Learning Objectives

  1. Extract the Z⁰ mass, total width, and partial widths from LEP line-shape data.
  2. Determine the invisible width Γinv and infer the number of light neutrino generations.
  3. Understand how a propagator pole governs a resonance cross section.
  4. Quantify both statistical and systematic uncertainties on extracted parameters.
  5. Prepare the Z⁰ results for comparison with Labs 1–2 in the Synthesis.

Three-Step Protocol

StepFor this lab
Entrance SessionPresent the Breit-Wigner formalism, explain how the propagator pole produces a resonance, and describe the invisible-width method for neutrino counting. Explain the connection to the propagator structure in Labs 1–2.
Active LabFit the LEP line-shape data. Extract mZ, ΓZ, σpeak. Compute Γinv and Nν. Check fit quality as you go — plot residuals during the fit, not after.
Findings SessionPresent your extracted Z⁰ parameters with uncertainties, comparison to published LEP values, and the systematic discussion. Identify what remains unresolved.

Background

The Z⁰ Resonance as a Propagator Pole

The Z⁰ production cross section near the pole is described by a Breit-Wigner form arising directly from the propagator evaluated at q² ≈ mZ²:

σ(s) = (12π/mZ²) · (Γee Γf) / [(s − mZ²)² + mZ² ΓZ²]

This is the on-shell limit of the propagator structure introduced in the Framework: when q² approaches m², the denominator nearly vanishes and the amplitude peaks. The width ΓZ encodes all decay channels. The invisible width Γinv = ΓZ − Γhad − 3Γlep counts channels producing no visible final state.

Neutrino Counting and BSM Sensitivity

The Standard Model predicts Γinv = Nν · Γν, where Γν is the single-neutrino partial width. The LEP result Nν = 2.984 ± 0.008 is consistent with three generations. Any additional light species coupling to the Z increases Γinv.

Connection to the propagator narrative

Labs 1–2 probed the propagator far from the pole (|q| ≪ mϕ). Lab 3 probes it at the pole (q² = mZ²). The same denominator structure that produces Yukawa screening at long distances produces a Breit-Wigner resonance at the mass shell. The invisible width teaches a complementary lesson: couplings determine both the strength of the potential (Labs 1–2) and the rate of decay (Lab 3).

Data Analysis Programme

You work with published LEP line-shape data (hadronic cross section vs centre-of-mass energy √s).

  1. Fit the Breit-Wigner line shape to extract mZ, ΓZ, and σpeak.
  2. Compute Γhad from the peak cross section and known Γee.
  3. Extract Γinv = ΓZ − Γhad − 3Γlep.
  4. Determine Nν with uncertainty and compare with the SM prediction.
  5. Compute the 95% CL upper limit on additional invisible decay width ΔΓinv.

Statistical and Systematic Effects

Fit Quality

Systematic Effects

Systematic EffectEstimation MethodImpact
Beam energy calibrationFrom published LEP energy working groupDominant systematic on mZ
Initial-state radiation (ISR)Radiator function convolutionModifies line shape; must be included in fit
γ–Z interferenceInclude interference term in fit modelAsymmetric distortion of peak
Selection efficiency vs √sParametrize from published LEP efficienciesAffects σpeak extraction
Γee input valueCompare CODATA value vs LEP-internal determinationPropagates directly into Γhad

Your lab notes should include a table comparing your extracted Z⁰ parameters with published LEP/CODATA values, including both statistical and systematic uncertainties on each parameter.

Lab Notes

Your analysis notes should contain: Breit-Wigner fit results with covariance matrix, Γinv extraction, Nν determination, systematic discussion, and the parameter-comparison table. These feed into your report and the pole-inference panel in Lab 4.