger BR compared to ZZ since W- and W+ are not identical particles.
(JHEP03(2018)110)

Could you please elaborate on this? Or alternatively point me at the section of the paper in which one can understand why there is this difference in the BRs? (I have read the abstract and dived through it via the key word "decay" but I did not find the explanation). Besides I found the same question in PSE but the answer does not really help me to get the point ...

SBoh said:
4) Sudden minimum of BR(H to ZZ*)
If mH < 2mW, there is suppression coming from virtuality of W* and Z*.
If 2mW < mH < 2mZ, H to WW channel gets enhancement from on-shell effect.
Because of this enhancement, BR(H to ZZ) shows sudden minimum.
After mH > 2mZ, BR(H to ZZ) and BR(H to WW) show almost flat values until mH = 2mtop.

Thank you, I'll think more about this.
 
  • Like
Likes ohwilleke
  • #5
It's more instructive to look at the partial widths instead of branching fractions. Branching fractions depend on all other decay modes, partial widths do not.
Using the WW bump as an example: There is nothing special happening to ZZ there. It's just the WW partial width becoming so much larger that it pushes down all other branching fractions - not just ZZ. ZZ would become "competitive" again at masses where the Higgs can decay to two on-shell Z.
 
  • Like
Likes JD_PM, vanhees71 and ohwilleke
  • #6
Somewhat related question. I've seen statements that the diphoton branching fraction is maximized at about 125 GeV. Does anyone know if there's a source pinning down the Higgs mass that maximizes the diphoton branching fraction to greater precision than that (e.g. is it actually 125.23 GeV?)?
 
  • #7
You could try to fit tables like this one. 125.6-125.7 as best fit.
 
  • Like
Likes dextercioby and ohwilleke
  • #8
Before we get started, I think the hypothesis you have expressed elsewhere that there is some sort of significance to the Higgs to gamma gamma branching fraction being close to the maximum is about as likely to be correct as the idea that there is some sort of significance to the Higgs mass being the country code of Switzerland, where it was discovered, in Base 31. (Which is itself the country code for Holland, where some of the LHC magnets were made.)

Second, you need to consider errors and not just central values in @mfb's table. The maximum of the H→γγ branching fraction is 125 ± 5 GeV or so. So at 95% CL it could be anywhere between 115 and 135.
 
  • Like
Likes ohwilleke and mfb
  • #9
The uncertainties in the individual rows should be highly correlated. Probably close to 100%.
 
  • Like
Likes ohwilleke
  • #10
The uncertainties in the columns are correlated, because it's the same calculation. The uncertainties in the rows are anticorrelated, because the branching fractions need to sum to 1.

My estimate comes from the bbar branching fraction which has some uncertainties depending on the b-quark mass and higher order corrections, which is a) large and b) changing with Higgs mass. Move it around and the point where gmma-gamma is maximal moves too. (Oppositely - shift bbar to the left and gamma gamma moves to the right)
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Likes ohwilleke
  • #11
Vanadium 50 said:
Before we get started, I think the hypothesis you have expressed elsewhere that there is some sort of significance to the Higgs to gamma gamma branching fraction being close to the maximum is about as likely to be correct as the idea that there is some sort of significance to the Higgs mass being the country code of Switzerland, where it was discovered, in Base 31. (Which is itself the country code for Holland, where some of the LHC magnets were made.)

Second, you need to consider errors and not just central values in @mfb's table. The maximum of the H→γγ branching fraction is 125 ± 5 GeV or so. So at 95% CL it could be anywhere between 115 and 135.
Could be (wasn't my idea in the first place, I've just rounded up a variety of non-mutually consistent ideas I'd seen other published works express).

But I'm nonetheless curious anyway, even if it is just a pure coincidence or trivial pursuit class data point.
 
  • #12
Vanadium 50 said:
The uncertainties in the columns are correlated, because it's the same calculation. The uncertainties in the rows are anticorrelated, because the branching fractions need to sum to 1.
I meant the individual rows within the diphoton column, i.e. what you call "in the columns".
ohwilleke said:
(wasn't my idea in the first place, I've just rounded up a variety of non-mutually consistent ideas I'd seen other published works express)
Who published the idea that the highest diphoton branching fraction would be relevant?
 
  • #13
  • #14
mfb said:
Who published the idea that the highest diphoton branching fraction would be relevant?

ohwilleke said:

Baloney.

First, don't bother reading the link. It's just an obfuscated version of the CMS discovery paper. All it says is that the BF reaches its maximum near 125 GeV, not that the numeralogical mumbo-jumbo posted here has anything to do with anything.
 
  • Like
Likes mfb

FAQ: Branching ratios | Higgs phenomenology

1. What are branching ratios in particle physics?

Branching ratios refer to the probability that a particle will decay into a specific set of particles. It is a measure of the relative likelihood of different decay pathways for a given particle.

2. Why is the study of branching ratios important in Higgs phenomenology?

The Higgs boson is a fundamental particle in the Standard Model of particle physics. Its branching ratios can provide valuable information about its properties, such as its mass and interactions with other particles. Studying branching ratios can also help us understand the underlying mechanisms of particle decay and the behavior of the Higgs boson.

3. How do scientists measure branching ratios?

Scientists use particle colliders, such as the Large Hadron Collider, to produce a large number of Higgs bosons. By analyzing the decay products of these collisions, scientists can determine the branching ratios of the Higgs boson. They also use theoretical models and simulations to predict the expected branching ratios and compare them to experimental results.

4. Can branching ratios change over time?

Yes, branching ratios can change depending on the energy of the particle collisions and the environment in which the particles are produced. For example, the branching ratios of the Higgs boson can vary depending on the temperature and density of the early universe.

5. How do branching ratios contribute to our understanding of the universe?

Branching ratios provide insight into the properties and interactions of fundamental particles, such as the Higgs boson. This information can help us understand the fundamental forces and building blocks of the universe and how they have evolved over time. Additionally, studying branching ratios can also help us test and refine our theories and models of particle physics.

Similar threads

Back
Top