text:
# Next-to-leading order corrections to 𝑊+2 jet and 𝑍+2 jet production at hadron colliders

## I Introduction

In this paper we report on the results of a calculation of the next-to-leading order QCD corrections to the processes,

$`p+\overline{p}`$ $``$ $`W+\text{2 jets},`$
$`p+\overline{p}`$ $``$ $`Z/\gamma ^{}+\text{2 jets}.`$ (1)
These reactions will be investigated at the Tevatron, i.e. $`p\overline{p}`$ collisions at $`\sqrt{s}=2`$ TeV. Our calculations are equally applicable to the LHC ($`pp`$ collisions at $`\sqrt{s}=14`$ TeV). We plan to consider the LHC in a subsequent publication. The results are obtained from the Monte Carlo program MCFM which allows us to obtain full predictions for any infra-red safe variable. In order to obtain fully differential distributions, to which experimental cuts may be applied, various decay modes of the $`Z/\gamma ^{}`$ intermediate states are included,

$`Z/\gamma ^{}`$ $``$ $`e^{}e^+`$
$`Z/\gamma ^{}`$ $``$ $`b\overline{b}`$
$`Z`$ $``$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{i}{}}\nu _i\overline{\nu }_i`$ (2)
as well as,

$`W^+`$ $`\nu _ee^+`$ (3)
for the $`W^+`$ decay. In this paper we will only report on leptonic decays of the vector bosons. We use the approximation of massless leptons, so that our results are also valid for the decays $`W^+\nu _\mu \mu ^+,W^+\nu _\tau \tau ^+`$ in this approach.

Because of their phenomenological importance, processes involving the production of vector bosons and jets have been considered by many authors. $`W`$-boson production with two jets was considered at leading order in ref. Kleiss:1985yh ; Ellis:1985vn ; Mangano:1989gs . The same process involving jets at large rapidity was considered in ref. Andersen:2001ja . Vector boson production in association with $`n`$-jets for $`n4`$ is calculated at leading order in refs. Berends:1990ax ; Berends:1989cf . In refs. Ellis:1981hk ; Arnold:1989dp ; Arnold:1989ub ; Giele:dj  predictions were made for processes involving a vector boson recoiling against one jet at next-to-leading order. In refs. Giele:1996aa ; Giele:1995kr  predictions were made for processes involving $`W`$ bosons and one heavy quark at next-to-leading order. However to the best of our knowledge this is the first paper to calculate vector boson processes with two jets at next-to-leading order.

In performing these calculations we have used the results of other authors for the crossed reactions $`e^+e^{}\text{4 partons}`$ Bern:1997sc  and $`e^+e^{}\text{5 partons}`$ Nagy:1998bb . Even with the amplitudes in hand, the implementation in a Monte Carlo program requires considerable effort.

In order to highlight the similarities between the effects of radiative corrections on the $`W/Z+2\mathrm{jet}`$ rate and the $`W/Z+1\mathrm{jet}`$ rate, we will also present some results for the latter process. Such corrections have been known for some time Giele:dj  and have provided an invaluable tool for studies at the Tevatron. The inclusion of the $`W/Z+1\mathrm{jet}`$ processes in MCFM was useful to understand the issues to be faced in implementing the more complicated $`W/Z+2\mathrm{jet}`$ processes.

We will also tie together our results with previous predictions made using MCFM Ellis:1998fv ; Campbell:2000bg  to provide a consistent next-to-leading order prediction for the heavy flavor content of jets produced in association with a $`W/Z`$. Specifically we consider vector boson events containing two tagged $`b`$-jets. This quantity will be used in assessing the backgrounds to a number of new physics searches at the Tevatron Carena:2000yx . Experimental studies Acosta:2001ct  have so far relied upon leading order predictions as theoretical input.

## II $`\text{Hadron}+\text{Hadron}W/Z+\text{2 jets}`$

A representative sample of the Born diagrams for the processes,

$$\text{parton}+\text{parton}W/Z/\gamma ^{}+\text{2 partons},$$
(4)
is shown in Fig. 1. In the coding of these processes into MCFM we have made an artificial separation between processes involving two quarks, Fig. 1 (a-c) and processes involving four quarks Fig. 1 (d-f).

This separation is motivated by the relative size of the contributions at leading order, illustrated in Fig. 2, as well as by the relative complexity of evaluating the different matrix elements.

The $`2`$-quark process at leading $`N`$ dominates the total, a trend that we find is preserved at next-to-leading order.

We have not recalculated the virtual corrections to the basic Born process which are given by Bern, Dixon and Kosower in ref. Bern:1997sc . These amplitudes have been calculated in the four dimensional helicity scheme, which we consistently use throughout this program.

The real corrections to the basic Born processes, i.e. the processes,

$$\text{parton}+\text{parton}W/Z/\gamma ^{}+\text{3 partons}$$
(5)
have been published in Berends:1988yn ; Hagiwara:1988pp ; Nagy:1998bb  and a representative sample of the contributing diagrams is shown in Fig. 3.

These matrix elements are incorporated in MCFM using the subtraction method of Ellis, Ross and Terrano Ellis:nc ; Ellis:1980wv . In this method, one constructs counterterms having the same singularity structure as the real emission matrix elements, starting from the eikonal formula for soft emission. The basic operating procedure is to create subtraction terms which contain the same singularity structure as the lowest order diagrams, but are simple enough that they are can be integrated over the phase space of the unobserved parton. In order to improve the cancellation, the kinematics of the counterterms are included using the prescription of Catani and Seymour Catani:1996vz . For the case of $`W+2`$ jets there are 24 different counterterms, each with its own kinematic structure, (a counterevent). The kinematics of the final state partons in the counterevents coincide with the kinematics of the event in the appropriate soft and collinear limits.

### II.1 Numerical checks

The matrix elements for hadroproduction of $`W/Z`$+3 partons contain many singularities which are subtracted by (dipole) counterterms. Although the enumeration of these counterterms is in principle straightforward, the success of the whole program depends on it being implemented correctly. We shall therefore present a few details of the checks which we performed.

The real matrix elements were taken from ref. Nagy:1998bb  supplemented in certain cases by our own calculations. The coding of these matrix elements was checked by comparison with routines generated by the program MADGRAPH Stelzer:1994ta  powered by HELAS Murayama:1992gi . We cannot use the routines generated by MADGRAPH directly because the resulting code is too slow to implement in a Monte Carlo program which requires many calls to the matrix element routine.

The next step is to verify that the numerical value of the counterterms is in fact equal in magnitude to the real matrix element in the singular limit. This is done by generating sets of points which lie in all of the potentially singular regions and then checking the cancellation of the event and the appropriate counterevent in each limit.

Finally, we must add back the counterterms, suitably integrated over the phase space of the emitted parton. Here it is clearly important to add back exactly what has been subtracted in the previous step. We have tried to structure the code so that the comparison between the two steps is transparent. The integral of the counterterms over the emitted parton sub-space contains singularities, which are regulated using dimensional regularization, in addition to finite contributions. The code is structured so that the finite parts are closely associated with the singular parts. Thus the cancellation of the singular parts, (with the sum of the singular parts of the virtual matrix elements and the Altarelli-Parisi factorization counterterms for the parton distributions), provides some assurance that the finite terms are included correctly.

## III Monte Carlo results

### III.1 Input parameters

MCFM has a number of default electroweak parameters which we use throughout this paper. They are given in Table 1.

As noted in the table, some parameters are calculated using the effective field theory approach Georgi:1991ci ,

$$e^2=4\pi \alpha (M_Z),g_w^2=8M_W^2\frac{G_F}{\sqrt{2}},\mathrm{sin}\theta _w=\frac{e^2}{g_w^2}.$$
(6)
For simplicity we have taken the CKM matrix to be diagonal in the $`W+2\mathrm{jets}`$ process. As a consequence there are, for example, no $`u\overline{s}`$ initial states for this case. This approximation is not expected to influence any anticipated analyses. For the other processes we retain only the Cabibbo sector of the CKM matrix,

$$V_{CKM}=\left(\begin{array}{ccc}0.975& 0.222& 0\\ 0.222& 0.975& 0\\ 0& 0& 1\end{array}\right).$$
(7)
The value of $`\alpha _S(M_Z)`$ is not adjustable; it is determined by the chosen parton distribution. A collection of modern parton distribution functions is included with MCFM, but here we concentrate only on one of the MRST2001 Martin:2001es  sets with $`\alpha _S(M_Z)=0.119`$. We refer to this set as MRS0119, which is the label used in our program.

### III.2 Basic cuts and jet selection

For all the results presented here, we consider only a positively charged $`W`$ and choose the leptonic decays,

$$W^+\nu e^+,Z/\gamma ^{}e^{}e^+.$$
(8)
In this paper we shall present results for the Tevatron collider only and we pick a simple set of cuts accordingly. All leptons satisfy,

$$p_T^{\mathrm{lepton}}>20\mathrm{GeV},|y^{\mathrm{lepton}}|<1,$$
(9)
and for the $`W`$ case there is also a cut on the missing transverse momentum, $`p_T^{\mathrm{miss}}>20\mathrm{GeV}`$. Our final requirement is that the dilepton mass be greater than $`15\mathrm{GeV}`$. Although this has no effect in the $`W`$ case, it prevents the production of soft $`e^{}e^+`$ pairs which would otherwise be copiously produced by the virtual photon in the $`Z/\gamma ^{}`$ process.

Jets are found using the Run II $`k_T`$ clustering algorithm Blazey:2000qt  with a pseudo-cone of size $`R=0.7`$, and are also subject to,

$$p_T^{\mathrm{jet}}>15\mathrm{GeV},|y^{\mathrm{jet}}|<2.$$
(10)
For the new results on $`W,Z+2\mathrm{jet}`$ production, in this paper we will mostly consider events where exactly 2 jets are found by the algorithm, i.e. exclusive 2 jet production. The inclusive production of jets - which would include events with 3 jets at next-to-leading order - is a further option in MCFM that will only be touched on briefly here.

### III.3 Scale dependence

The principle motivation for performing a next-to-leading order calculation is to reduce the uncertainties in leading order predictions. In particular, any perturbative prediction contains an unphysical dependence on renormalization and factorization scales (often chosen to be equal, as we shall do here). The magnitude of cross-sections and the shape of differential distributions can vary greatly between two different choices of scale, which is often interpreted as an inherent “theoretical uncertainty” which is then ascribed to the predictions. Another strategy is to argue for a particular choice of scale, based on the physics of the process under consideration.

A next-to-leading order calculation is an invaluable tool for investigating the issue of scale dependence. The logarithms that are responsible for the large variations under changes of scale at leading order are exactly canceled through to next-to-leading order. As a result, one expects that next-to-leading order predictions are more stable under such variations. In addition, the next-to-leading order result may provide further evidence to support a particular scale choice that may have been deemed appropriate at leading order.

As an example of expected results, in Figure 4 we show the scale dependence of the exclusive $`W`$ and $`Z`$ \+ 1 jet differential cross-sections $`d\sigma /dp_T`$, integrated over the range $`15<p_T<200\mathrm{GeV}`$. The next-to-leading order predictions have been known for some time Giele:dj , but here are calculated within our program, MCFM. For both processes, the leading order prediction rises sharply as the scale is decreased, while the corrections produce a far flatter curve that exhibits a much less pronounced dependence on the scale choice.

The corresponding new results for the $`2`$-jet processes are shown in Figure 5. As in the $`1`$-jet case, the renormalization and factorization scales are set equal and the basic cuts mentioned in the previous section are applied. In addition, we now use the dijet mass differential distribution, $`d\sigma /dM_{jj}`$ integrated over $`20<M_{jj}<200`$ GeV. As anticipated, both processes show a considerable reduction in scale dependence. For example, the ratio of the leading order prediction for the $`W`$ process using a hard scale $`\mu =2m_W`$ to the result for a far softer scale $`\mu =m_W/2`$ is,

$$\frac{\sigma _{LO}(W+2\mathrm{jets},\mu =m_W/2)}{\sigma _{LO}(W+2\mathrm{jets},\mu =2m_W)}=1.7,$$
(11)
while the same ratio at next-to-leading order is only,

$$\frac{\sigma _{NLO}(W+2\mathrm{jets},\mu =m_W/2)}{\sigma _{NLO}(W+2\mathrm{jets},\mu =2m_W)}=1.1.$$
(12)
### III.4 $`p_T`$ distributions

Once again, we repeat some $`W,Z+1`$ jet results, in order to highlight both the similarities and the differences with the corresponding $`2`$-jet distributions.

In Figure 6 we show the jet $`p_T`$ distribution for both of the $`1`$-jet cases, using a relatively hard choice of scale, $`\mu =80`$ GeV. We first note that since we are considering the exclusive jet cross-section, the rise of the distributions at low $`p_T`$ is limited only by the jet cut, $`p_T>15`$ GeV. At next-to-leading order the distributions change significantly to become much softer. At high $`p_T`$ a single jet is much more likely to radiate a soft parton (that passes the fixed $`p_T`$ cut and is counted as an extra jet), thus removing it from the sample Giele:dj .

The situation for the $`2`$-jet processes is shown in Figure 7, where we plot the $`p_T`$ distribution of the hardest jet, again using $`\mu =80`$ GeV. In contrast with the previous figure, the distributions turn over at small $`p_T`$. If the highest $`p_T`$ jet has a $`p_T20`$ GeV, there is little phase space for the emission of a second softer jet with $`p_T>p_T^{min}=15`$ GeV. We also see that including the radiative corrections softens the distribution considerably, for the same reason as before. For the $`W`$ case, we also show the inclusive distribution, i.e. the cross section for the production of two or more jets. This ‘fills in’ the high-$`E_T`$ tail of the distribution.

## IV Heavy flavor content of jets

### IV.1 $`\text{Hadron}+\text{Hadron}W/Z+b+\overline{b}`$

We would like to estimate the fraction of $`W+2`$ jet events that contain two heavy quark jets. We will limit our discussion to $`b`$ quarks, because they can be tagged with high efficiency. In order to do so, we recall the next-to-leading order results for the production of a $`b\overline{b}`$ in association with a $`W`$, reported in Ellis:1998fv . As a reminder to the reader, we work in the approximation in which the $`b`$ quarks are taken to be massless and we have ignored contributions from processes in which there are two $`b`$ quarks already present in the initial state. The basic lowest order diagrams for this process are shown in Fig. 8. $`Wb\overline{b}`$ processes accompanied by up to 4 jets have been considered at tree level in ref. Mangano:2001xp .

For the related study including a $`Z`$ instead of a $`W`$, we use the results presented in Campbell:2000bg  for the production of a $`b\overline{b}`$ pair in association with a $`Z`$. The same approximations apply as discussed above for the $`W`$ case. The notable difference now is that there are more lowest order diagrams, as shown in Fig. 9, including an initial state composed only of gluons. As discussed in Campbell:2000bg , these latter diagrams with initial gluons are believed to be responsible for the sizeable corrections to the basic process at large $`m_{b\overline{b}}`$.

An immediate concern is that neglecting the $`b`$-quark mass may be unjustified Mangano:1992kp . At low values of $`m_{b\overline{b}}`$, quark mass effects may be important. To address these concerns, in Figure 10 we compare the lowest order $`m_{b\overline{b}}`$ distribution calculated using the full mass dependence with the result obtained by setting $`m_b=0`$. There are two effects of introducing a mass for the $`b`$-quark. Firstly, the phase-space becomes smaller, leading to a reduction of the cross-section. On the other hand, the matrix elements receive extra contributions proportional to powers of $`m_b^2`$ which may increase the result. As shown in Figure 10, the matrix element effects dominate around the peak of the distribution where they are as large as 5%. Closer to threshold the phase space effects are dominant. At large $`m_{b\overline{b}}`$ the quark mass effects are quite small as expected.

### IV.2 Results

In order to compare the results for $`b`$-quark jets with those for the whole $`2`$-jet sample, we will show the differential cross-section as a function of the dijet mass. We use two choices of scale in these analyses, a hard scale $`\mu M_W,M_Z=80`$ GeV and a softer scale $`\mu =40`$ GeV. These are the scales used for the plots shown in Figures 11 and 12, where both the leading order and the radiative corrections are shown for comparison.

As with the $`p_T`$ distributions of the previous section, the shapes of the distributions change when the QCD corrections are included. For both the $`b\overline{b}`$ and general $`2`$ jet distributions, the hard scale causes the dijet cross-section to increase at next-to-leading order for small values of $`M_{jj}`$. The radiative corrections using the soft scale cause a considerable depletion in the cross-section at high $`M_{jj}`$. However, the shapes of the $`b\overline{b}`$ and $`2`$ jet distributions appear very similar when compared at the same order of perturbation theory and using the same scale.

In Fig. 13 we show the cross section for events that contain $`2`$ $`b`$-tags divided by the cross section for all two jet events, as a function of the dijet mass. As can be seen, for the $`W`$ this ratio does not depend very strongly on either the choice of scale or the order in perturbation theory. The percentage falls at low values of $`M_{jj}`$ until $`M_{jj}60`$ GeV, where it becomes approximately constant at $`0.8\%`$. For the $`Z`$, the proportion is fairly constant at approximately $`2\%`$ for all the curves except for the case of next-to-leading order at $`\mu =40`$ GeV. In this case the percentage rises at high $`M_{jj}`$. The origin of this effect may be associated with the extra diagrams present in the $`Z`$ case and requires further study.

## V Conclusions

We have presented the first results for the implementation of $`W/Z+2`$ jet production at next-to-leading order in a general purpose Monte Carlo. An analysis based on exclusive jet production for Run II of the Tevatron shows that the usual benefits of next-to-leading order are realized, among them being a reduced scale dependence and hence an improved normalization for distributions. We also find changes in the shapes of distributions similar to those found in the $`1`$-jet case. These modifications are reduced if we consider the inclusive cross-section.

We performed an analysis of the heavy flavor content of jets produced in association with a vector boson. For production in association with a $`W`$, the ratio of $`b`$-tagged to untagged jets changes very little upon the inclusion of radiative corrections and appears to be predicted very well by perturbation theory.

###### Acknowledgements.

We would like to thank the Fermilab Computing Division for computer time on the fixed target farm. This work was supported in part by the U.S. Department of Energy under Contracts No. W-31-109-ENG-38 (Argonne) and No. DE-AC02-76CH03000 (Fermilab).


format: text

text:
# The Snowmass Points and Slopes: Benchmarks for SUSY Searches

## I Why benchmarks — which benchmarks?

In the unconstrained version of the Minimal Supersymmetric extension of the Standard Model (MSSM) no particular Supersymmetry (SUSY) breaking mechanism is assumed, but rather a parameterization of all possible soft SUSY breaking terms is used. This leads to more than a hundred parameters (masses, mixing angles, phases) in this model in addition to the ones of the Standard Model. The currently most popular SUSY breaking mechanisms are minimal supergravity (mSUGRA) msugra , gauge-mediated SUSY breaking (GMSB) gmsb , and anomaly-mediated SUSY breaking (AMSB) amsb . In these scenarios SUSY breaking happens in a hidden sector and is mediated to the visible sector (i.e. the MSSM) in different ways: via gravitational interactions in the mSUGRA scenario, via gauge interactions in the GMSB scenario, and via the super-Weyl anomaly in the AMSB scenario. Assuming one of these SUSY breaking mechanisms leads to a drastic reduction of the number of parameters compared to the MSSM case. The mSUGRA scenario is characterized by four parameters and a sign, the scalar mass parameter $`m_0`$, the gaugino mass parameter $`m_{1/2}`$, the trilinear coupling $`A_0`$, the ratio of the Higgs vacuum expectation values, $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$, and the sign of the supersymmetric Higgs mass parameter, $`\mu `$. The parameters of the (minimal) GMSB scenario are the messenger mass $`M_{\mathrm{mes}}`$, the messenger index $`N_{\mathrm{mes}}`$, the universal soft SUSY breaking mass scale felt by the low-energy sector, $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$, as well as $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$ and $`\mathrm{sign}(\mu )`$. The (minimal) AMSB scenario has the parameters $`m_{\mathrm{aux}}`$, which sets the overall scale of the SUSY particle masses (given by the vacuum expectation value of the auxiliary field in the supergravity multiplet), $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$, $`\mathrm{sign}(\mu )`$, and $`m_0`$, where the latter is a phenomenological parameter introduced in order to keep the squares of slepton masses positive. The mass spectra of the SUSY particles in these scenarios are obtained via renormalization group running from the scale of the high-energy parameters of the SUSY-breaking scenario to the weak scale. The low-energy parameters obtained in this way are then used as input for calculating the predictions for the production cross sections and for the decay branching ratios of the SUSY particles.

While a detailed scanning over the more-than-hundred-dimensional parameter space of the MSSM is clearly not practicable, even a sampling of the three- or four-dimensional parameter space of the above-mentioned SUSY breaking scenarios is beyond the present capabilities for phenomenological studies, in particular when it comes to simulating experimental signatures within the detectors. For this reason one often resorts to specific benchmark scenarios, i.e. one studies only specific parameter points or at best samples a one-dimensional parameter space (the latter is sometimes called a model line modelline ), which exhibit specific characteristics of the MSSM parameter space. Benchmark scenarios of this kind are often used, for instance, for studying the performance of different experiments at the same collider. Similarly, detailed experimental simulations of sparticle production with identical MSSM parameters in the framework of different colliders can be very helpful for developing strategies for combining pieces of information obtained at different machines.

The question of which parameter choices are useful as benchmark scenarios depends on the purpose of the actual investigation. If one is interested, for instance, in setting exclusion limits on the SUSY parameter space from the non-observation of SUSY signals at the experiments performed up to now, it is useful to use a benchmark scenario which gives rise to “conservative” exclusion bounds. An example of a benchmark scenario of this kind is the $`m_\mathrm{h}^{\mathrm{max}}`$-scenario lephiggsbenchmarks  used for the Higgs search at LEP lepbench  and the Tevatron tevbench . It gives rise to maximal values of the lightest $`𝒞𝒫`$-even Higgs-boson mass (for fixed values of the top-quark mass and the SUSY scale) and thus allows one to set conservative bounds on $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$ and $`M_\mathrm{A}`$ (the mass of the $`𝒞𝒫`$-odd Higgs boson) tbexcl . Another application of benchmark scenarios is to study “typical” experimental signatures of SUSY models and to investigate the experimental sensitivities and the achievable experimental precisions for these cases. For this purpose it seems reasonable to choose “typical” (a notion which is of course difficult to define) and theoretically well motivated parameters of certain SUSY-breaking scenarios. Examples of this kind are the benchmark scenarios used so far for investigating SUSY searches at the LHC benchsnow96 ; tdratlcms , the Tevatron tevsugra  and at a future Linear Collider teslatdr . As a further possible goal of benchmark scenarios, one can choose them so that they account for a wide variety of SUSY phenomenology. For this purpose, one could for instance analyse SUSY with R-parity breaking, investigate effects of non-vanishing $`𝒞𝒫`$ phases, or inspect non-minimal SUSY models. In this context it can also be useful to consider “pathological” regions of parameter space or “worst-case” scenarios. Examples for this are the “large-$`|\mu |`$ scenario” for the Higgs search at LEP lephiggsbenchmarks  and the Tevatron hadhiggsbenchmarks , for which the decay $`hb\overline{b}`$ can be significantly suppressed, or a scenario where the Higgs boson has a large branching fraction into invisible decay modes at the LHC (see e.g. Ref. fawzi ).

A related issue concerning the definition of appropriate benchmarks is whether a benchmark scenario chosen for investigating physics at a certain experiment or for testing a certain sector of the theory should be compatible with additional information from other experiments (or concerning other sectors of the theory). This refers in particular to constraints from cosmology (by demanding that SUSY should give rise to an acceptable dark matter density cdm ) and low-energy measurements such as the rate for $`bs\gamma `$ bsg  and the anomalous magnetic moment of the muon, $`g_\mu 2`$ gminus2  (see Ref. gminus2th  for the updated SM prediction for $`g_\mu 2`$). On the one hand, applying constraints of this kind gives rise to “more realistic” benchmark scenarios. On the other hand, one relies in this way on further assumptions (and has to take account of experimental and theoretical uncertainties related to these additional constraints), and it could eventually turn out that one has inappropriately narrowed down the range of possibilities by applying these constraints. This applies in particular if slight modifications of the SUSY breaking scenarios are allowed that have a minor impact on collider phenomenology but could significantly alter the bounds from cosmology and low-energy experiments. For instance, the presence of small flavor mixing terms in the SUSY Lagrangian could severely affect the prediction for BR($`bs\gamma `$), while allowing a small amount of R-parity violation in the model would strongly affect the constraints from dark matter relic abundance while leaving collider phenomenology essentially unchanged. In the context of additional constraints one also has to decide on the level of fine-tuning of parameters (as a measure to distinguish between “more natural” and “less natural” parameter choices) one should tolerate in a benchmark scenario.

The extent to which additional constraints of this kind should be applied to possible benchmark scenarios is related to the actual purpose of the benchmark scenario. For setting exclusion bounds in a particular sector (e.g. the Higgs sector) it seems preferable to apply constraints only from this sector. Similarly, relaxing additional constraints should also be appropriate for the investigation of “worst-case” scenarios and for studying possible collider signatures. Making use of all available information, on the other hand, would be preferable when testing whether a certain model is actually the “correct” theory.

From the above discussion it should be obvious that it is not possible to define a single set of benchmark scenarios that will serve all purposes. The usefulness of a particular scenario will always depend on which sector of the theory (e.g. the Higgs or the chargino/neutralino sector) and which physics issue is investigated (exclusion limits or “typical” scenarios at colliders, dark matter searches, etc.). Accordingly, a comparison of the physics potential of different experiments on the basis of specific benchmark scenarios is necessarily very difficult.

The need for reconsidering the issue of defining appropriate benchmarks for SUSY searches at the next generation of colliders becomes apparent from the fact that the exclusion bounds in the Higgs sector of the MSSM obtained from the Higgs search at LEP rule out several of the benchmark points used up to now for studies of SUSY phenomenology at future colliders. Accordingly, after the termination of the LEP program several proposals for new benchmark scenarios for SUSY searches have been made by different groups.

The “Snowmass Points and Slopes” (SPS), which we will discuss in the following, are a set of benchmark scenarios which arose from the 2001 “Snowmass Workshop on the Future of Particle Physics” as a consensus based on different proposals recently made by various groups. The SPS consist of model lines (“slopes”), i.e. continuous sets of parameters depending on one dimensionful parameter (see below) and specific benchmark points, where each model line goes through one of the benchmark points. The SPS should be regarded as a recommendation for future studies of SUSY phenomenology, but of course are not meant as an exclusive and for all purposes sufficient collection of SUSY models. They mainly focus on “typical” scenarios within the three currently most prominent SUSY-breaking mechanisms, i.e. mSUGRA, GMSB and AMSB. Furthermore they contain examples of “more extreme” scenarios, e.g. a “focus point” scenario focuspoint  with a rather heavy SUSY spectrum, indicating in this way different possibilities for SUSY phenomenology that can be realized within the most commonly used SUSY breaking scenarios.

## II Recent proposals for SUSY benchmarks

Before discussing the SPS in detail, we first briefly review some recent proposals for SUSY benchmark scenarios. In Ref. BDEGMOPW , henceforth denoted as BDEGMOPW, a set of 13 parameter points in the CMSSM (i.e. the mSUGRA) scenario has been proposed according to the constraints arising from demanding that the lightest supersymmetric particle (LSP) should give rise to a cosmologically acceptable dark matter relic abundance: five points were chosen in the “bulk” of the cosmological region, four points along the “coannihilation tail” (where a rapid coannihilation takes place between the LSP and the (almost mass degenerate) next-to-lightest SUSY particle (NSLP), which is usually the lighter $`\stackrel{~}{\tau }`$), two points were chosen in rapid-annihilation “funnels” (where an increased annihilation cross section of the LSP results from poles due to the heavier neutral MSSM Higgs bosons $`H`$ and $`A`$), and two points in the “focus-point” region (where the annihilation cross section of the LSP is enhanced due to a sizable higgsino component). The BDEGMOPW points are all taken for the value of the trilinear coupling $`A_0=0`$, i.e. the parameters that are varied are $`m_0`$, $`m_{1/2}`$, $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$ and $`\mathrm{sign}(\mu )`$. They were in particular chosen to span a wide range of $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$ values.

The constraints from the LEP Higgs search and the measurement of $`bs\gamma `$ have been imposed for all of the BDEGMOPW points, while the $`g_\mu 2`$ constraint was not enforced (at the time of the proposal of the BDEGMOPW points only the points in the “bulk” of the cosmological region were in agreement with the $`g_\mu 2`$ constraint, while taking into account the updated SM value for $`g_\mu 2`$ gminus2th  all but one of the BDEGMOPW points satisfy the $`g_\mu 2`$ constraint at the $`2\sigma `$ level). The “bulk” of the cosmological region and the low-mass portion of the “focus point” region are favored if fine-tuning constraints are applied.

The “Points d’Aix” is a different set of benchmark points, which were proposed in the framework of the Euro-GDR SUSY Workshop aix . It consists of eleven benchmark points, out of which six belong to the mSUGRA scenario, four to the GMSB scenario and one to the AMSB scenario. The constraints from the LEP Higgs search and the electroweak precision data have been applied to all benchmark points. For the mSUGRA points further constraints from $`bs\gamma `$, $`g_\mu 2`$, and cosmology have been used, while for the GMSB points the constraints from $`bs\gamma `$ and $`g_\mu 2`$ have been taken into account. No further constraints have been applied for the AMSB point.

In Ref. modelline  a set of eight “model lines” in the mSUGRA, GMSB and AMSB scenarios has been proposed. The model lines were designed for studying typical SUSY signatures as a function of the SUSY scale. Accordingly, each model line depends on one dimensionful parameter, which sets the overall SUSY scale, while $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$ and $`\mathrm{sign}(\mu )`$ are kept fixed for each model line. The other dimensionful parameters in each SUSY-breaking scenario are taken to scale linearly with the parameter being varied along the model line. Since the main focus in this approach lies in investigating typical SUSY signatures, neither constraints from Higgs and SUSY particle searches nor from $`bs\gamma `$, $`g_\mu 2`$, or cosmology were applied. Four of the model lines refer to the mSUGRA scenario, one corresponds to an mSUGRA-like scenario with non-unified gaugino masses, two model lines are realizations of the GMSB scenario, and one of the AMSB scenario.

## III The Snowmass Points and Slopes (SPS)

The Snowmass Points and Slopes (SPS) are based on an attempt to merge the features of the above proposals for different benchmark scenarios into a subset of commonly accepted benchmark scenarios. They consist of benchmark points and model lines (“slopes”). There are ten benchmark points, from which six correspond to an mSUGRA scenario, one is an mSUGRA-like scenario with non-unified gaugino masses, two refer to the GMSB scenario, and one to the AMSB scenario. Seven of these benchmark points are attached to model lines, while the remaining three are supplied as isolated points (one could of course also define model lines going through these points, but since studying a model line will require more effort than studying a single point, it seemed unnecessary to equip every chosen benchmark point with a model line). In studying the benchmark scenarios the model lines should prove useful in performing more general analyses of typical SUSY signatures, while the specific points indicated on the lines are proposed to be chosen as the first sample points for very detailed (and thus time-consuming) analyses. The concept of a model line means of course that more than just one point should be studied on each line. Results along the model lines can often then be roughly estimated by interpolation.

An important aspect in the philosophy behind the benchmark scenarios is that the low-energy MSSM parameters should be regarded as the actual benchmark rather than the high-energy input parameters $`m_0`$, $`m_{1/2}`$, etc. Thus, specifying the benchmark scenarios in terms of the latter parameters is merely understood as an abbreviation for the low-energy phenomenology.

The relevant low-energy parameters are the soft SUSY-breaking parameters in the diagonal entries of the sfermion mass matrices (using the notation of the first generation),

$$M_{\stackrel{~}{q}1_L},M_{\stackrel{~}{d}_R},M_{\stackrel{~}{u}_R},M_{\stackrel{~}{e}_L},M_{\stackrel{~}{e}_R},$$
(1)
and analogously for the other two generations, as well as

$$A_t,A_b,A_\tau ,\mathrm{},M_1,M_2,M_{\stackrel{~}{g}},\mu ,M_A,\mathrm{tan}\beta ,$$
(2)
where the $`A_i`$ are the trilinear couplings, $`M_1`$, $`M_2`$ are the electroweak gaugino mass parameters, $`M_{\stackrel{~}{g}}`$ is the gluino mass, and $`M_A`$ is the mass of the $`𝒞𝒫`$-odd neutral Higgs boson.

Our convention for the sign of $`\mu `$ is such that the neutralino and chargino mass matrices have the following form

$$𝐌_{\stackrel{~}{\chi }^0}=\left(\begin{array}{cccc}M_1& 0& g^{}v_d/\sqrt{2}& g^{}v_u/\sqrt{2}\\ 0& M_2& gv_d/\sqrt{2}& gv_u/\sqrt{2}\\ g^{}v_d/\sqrt{2}& gv_d/\sqrt{2}& 0& \mu \\ g^{}v_u/\sqrt{2}& gv_u/\sqrt{2}& \mu & 0\end{array}\right),𝐌_{\stackrel{~}{\chi }^\pm }=\left(\begin{array}{cc}M_2& gv_u\\ gv_d& \mu \end{array}\right).$$
(3)
In order to relate the high-energy input parameters to the corresponding low-energy MSSM parameters specified in eqs. (1), (2), a certain standard has to be chosen. It was agreed that this standard should be version 7.58 of the program ISAJET isajet . It should be stressed at this point that the definition of this standard contains a certain degree of arbitrariness. In particular, for the purpose of defining certain spectra as benchmarks, the issue of how accurately high-energy input parameters can be related (via renormalization group running) to the corresponding low-energy parameters in different programs (e.g. ISAJET, SUSYGEN susygen , SUSPECT suspect , SOFTSUSY softsusy , SUITY suity , BMPZ bmpz , etc.) is of minor importance and therefore has not been addressed in the context of the SPS. Once a standard has been defined for relating the high-energy input parameters to the low-energy MSSM parameters, the way the latter were obtained and the precise values of the high-energy input parameters are no longer relevant.

In order to perform the analysis of the SPS benchmark scenarios with a program like PYTHIA pythia  or HERWIG herwig , it is the easiest to use the output of ISAJET 7.58 for the parameters specified in eqs. (1), (2) directly as input for these programs. Alternatively, if one prefers to use the high-energy parameters $`m_0`$, $`m_{1/2}`$, etc. as input in a program like SUSYGEN, one should make sure that the low-energy parameters of eq. (1), (2) agree within reasonable precision with the actual benchmark values. If using the input values $`m_0`$, $`m_{1/2}`$, etc. given below in a different program leads to a significant deviation in the parameters of eqs. (1), (2), these high-energy input parameters should be adapted such that the low-energy parameters are brought into approximate agreement. Since the low-energy MSSM parameters corresponding to ISAJET 7.58 have been frozen as benchmarks by definition, an appropriate adaptation will also be necessary for upgrades of ISAJET beyond version 7.58.

While it appears to be reasonable to fix certain sets of low-energy MSSM parameters as benchmarks by definition (which in principle could have been done without resorting at all to scenarios like mSUGRA, GMSB and AMSB), it on the other hand doesn’t seem justified to freeze the particle spectra, branching ratios, etc. obtained from these low-energy MSSM parameters as well. It is obvious that no single program exists which represents the current “state of the art” for computing all particle masses and branching ratios, and it should of course also be possible to take future improvements into account. The level of accuracy of the theoretical predictions presently implemented in a multi-purpose program like ISAJET will not always be sufficient. This refers in particular to the MSSM Higgs sector, where it will usually be preferable to resort to dedicated programs like FeynHiggs feynhiggs , subhpole subh , or HDECAY hdecay  for cross-checking.

For the evaluation of the mass spectra and decay branching ratios from the MSSM benchmark parameters one should therefore choose an appropriate program according to the specific requirements of the analysis that is being performed. If detailed comparisons between different experiments or different colliders are carried out, it would clearly be advantageous to use the same results for the mass spectra and the branching ratios.

Concerning the compatibility with external constraints, all benchmark points corresponding to the mSUGRA scenario give rise to a cosmologically acceptable dark matter relic abundance (according to the bounds applied in Refs. BDEGMOPW ; aix , i.e. $`0.1\mathrm{\Omega }_\chi h^20.3`$ for the BDEGMOPW points and $`0.025<\mathrm{\Omega }_\chi h^2<0.5`$ for the “Points d’Aix”). In all SPS scenarios $`\mu >0`$ has been chosen. Within mSUGRA models, positive values of $`\mu `$ lead to values of $`bs\gamma `$ and $`g_\mu 2`$ which, within our present theoretical understanding, are consistent with the current experimental values of these quantities over a wide parameter range. While there is in general a slight preference for $`\mu >0`$, one certainly cannot regard the case $`\mu <0`$ as being experimentally excluded at present. We have nevertheless restricted to scenarios with positive $`\mu `$, since choosing $`\mu `$ negative does not lead to new characteristic experimental signatures as compared to the case with $`\mu >0`$.

Taking the updated SM value for $`g_\mu 2`$ gminus2th  into account, the allowed 2-$`\sigma `$ range for SUSY contributions to $`a_\mu (g_\mu 2)/2`$ is currently $`6\times 10^{10}<a_\mu <58\times 10^{10}`$. Accordingly, at present no upper bound on the SUSY masses can be inferred from the $`g_\mu 2`$ constraint, but only a rather mild lower bound. For the constraint from $`bs\gamma `$, the bound $`2.33\times 10^4<\text{BR}(bs\gamma )<4.15\times 10^4`$ has been used for the BDEGMOPW mSUGRA points BDEGMOPW , while $`2\times 10^4<\text{BR}(bs\gamma )<5\times 10^4`$ has been used for the mSUGRA and GMSB points of the “Points d’Aix” aix .

The main qualitative difference between the SPS (and also the recent proposals for post-LEP benchmarks in Refs. modelline ; BDEGMOPW ; aix ) and the benchmarks used so far for investigating SUSY searches at the LHC, the Tevatron and a future Linear Collider is that scenarios with small values of $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$, i.e. $`\mathrm{tan}\beta \stackrel{<}{}\mathrm{\hspace{0.33em}3}`$, are disfavored as a result of the Higgs exclusion bounds obtained at LEP. Consequently, there is more focus now on scenarios with larger values of $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$ than in previous studies. Concerning the SUSY phenomenology, intermediate and large values of $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$, $`\mathrm{tan}\beta \stackrel{>}{}\mathrm{\hspace{0.33em}5}`$, have the important consequence that there is in general a non-negligible mixing between the two staus (and an even more pronounced mixing in the sbottom sector), leading to a significant mass splitting between the two staus so that the lighter stau becomes the lightest slepton. Neutralinos and charginos therefore decay predominantly into staus and taus, which is experimentally more challenging than the dilepton signal resulting for instance from the decay of the second lightest neutralino into the lightest neutralino and a pair of leptons of the first or the second generation.

Large values of $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$ can furthermore have important consequences for the phenomenology in the Higgs sector, as the couplings of the heavy Higgs bosons $`H`$, $`A`$ to down-type fermions are in general enhanced. For sizable values of $`\mu `$ and $`m_{\stackrel{~}{g}}`$ the $`hb\overline{b}`$ coupling receives large radiative corrections from gluino loop corrections, which in particular affect the branching ratio BR($`h\tau ^+\tau ^{}`$).

In the following we list the SPS benchmark scenarios. The value of the top-quark mass in all cases is chosen to be $`m_\mathrm{t}=175`$ GeV.

This scenario consists of a “typical” mSUGRA point with an intermediate value of $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$ and a model line attached to it (SPS 1a) and of a “typical” mSUGRA point with relatively high $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$ (SPS 1b). The two-points lie in the “bulk” of the cosmological region. For the collider phenomenology in particular the $`\tau `$-rich neutralino and chargino decays are important.

SPS 1a:
Point:

$$m_0=100\mathrm{GeV},m_{1/2}=250\mathrm{GeV},A_0=100\mathrm{GeV},\mathrm{tan}\beta =10,\mu >0.$$

Slope:

$$m_0=A_0=0.4m_{1/2},m_{1/2}\text{ varies}.$$

The point is similar to BDEGMOPW point B. The slope equals model line A modelline .
SPS 1b:
Point:

$$m_0=200\mathrm{GeV},m_{1/2}=400\mathrm{GeV},A_0=0,\mathrm{tan}\beta =30,\mu >0.$$

This point is the mSUGRA point 6 of the “Points d’Aix”.

The benchmark point chosen for SPS 2 lies in the “focus point” region, where a too large relic abundance is avoided by an enhanced annihilation cross section of the LSP due to a sizable higgsino component. This scenario features relatively heavy squarks and sleptons, while the charginos and the neutralinos are fairly light and the gluino is lighter than the squarks.

Point:

$$m_0=1450\mathrm{GeV},m_{1/2}=300\mathrm{GeV},A_0=0,\mathrm{tan}\beta =10,\mu >0.$$

Slope:

$$m_0=2m_{1/2}+850\mathrm{GeV},m_{1/2}\text{ varies}.$$

The point equals BDEGMOPW point E and is similar to mSUGRA point 2 of the “Points d’Aix”. The slope equals model line F.

The model line of this scenario is directed into the “coannihilation region”, where a sufficiently low relic abundance can arise from a rapid coannihilation between the LSP and the (almost mass degenerate) NSLP, which is usually the lighter $`\stackrel{~}{\tau }`$. Accordingly, an important feature in the collider phenomenology of this scenario is the very small slepton–neutralino mass difference.

Point:

$$m_0=90\mathrm{GeV},m_{1/2}=400\mathrm{GeV},A_0=0,\mathrm{tan}\beta =10,\mu >0.$$

Slope:

$$m_0=0.25m_{1/2}10\mathrm{GeV},m_{1/2}\text{ varies}.$$

The point equals BDEGMOPW point C. The slope equals model line H.

The large value of $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$ in this scenario has an important impact on the phenomenology in the Higgs sector. The couplings of $`A,H`$ to $`b\overline{b}`$ and $`\tau ^+\tau ^{}`$ as well as the $`H^\pm t\overline{b}`$ couplings are significantly enhanced in this scenario, resulting in particular in large associated production cross sections for the heavy Higgs bosons.

Point:

$$m_0=400\mathrm{GeV},m_{1/2}=300\mathrm{GeV},A_0=0,\mathrm{tan}\beta =50,\mu >0.$$

This point equals mSUGRA point 3 of the “Points d’Aix” and is similar to BDEGMOPW point L.

This scenario is characterized by a large negative value of $`A_0`$, which allows consistency of the relatively low value of $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$ with the constraints from the Higgs search at LEP, see Ref. Djouadi:2001yk .

Point:

$$m_0=150\mathrm{GeV},m_{1/2}=300\mathrm{GeV},A_0=1000,\mathrm{tan}\beta =5,\mu >0.$$

This point equals mSUGRA point 4 of the “Points d’Aix”.

In this scenario, the bino mass parameter $`M_1`$ is larger than in the usual mSUGRA models by a factor of $`1.6`$. While a bino-like neutralino is still the LSP, the mass difference between the lightest chargino and the lightest two neutralinos and the sleptons is significantly reduced compared to the typical mSUGRA case. Neutralino, chargino and slepton decays will feature less-energetic jets and leptons as a consequence.

Point:

$`\text{at GUT scale: }M_1=480\mathrm{GeV},M_2=M_3=300\mathrm{GeV}`$
$`m_0=150\mathrm{GeV},m_{1/2}=300\mathrm{GeV},A_0=0,\mathrm{tan}\beta =10,\mu >0.`$
Slope:

$$M_3(\mathrm{GUT})=M_2(\mathrm{GUT}),M_1(\mathrm{GUT})=1.6M_2(\mathrm{GUT}),m_0=0.5M_2(\mathrm{GUT}),M_2(\mathrm{GUT})\text{ varies}.$$

The slope equals model line B.

The NLSP in this GMSB scenario is the lighter stau, with allowed three body decays of right-handed selectrons and smuons into it. The decay of the NLSP into the Gravitino and the $`\tau `$ in this scenario can be chosen to be prompt, delayed or quasi-stable.

Point:

$$\mathrm{\Lambda }=40\mathrm{TeV},M_{\mathrm{mes}}=80\mathrm{TeV},N_{\mathrm{mes}}=3,\mathrm{tan}\beta =15,\mu >0.$$

Slope:

$$M_{\mathrm{mes}}/\mathrm{\Lambda }=2,\mathrm{\Lambda }\text{ varies}.$$

The point equals GMSB point 1 of the “Points d’Aix”. The slope equals model line D.

The NLSP in this scenario is the lightest neutralino. The second lightest neutralino has a significant branching ratio into $`h`$ when kinematically allowed. The decay of the NLSP into the Gravitino (and a photon or a $`Z`$ boson) in this scenario can be chosen to be prompt, delayed or quasi-stable.

Point:

$$\mathrm{\Lambda }=100\mathrm{TeV},M_{\mathrm{mes}}=200\mathrm{TeV},N_{\mathrm{mes}}=1,\mathrm{tan}\beta =15,\mu >0.$$

Slope:

$$M_{\mathrm{mes}}/\mathrm{\Lambda }=2,\mathrm{\Lambda }\text{ varies}.$$

The point equals GMSB point 2 of the “Points d’Aix”. The slope equals model line E.

This scenario features a very small neutralino–chargino mass difference, which is typical for AMSB scenarios. Accordingly, the LSP is a neutral wino and the NLSP a nearly degenerate charged wino. The NLSP decays to the LSP and a soft pion with a macroscopic decay length, as much as 10 cm.

Point:

$$m_0=450\mathrm{GeV},m_{\mathrm{aux}}=60\mathrm{TeV},\mathrm{tan}\beta =10,\mu >0.$$

Slope:

$$m_0=0.0075m_{\mathrm{aux}},m_{\mathrm{aux}}\text{ varies}.$$

The slope equals model line G.

For completeness, the parameters of all benchmark scenarios have been collected in Table 1. The SUSY particle spectra corresponding to the benchmark points of the SPS as obtained with ISAJET 7.58 are shown in Figs. 1-3.

For a detailed listing of the low-energy MSSM parameters obtained with ISAJET 7.58 corresponding to the benchmark points specified above we refer to Ref. ulinabil .<sup>a</sup> <sup>1</sup><sup>1</sup>footnotetext: The results for SPS 1b are not given in Ref. ulinabil .

In Ref. ulinabil  furthermore PYTHIA and SUSYGEN have been used in order to derive the low-energy MSSM parameters for the mSUGRA benchmark points of the SPS (i.e. using the high-energy parameters specified in SPS 1a, 2, 3, 4, 5 as input). These results can be used to adapt the high-energy input parameters in PYTHIA and SUSYGEN such that the actual benchmarks are closely resembled. For SPS 1a, 3, and 5 quite good agreement (typically within 10%) between the low-energy MSSM parameters obtained with ISAJET 7.58, PYTHIA 6.2/00 and SUSYGEN 3.00/27 has been found. For the high-energy input parameters corresponding to SPS 2 and 4, which involve more extreme values (large $`m_0`$ in SPS 2 and large $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$ in SPS 4), rather drastic deviations between low-energy parameters obtained with the three programs can occur (in the chargino and neutralino sector for SPS 2 and in the Higgs and third generation sfermion sector for SPS 4), indicating that the theoretical uncertainties in relating the high-energy input parameters to the low-energy MSSM parameters are very large in these cases. Consequently, some adaptations of the high-energy input parameters will be necessary when analyzing SPS 2 and 4 with different codes in order to match the actual benchmarks.

In Ref. ulinabil  also the particle spectra and decay branching ratios obtained with ISAJET 7.58, PYTHIA 6.2/00 and SUSYGEN 3.00/27 have been compared. For SPS 6 – 9, where the benchmark values of the low-energy MSSM parameters have been used as input for PYTHIA and SUSYGEN, a good overall agreement in the particle spectra and branching ratios between the three programs has been found. For a similar analysis, in which the outputs of different codes are compared for some of the model lines specified above, see Ref. benallanach .

As mentioned above, in order to allow detailed comparisons between future studies based on the SPS it is not only important that the correct values for the actual benchmark parameters specified in eqs. (1), (2) are used, but also the mass spectra and branching ratios that were used in the studies should be indicated.

## IV Conclusions

Detailed experimental simulations in the search for supersymmetric particles make it often necessary to restrict oneself to specific benchmark scenarios. The usefulness of a particular benchmark scenario depends on the physics issue being investigated, and the question of which points or parameter lines should be selected from a multi-dimensional parameter space is to a considerable extent a matter of taste. After the completion of the LEP program several sets of benchmark scenarios for SUSY searches have been proposed as a guidance for experimental analyses at the Tevatron, the LHC and future lepton and hadron colliders. These proposals have been discussed at the “Snowmass Workshop on the Future of Particle Physics”, and have briefly been reviewed in this paper.

As an outcome of the Snowmass Workshop the “Snowmass Points and Slopes” (SPS) have been agreed upon as an attempt to merge elements of the different existing proposals into a common set of benchmark scenarios. The SPS, as spelled out in this paper, consist of a set of benchmark points and model lines (“slopes”) within the mSUGRA, GMSB and AMSB scenarios, where each model line contains one of the benchmark points. We hope that this collection of benchmark scenarios will prove useful in future experimental studies.

###### Acknowledgements.

Fermilab is operated by Universities Research Association Inc. under contract no. DE-AC02-76CH03000 with the U.S. Department of Energy. This work was supported in part by the European Community’s Human Potential Programme under contract HPRN-CT-2000-00149 Physics at Colliders. J.F.G. is supported, in part, by the U.S. Department of Energy, Contract DE-FG03-91ER-40674, and by the Davis Institute for High Energy Physics. H.E.H. is supported in part by a grant from the U.S. Department of Energy. The work of J.L.H. is supported by the U.S. Department of Energy, Contract DE-AC03-76SF00515. J.K. is supported in part by the KBN Grant 5 P03B 119 20 (2001-2002). The work of S.P.M. is supported in part by U.S. National Science Foundation grant PHY-9970691. F.M. is supported by the Fund for Scientific Research (Belgium). S.Mo. would like to thank The Royal Society (London, UK) for financial support in the form of a Conference Grant. The work of K.A.O. was supported in part by DOE grant DE–FG02–94ER–40823.


text:
# Concerning Hertz’ photoelectric effect

## Introduction

As known, in 1905, in addition to the theory of relativity and a kinetic treatment of Brownian movement, A. Einstein proposed a heuristic explanation of the photoelectric effect . We see in this proposal at least two original choices.

In the first place, in the 1905 work Einstein takes up a hypothesis of M. Planck, new and anything but accepted; it is he who will elucidate the innovative content thereof . The hypothesis reproposed admits that upon thermodynamic equilibrium light be emitted and absorbed by matter only in discrete quantities, the so-called quanta. The innovative content of the hypothesis concerns energetically corpuscular constitution of light if we may express ourselves thus.

In the second place, he applies this hypothesis, and hence the theory in whose framework it is formulated, to a curious behaviour of metals and gives a simple explanation thereof. The experimental analysis of the effect on which he bases himself is P. Lenard’s.

Today, the experiments of R. Millikan are taken as confirmation beyond a doubt of that theoretical hypothesis . It seems that, at the most, physics will try to improve the fits of foresight of the numerical values sanctioned therewith.

Here we would like to draw attention to the fact that no experiment verifying equations necessarily proves the correctness of a general theory. Admitted that a theory is sufficiently general and logically coherent, it suggests but does not guarantee a relationship between observed facts. Another theory, based on equally rigorous mathematics, could lend itself to connecting very similar facts in a manner at all different. We shall seek to show how this takes place in a specific case. That is to say we see how electromagnetism explains the photoelectric effect. We believe indeed that just this effect supplied H. Hertz with the key for testing Maxwell’s theory experimentally.

## Relationship of photoelectricity to electromagnetism

The photoelectricity explained by Einstein pertains to the electrical behaviour of specifically irradiated metallic bodies. This is a physical fact, i.e. an observed fact, of which an objective description can be given. Under well defined experimental conditions it is reproducible.

Electromagnetism is a theory. Several theories have been proposed to account for electrical and magnetic phenomenology and Maxwell debates it in his treatise . The theory which we understand is his, i.e. the one summarized in the equations which bear his name. According to his intentions this theory accounts for the electrical facts observed by M. Faraday. Electromagnetism is notoriously also one of the theories of light phenomena.

Electromagnetism is a good theory if it is coherent and if it accounts for the physical facts for which it was written.

Verification of coherence is the duty of mathematical logic. As an alternative, especially in physics, coherence has been proven by recourse to a model or construction of one. In this case the model places the observed facts in a certain relationship. In addition to substituting (partially) the logical reduction, it can act as a link for the physical explanation.

In this work we take for granted that Maxwell’s linear equations allow development of a coherent general theory and we concern ourselves with the electromagnetic explanation of the photoelectric effect. Disregarding interpretative preferences, those who believe the electromagnetic theory insufficient or inadequate for explanation rule out this effect’s being related to those allowed for by Maxwell or even repute that the incorporation of one more law formulated in such a manner as to characterize the phenomenon would make the theory incoherent.

Our point of view on the question being stated, we propose to trace the phenomenon most similar to the photoelectric effect which Maxwell surely considered again. For this purpose we state specifically that the paternity of the photoelectric effect is not attributed to P. Lenard but to H. Hertz.

Lenard  writes, “the action of ultraviolet light \[on metallic surfaces\] was discovered by Hertz. Hallwachs was the first to show that there is a simple relationship \[of UV lighting\] with extraction of negative electricity \[from the volume\] of bodies. Today that relationship is well studied”. The experiment concerns current through a phototube when the cathode is irradiated.

Hertz writes , “Fast electrical movement excitation experiments being initiated I noticed an interaction \[between emitting RLC and receiving RLC\] which caused simultaneous release of sparks \[between the facing capacitor spheres. …\] For some time I asked myself if I hadn’t run into a new form of electricity capable of interacting at a distance. \[…\] The phenomenon was later investigated by Righi, Hallwachs, Elster and Geitel; a satisfactory explanation of the mechanism is still lacking”. The experiment concerns metallic reflection in the UV.

Since by scientific convention the same effect is concerned , to say the least it is not characterized by detection with the electrometer of the convection current emitted. In Hertz’ work indeed all mention of measurement of a current is lacking. So let us leave aside consideration of the mathematical expression for the electrical responsivity of the irradiated metallic surface and let us observe that photoelectricity is enumerated among electrical oscillation resonance phenomena. Those experiments were designed to prove or confute Maxwell’s theory and they proved it.

It seems to us that the circumstance of confirmation presupposes some convergence of the observations of Hertz and those made previously by Faraday.

Faraday’s electrical research was centered on transmission. Moreover, it is rich with insights into phenomenology, even spectacular, of metallic surfaces; His work also contains a crop of observations on the behaviour of dielectric materials called theretofore electrical insulators. When the author concerns himself with transmission through the air he distinguishes the spark release before closing of the electrical contact in the mercury switch from the one released when the contact is broken. The second fact was called by him ‘self-induction’. The first , described as a fast conduction trigger without metallic contact and without arc formation, is attributed by him to a tension state dependant on the chemical-physical conditions of the metallic surfaces involved. Both mean that the purple part of the band is transmitted between the metals in the ‘tension state’ without the need of an antenna. Naturally Faraday knew nothing about antennas.

After Hertz, Lenard and especially Millikan, tended to exclude the contribution of reflection to the current, treating the metallic surfaces of the electrodes in such a manner as to make them nonspecular. They can, for example, be blackened and in this case it again depends on to what degree of blackening one wishes to refer the photoelectric effect on the underlying metal. Lenard speaks almost immediately of the photoelectric effect of retort carbon irradiated with the carbon arc .

Although the application capacity varies considerably, the difference between pulse propagation in a dispersive medium and transmission of a modulated carrier in a range of frequencies such that the behaviour of the air approaches vacuum does not affect the possibility of electromagnetic representation. Thus it seems that Maxwell’s theory should lend itself to some linear schematization of the photoelectric effect.

## Modeling interpretation of the radiation-matter interaction

In the previous paragraph we separated the problems of mathematical coherence from those linked to the plausibility of interpretation. We mentioned that in a physics theory the model serves to facilitate mathematical verification and we sought to make it plausible that with or without the photoelectric effect electromagnetism has to admit the same model.

But given the mathematics with which it is intended to face the problem the model is a more functional structure for explanation than is logical verification. One model can facilitate the interpretation of certain facts and another can better justify others.

The model adopted by Maxwell is hydrodynamic ; for him the horizon of physics stops with matter and motion. Therefore, from his viewpoint, the model chosen does not prejudice understanding of the phenomena described. His successors were unable to endorse it because in the first place it forced him to disseminate his treatise with caveats against analogies with the behaviour of fluids, then because he let himself be led into a misunderstanding, believing he could attribute to field variables a direct dynamic content.

After him, all attempts to include electrical and magnetic phenomena en bloc among those explainable by mechanics being exhausted, the problem of understanding the relationship between the field variables E(x,y,z,t), D(x,y,z,t), B(x,y,z,t), and H(x,y,z,t) and matter and therefore mechanics was posed.

This is a problem of interpretation. It cannot be solved by use of an ad hoc ether. It clearly shows the limit of Maxwell’s model but does not give indications that the mathematical basis is insufficient. Thus H. Lorentz corrects the existing theory  by postulating that the kinematic behaviour of electrically charged ponderable bodies gives the only measurable proof of the presence of electromagnetic fields. He adjusts the kinematic behaviour of test bodies in the fields by adding to Maxwell’s equations the dynamic law which bears his name. Hereinafter we consider his work with exclusive reference to the problem set here.

According to us, this author’s main purpose was to credit the Maxwell equations no matter how by establishing conventions acceptable to the majority of the scientific community. Just because the burden of proof of the electrical fields is conceived according to gravitation it is not a matter of an explanation of a specific electrical experiment but of the interpretation of mathematical formulas. If it is remembered that retarded potentials are an excellent mathematical artifice it can be concluded that the model proposed as an alternative to hydrodynamics does not seek to be innovative.

If Lorentz set himself the above mentioned purposes the interpretative capacity of his model was distorted. Further analyzing other implications of Lorentz’ model is beyond the scope at hand.

In this paragraph we are not discussing the experimental evidence in favor of the electron but rather the appropriateness of modeling the radiation-matter interaction in electromagnetism with its help. From this point of view the electron hypothesis was judged insufficient at least by all the ‘founding fathers’ of quantum mechanics to account for the experiments. Among these A. Sommerfeld observes that in classical wave theory the electrons are considered in continuous interaction with the ether and that every variation of their movement involves irradiation of waves. After which he says , “One imagines an electron in the source point of every spherical wave which generates the electromagnetic field of the spherical wave according to the rhythm of its movement. \[…\] Instead of speaking of an electron we should speak of a solution of Maxwell’s equations which would express the conditions of atom-ether coupling in force upon irradiation”. Although he viewed the interpretation in the framework of a mathematical construction different from Maxwell’s, we believe the color change pointed out is of a more general interest. It means that to have sense physically the electromagnetic fields need not represent substance or energy. They can represent a relationship between objects, for example an electrical coupling. The necessity of representing this relationship by means of a model arises because of the generality and abstractness of the theory.

In effect, the number of material manifestations which we can trace back to electrical phenomenology is not small. In addition to the movement of indices or movable galvanometer elements, to detect electrical phenomena we use sounds, photochemical and electrolytic reactions, and even calorimetry. Tracing back all these manifestations to a single type of abstract mechanical movement does not mean that we have accounted for the mechanism of the manifestations but rather that we intend to adopt a kinetic model for electromagnetism.

We do the contrary of that when we seek to relate all the above mentioned material manifestations to electromagnetism in a unitary manner. As everyone knows Faraday believed electricity to be connatural with the structure of matter. This hypothesis is faithfully reproduced in Maxwell’s equations with the result of offering a theory with a very new conception and different from all the preceding mechanical ones.

Accepting interpretation of the fields as a relation and implementing Maxwell’s equations with a non-mechanical model, electromagnetism appears as a physical theory explaining the body of Faraday’s experiments without attributing any dynamic meaning to the variables. Mathematics describes the electrical and lighting relationship and the explanation of what we have to represent with the relationship depends on the model.

## The object of electromagnetism is established by analogy

In the previous paragraph we saw that the electromagnetic theory is difficult to interpret because Maxwell did not allow for anything but electricity and light. But the only experimental manner of acceding to these magnitudes is to transduce them. To clarify, we do not observe light with the eyes but its manifestation, i.e. luminous or illuminated objects.

As electromagnetism is not a theory of electrical transduction, it would readily be abandoned today if the interpretative problem had not had an experimental solution. The experimental solution is due to Hertz but H. Helmholtz had a primary role therein. The latter author, as usual for his time, felt that all electromagnetism, and not only the single effect, could be verified by analogy with an appropriate mechanism. He decided to draw a parallel with the world of sounds by comparing resemblances and differences at the propagation level.

The acoustic analogy was heuristic in the sense that Einstein wished for his own interpretation of the photoelectric effect. Before Hertz carried out the first of the demonstrative experiments of the propagation of electrical force in the ether, his teacher, Helmholtz, had laid down for acoustics an experimental methodology which has defied time; to evaluate sound fields around acoustic sources he introduced test bodies which he called resonators. As we shall see in paragraph 6 below, Hertz transposed the investigation method exactly as it was from musical acoustics and adapted both field generators and test bodies to the technical requirements of electricity. Since not even Hertz knew anything about antennas, we cannot assert that we would judge his field probes according to present day parameters. We can only observe that Hertz’ so-called dipoles are not the experimental equivalent of the test body prescribed by Lorentz.

We warned that it is possible to doubt the functionality of Lorentz’ electron as a field probe without detriment to the validity of Maxwell’s equations. The experimental confirmation given by Hertz independently of the particular probe (provided it were suitable) used by him can be considered also.

In the paper, über die Beziehungen zwischen Licht und Elektrizität  Hertz explains what the experimental confirmation of electromagnetism consists of. “\[…between light and electricity there is\] a succession of delicate interactions like rotation of the polarization plane with the current, or variation of conduction resistance with light. In these \[examples\] however there is no direct transduction between light and electricity but the ponderable matter mediates between these two manifestations. We shall not concern ourselves with this group of phenomena \[i.e. those of transduction\]. There are stricter relationships between light and electricity. I shall defend this statement before you: light is an electrical phenomenon”.

We must not understand identification of light with electricity as an imposition of Hertz on nature. Rather it concerns the solution given by him to the problem of establishing what physical object electromagnetism is concerned with. Today we might say that, with this identification, he inaugurated the radiotelephony era for the purposes of human telecommunications.

The possibility of obtaining and giving information without having to establish direct contact is given naturally and is absolutely not limited to electrical phenomena or to human beings. On the contrary, the possibility of neglecting the peculiarities of the detector or probe for the purposes of electromagnetic telecommunications is postulated by Maxwell and proven experimentally by Hertz.

We mentioned that an effect very similar to Hertz’ photoelectric effect belongs to the experimental basis of Maxwell’s equations. Hertz himself, in describing the fact, considers it marginal in comparison with the verification of electromagnetism which he has in mind. And yet the photoelectric effect is the first fact he detected with the experimental arrangement suited to that verification. According to the theory, the photoelectric effect gives rise to a signal. Neither the technology for reception thereof nor its decoding nor attribution thereto of a meaning are prescribed in electromagnetism.

## Inconsistency of Einstein’s heuristic approach with Millikan’s verification

If we understand, the energetic interpretation given by Einstein to the photoelectric effect is heuristic in the sense that he asks if it would not be possible to formulate a general theory of transformation of light in something else in place of the theory of Maxwellian conception. The theory in the making would be oriented towards the transduction process and in this case would distinguish the spark from the negative electricity extracted. At least in this respect the new theory diverges from the Hertzian basis of telecommunications. But it could be a theory of electrical phenomena for the same reason. Indeed, even Faraday’s original experimenting is much richer with facts and leaves a broad margin for schematization of electrical phenomena beyond theories of light.

Since the theory conceived by Einstein imposes an energy balance of transduction it must postulate the principle of conservation of energy and therefore is bound to be a linear theory. In accordance therewith the modality hypothesized for transformation of light in something else must be theoretically represented by simple processes such as absorption and emission . The tolerance with which the linearity requirement is transferred to the experiment is not prescribed.

Today a coherent general theory alternative to electromagnetism exits. We shall not touch here on the question intrinsic to its field of application.

On the other hand the experimental solution given by Millikan does not represent for the new theory what the Hertz verification represents for the classical one. In effect, in the era of this author the theory of electrical circuits was universally accepted and the photodiode was considered a circuitry component with full rights. Einstein’s linear equation being reproduced experimentally he himself observes that he can agree with any linear theory that manages to justify it.

As mentioned above, metallic surfaces can display the photoelectric effect. However Einstein does not specify any surface characteristic when he gets the following heuristic law.

$`eV=Nh\nu P`$ (1)
in the very broad context of light production and transformation energetics. In the formula, e is the charge per gram-equivalent weight of monovalent ions, V is the potential to which the surface of the irradiated solid body is brought, N is the number of real molecules thereof, P is the potential with which electricity is held therein and is termed work function, and $`h\nu `$ is the quantized light energy corresponding to incident radiation with frequency $`\nu `$.

It seems to us that in the Einstein formulation two misunderstandings are introduced.

1. Faraday’s electrolytic ions, for each reagent, met the specified chemical composition to the electrolytic purity grade. Today we can obtain them chemically more or less pure than this and verify their properties. The degree of purity of the electron on the other hand has always been associated with metallic conduction.

2. If, as we are led to think, in 1905 Einstein was not predicting L.A.S.E.R., he attributes to natural light model characteristics taken entirely from Maxwell’s theory. Today, on the contrary, one should decide either that L.A.S.E.R. is not a black radiator or to which black bodies Planck’s theory applies.

If the experimenter does not cautiously appraise the challenge placed on measurement he will have the alternative of an interpretation in agreement with electromagnetism also or a mistaken one. Obviously to discuss transformation or transduction of light in something else it is necessary to attack experimentally the question upstream of the place where the photoelectric effect pertains to an electromagnetic radiation and to a metallic electric current. Since concomitantly with electromagnetism it is established that electric phenomena can be referred objectively (i.e. measured) the upstream place where the question should be faced is the one in which the electrical effects are separated from their material manifestations.

We found no evidence that Millikan had tried to distinguish the so-called work function P from the Volta effect. He merely subtracts the second value in volts from the first. But the justification of the validity of the Einstein equation  not only ignores transduction at the measurement level but even neglects to include in the energy balance concomitant chemical transformations which have nothing to do with the measurement procedure chosen. The most considerable of these transformations is the formation of a patina on the cathode but it is not the only one.

If he were to reduce the non electrical side effects by lowering the radiant power and/or using less inflammable cathodes and/or improving the vacuum in the cathode ray tube, he would verify Einstein’s heuristic equation under the hypothesis of Maxwell’s theory (i.e. regardless of the reception modality).

But Millikan might have reached the conclusion that, under the measurement conditions in which none of the ‘excess’ side effects were still perceptible, neither would he have been able to confirm Einstein’s equation numerically beyond all doubt. Thus he undoubtedly verified it but in the framework of what general theory?

## The photoelectric effect mechanism

Up to this point we have sought to say that the Maxwell-Hertz theory explicitly disregards the characteristics of transduction and in addition that even the theory proposed by Einstein, although it intends to appraise the transduction energy balance, must disregard the specification of a particular mechanism.

We are now proposing a mechanism which accounts for the photoelectric effect and saying that it is the one presently suggested in electromagnetism.

We shall proceed as follows. First we shall review Helmholtz’ mechanical analogy, then we shall explain which function has the photoelectric effect in Hertz’ experiment. Lastly we shall transfer to the UV excitation the same receiving and transmission modality observed for Hertzian waves. This is possible under the Maxwellian radiation hypotheses.

### Helmholtz’ intellectual contribution to Hertz

Many mechanical systems can be made to vibrate under appropriate conditions. Oscillations are determined of such an entity as to endanger the integrity of the structure only in a few.

For example, if the wheels of the vehicle are not balanced, at certain speeds the steering wheel vibrates in an annoying manner around its axis. On the contrary, if they are balanced this does not occur at normal speeds. In an analogous manner a ship cannot exceed a certain cruising speed without the planking beginning to tremble. In addition to the creaking, the sailing ship’s structure, differently from the vehicle, emits in creaking a sound similar to a note. In navigation it is believed that the wave represents a sufficient stress and other singing effects are not sought. In the construction of musical instruments, on the contrary, the aim is to obtain some effect of this kind from the soundbox while the vibration is sustained.

A hammer blow given to a shroud stretched between two steel girders, even if it is perceptible, does not correspond to a musical sound. In addition, without a soundbox there is no intensity of force capable of stressing the rope in such a manner as to give rise to a musical sound. So apparently the function of the soundbox is to give sonority to the movement of a plucked, rubbed or struck tight chord.

Going a bit further, we can attribute to this the property of amplifying the vibration of the chord, possibly with distortion. Now the amplification consists of pulling the mass of contained air and the immediately surrounding mass in some movement. We can imagine that the soundbox has the faculty of adapting the movement of the chord to that of the air.

This experimental base does not allow enunciation of a physical law putting the vibration frequency of the chord in correspondence with the perceived note.

In the meantime if the chord is represented ’with distributed mass’ it is a simple pendulum only in a first approximation.

But let us hypothesize that the chord vibrations are stationary and the isochronism is controlled stroboscopically. Secondarily the soundbox necessary for perception of the sound does not develop pendular motion. If we except organ pipes it doesn’t have even by far a one-dimension structure.

In the third place the air filling the space behaves in general as an even worse oscillator.

We might even hazard the hypothesis that the air does not at all enter into oscillation during the sound. In particular, it seems to us illusory to think that smoke or fog or a flame would help demonstrating the movement more instantly or faithfully than does the soundbox.

Instead it is certain that the air behaves as a channel of transmission in relation to sound and consequently the individual without hearing defects perceives sounds and noises. We can agree to call both of them ‘signals’ as long as the movement of the air itself does not become perceptible, which is what takes place for example during explosions. The signals are transduced into sounds by the ear. Under loose conditions we can ignore transduction. But a theory independent of the modality of transduction is a signal theory. Only in this kind of theory is it unimportant to call signals ‘sounds’ or ‘noises’. Obviously Helmholtz implicitly makes this assumption .

Now let us summarize the work of Helmholtz in relation to the experiment of Hertz. He considers the siren as an instrument capable of sustaining a certain note as long as desired. He associates with the pitch of tones perceived in the air the linear speed of rotation of the siren disk holes which produce them. These speeds are constant in modulus. It is understood at this stage that the frequency of rotation which equals the pitch of the tone supplies an objective measurement after disregarding the attacking and releasing transients. But it is the mere instrumental recording of a fact which, if we are musicians, we are capable of evaluating independently and equally objectively by ear. In a subsequent stage, making use of the instrument, we can ‘educate’ the ear to hearing without being musicians.

In effect, having chosen 440Hz for the reference frequency a’ attributed to the tuning fork, Helmholtz is able to reduce the musical chords to simple frequency relationships. In this manner it is seen that the quality of sound of the soundboxes as obtained by spectral analysis in accordance with Fourier is not simple and that the consonance or dissonance of a chord concerns the musical tone more than the pitch of a single partial tone, commonly the prime tone.

Studying the phenomenon better it is seen that as loudness increases, non-linear effects can occur. The non-linearity consists of the fact that we hear tones which the instrument did not produce. These tones which Helmholtz calls combinatorial tones are sums and differences of the tones emitted provided they are perceptible.

The linear case of these effects is perceived as beats. During the beats, sounds of similar pitch emitted by different instruments interfere temporally. Today beats can be used for tuning; the slower they are the more similar is the pitch of the sound of the two instruments compared.

It should be said that -

1. Helmholtz evaluates the spectral sound distribution in the space around the siren by measuring with tuned sensors invented by himself the intensity of several persistent simple tones. Therefore he seems to locate the sounds in the room.

2. Even though he calls these sensors ‘resonators’ they cannot be excited until they oscillate freely when the external stress is broken. They cannot be thought of as sound sources. Therefore, in the same manner as the ear or other soundboxes, they amplify selectively by coupling with the air.

### Acoustic analogy due to the Hertz photoelectric effect

Hertz possessed a battery-powered RCL secondary electrical circuit which he used as a transmitter and also an RCL with receiver function. For the purpose of emphasizing the photoelectric effect he fed the receiver in series with the same battery as the transmitter. A mercury switch was part of the primary circuit.

Hertz didn’t feed the transmitter persistently during the experiment nor did he use the charge transient but the discharge transient. Upon opening the switch, a spark went off at the spark gap between the transmitter capacitor plates, two small polished, perfectly clean metal balls. Simultaneously the spark went off at the receiving RCL spark gap provided the latter was less than approximately 3 meters away. The two spark gaps also had to be facing each other and any object placed between them could prevent the spark to the receiver from going off, provided it completely hid a band beyond extreme violet. Hertz determined the frequency of this band by dispersion through a quartz prism. He named this phenomenon the photoelectric effect.

A good quality factor Q was an essential requisite on the receiver. If the transmitter also had a good Q, a mutual reinforcement of the spark could be noted.

Let us consider the interpretation. Hertz thought that his secondary circuits were equipollent with soundboxes. But the acoustic box serves to both selectively amplify and broadcast music. On the contrary, modern broadcasting makes use of antennas distinct from oscillating circuits.

If in addition to tuning resonators in frequency with each other Hertz had adapted both to the transmission channel, he could have avoided consuming the power necessary to produce sparks and would have received a less noisy signal. In reality he needed to receive and transmit sparks because he had no lower frequency reception techniques available.

From the point of view of reception the spark transduces an electric signal and represents it so to speak. The spark produced by an electrical circuit on the other hand is not analogous to a simple tone nor to a musical sound. It can be said that having neglected the last consideration was fatal to the Hertzian interpretation. We shall attempt to repropose it while allowing for it.

Hertz precisely ‘is not concerned’ with adapting the impedance. This is equivalent of believing a priori the inductive coupling to be weak or even believing it to be of the order of magnitude of the acoustic one.

If the assumption were true the Hertzian radiofrequency (r.f.) receiver would function as a wavemeter, recording amplitude maxima or, more correctly, intensity maxima of a continuous wave (CW) emitted at the resonance frequency. A wavemeter is Helmholtz’ resonator. When it is placed in the trough of a stationary wave, i.e. in a zone where interference does not produce cancellation, it amplifies a persistent sound, possibly introducing distortions. By analogy, Hertz prefigures to himself receiving a sequence of sparks timed at radiofrequency as long as wanted. In truth, Hertz’ transmitter does not broadcast a continuous wave but a free induction decay (FID) . Hertz nevertheless prefigures to himself that the r.f. FID of a transmitting resonator gives rise to a goodly number of discharge sparks when fed at the highest power. On the other hand he observes a single spark from the spark gap of the transmitter and, at the same time, the reception signal (a spark). So he concludes that the electric emission is really oscillating at radiofrequency but even more damped than that of a common diapason.

The assumption is reasonable and the consequences plausible. Its falsification depends on the existence in trade of klystrons. In comparison with klystrons, any mechanical vibration is damped, even that of the diapason, despite the fact that it is the only musical instrument able to transmit a FID and which transmits it on condition it be adapted correctly to the air.

If Hertz had considered this point and had adapted the impedance in addition to tuning the receiver to the transmitter, he would have noticed that not only the transmitter but the receiver also radiates when excited. In addition, under coupling conditions phase relationships are determined.

The symmetry of behaviour between electrical transmitter and receiver can be such as to make them indistinguishable as regards function. On the contrary, only diapasons at the same nominal frequency can be acoustically coupled during transients and in this case the beat phenomenon is recorded.

By analogy Hertz would have received a voltage or current signal corresponding to the envelope of interference working at low power and low frequency (amplitude demodulation). Since this procedure does not give rise to a spark he would have had to develop the reception circuit further.

The need to detect sparks arises from the absence of this circuit. So Hertz adjusts the transmitting circuit so that the overvoltage at the spark gap would produce them. According to Faraday the excess current corresponds to the extra current of opening of the switch but the sudden trigger of the light discharge depends on disconnection of the mercury from the circuit. The analogy given to the diapason would be a hammer blow which produces a clang even in the disadapted diapason. According to Helmholtz, to this clang must be attributed an origin different from the note a’ due to the fact that it is emitted isotropically and is audible. According to him these are frequency combination tones typical of the metallic structure.

The mechanism identified by Helmholtz explains the emission of the spark by an electrical circuit by analogy. The resonance coupling in the UV on the other hand is explained the same way electrical oscillations of coupled circuits are explained, when the behaviour of linear electrical circuits is the model of electromagnetism. This allows the statement that the photoelectric effect is an inductive coupling in the UV. It is very selective, hence strong and in addition the requisites of adaptation for transmission in vacuum are met. This interpretation would not be possible if Hertz had made use of a coherer or a photodiode for reception of the spark.

## Conclusion

It seems to us that Einstein’s proposal to develop formal structures capable of giving a simple description of the basic phenomena hasn’t lost its appeal. It even seems to us that the photoelectric effect could be fairly considered a typical and fundamental phenomenon. It should not be surprising that in its experimental characterization according to Hertz it appears basic for electromagnetism.

Its interpretation is not elementary because it is given in the framework of a model which assumes simple behaviour of electrical circuits. In this case, indeed, its observation is associated with the non-linear behaviour of circuits.

We have showed that the photoelectric effect can be interpreted with the help of the analogy with sounds, and that it can be explained in the framework of Maxwell theory.

We believe however that the explanation of the photoelectric effect might be simplified starting from a different model of Maxwell-Hertz electromagnetism.