BSM-Traunkirchen-Lecture-1 - Particles and Interactions

Transcription

BSM Searches at the LHC
Lecture 1 of 3
Greg Landsberg
2015 DKPI Summer School
Traunkirchen, Austria
September 24, 2015
Slide
2
Greg Landsberg -BMS Searches @ the LHC - Traunkirchen 2015
Outline
✦
✦
✦
✦
✦
✦
Why Search for BSM Physics?
The Hierarchy Problem
Possible Solutions
SUSY Primer
Technicolor: RIP
Extra Dimensions
Slide
3
What I’ll Cover
Searches for BSM physics are vast
✦ For example, in CMS they are organized within three physics
groups: SUSY (SUS), Exotica (EXO), and Beyond Two Generations
(B2G)
✦
๏
While “bread-and-butter” EXO searches (W’, Z’, extra dimensions, LQs,
etc.) are winding down, a lot of attention is shifting to B2G searches
with b and t quarks, as well as searches in the boosted topologies
๏ SUS searches moved toward “natural” SUSY models and Higgs
production in the SUSY decay chains
In these lectures, I’ll highlight some of these recent results
✦ I’ll also cover one particular result in a lot of details - as a
pedagogical introduction to searches for new physics
✦ Will mostly use CMS analyses as examples - in most of the cases
ATLAS has very similar results; choose CMS simply because I
know these analyses in more detail
✦
Slide
4
Greg Landsberg - Search for Exotics @ the LHC - Benasque 2014
Motivation
Slide
5
As Confucius Once Said...
… about SUSY searches in the XXI century?..
It’s very hard to find a black cat ...
Slide
5
… in a dark room ...
Slide
5
… in a dark room ...
… especially if he is not there...
Slide
6
Why Motivate Yourselves?
✦
Searching for new physics is not for weak at heart:
๏
๏
๏
✦
It’s much easier to do the analysis if you are motivated
๏
✦
✦
Some 250 searches have been carried out by the ATLAS
and CMS experiments so far, and all came empty-handed
A likelihood for any given search to find something
interesting is close to zero…
..yet, the only way to find something is to keep looking!
…not [just] by your advisor, but by the physics you are
doing!
Remember, every search is a potential discovery, and
only if it fails, it becomes a limit setting exercise
“Pier is a disappointed bridge” - James Joyce
๏
Set out to build bridges, not piers!
7
Slide
Real Motivation: the
Hierarchy Problem
[Matthew Ritchie, 2003; Guggenheim Museum]
Slide
8
Large Hierarchies Tend to Collapse...
SM:10-34
fine-tuning
Slide
8
Large Hierarchies Tend to Collapse...
SM:10-34
fine-tuning
Slide
9
The Hierarchy Problem
• Higgs boson mass receives corrections from fermion loops:
• The size of corrections is ~ to the UV cutoff (Λ) squared:
MH2 =
2
f
2
(⇥
4⇥ 2
+ MH2 ) + ...
• In order for the Higgs boson mass to be finite, a fine tuning (cancellation)
of various loops is required to a precision ~(MH/Λ)2 ~ 10-34 for Λ ~ MPl
• This is known as a “hierarchy problem” stemming from a large hierarchy
between the electroweak symmetry breaking and Planck scales, and it
requires new physics at Λ ~ 1-10 TeV
• The discovery of the Higgs boson with the mass of 125 GeV in 2012 made
the hierarchy problem a reality, not just a theoretical concept!
Slide 10
Standard Model: Beauty & the Beast
Beauty…
Measurement
(5)
Fit
∆αhad(mZ)
0.02750 ± 0.00033 0.02759
mZ [GeV]
91.1875 ± 0.0021
91.1874
2.4959
ΓZ [GeV]
2.4952 ± 0.0023
σhad [nb]
0
41.540 ± 0.037
41.478
Rl
20.767 ± 0.025
20.742
0,l
Afb
Al(Pτ)
Rb
meas
fit
meas
|O
−O |/σ
0
1
2
3
0.01714 ± 0.00095 0.01645
0.1465 ± 0.0032
0.1481
0.21629 ± 0.00066 0.21579
Rc
0.1721 ± 0.0030
0.1723
Afb
0,b
0.0992 ± 0.0016
0.1038
Afb
0,c
0.0707 ± 0.0035
0.0742
Ab
0.923 ± 0.020
0.935
Ac
0.670 ± 0.027
0.668
0.1513 ± 0.0021
0.1481
sin θeff (Qfb) 0.2324 ± 0.0012
0.2314
mW [GeV]
80.385 ± 0.015
80.377
ΓW [GeV]
2.085 ± 0.042
2.092
Al(SLD)
2 lept
mt [GeV]
March 2012
173.20 ± 0.90
173.26
0
1
2
3
Slide 10
Beauty… and the Beast
Measurement
(5)
Fit
∆αhad(mZ)
0.02750 ± 0.00033 0.02759
mZ [GeV]
91.1875 ± 0.0021
91.1874
2.4959
ΓZ [GeV]
2.4952 ± 0.0023
σhad [nb]
0
41.540 ± 0.037
41.478
Rl
20.767 ± 0.025
20.742
0,l
Afb
Al(Pτ)
Rb
0.01714 ± 0.00095 0.01645
0.1465 ± 0.0032
0.1481
0.21629 ± 0.00066 0.21579
Rc
0.1721 ± 0.0030
0.1723
Afb
0,b
0.0992 ± 0.0016
0.1038
Afb
0,c
0.0707 ± 0.0035
0.0742
Ab
0.923 ± 0.020
0.935
Ac
0.670 ± 0.027
0.668
Al(SLD)
0.1513 ± 0.0021
0.1481
2 lept
sin θeff (Qfb)
0.2324 ± 0.0012
0.2314
mW [GeV]
80.385 ± 0.015
80.377
ΓW [GeV]
2.085 ± 0.042
2.092
mt [GeV]
March 2012
meas
fit
meas
|O
−O |/σ
0
1
2
3
173.20 ± 0.90
RGE evolution
Inverse Strength
Gravitational
Force
EM/Hypercharge
Force
Weak Force
Strong Force
vev
173.26
0
1
2
3
102
MGUT
MPl
1016 1019 E [GeV]
MGUT ~ MPl » vev
Slide 10
✦
Physics beyond the SM may get rid of the beast while
preserving SM’s natural beauty!
Beauty… and the Beast
Measurement
(5)
Fit
∆αhad(mZ)
0.02750 ± 0.00033 0.02759
mZ [GeV]
91.1875 ± 0.0021
91.1874
2.4959
ΓZ [GeV]
2.4952 ± 0.0023
σhad [nb]
0
41.540 ± 0.037
41.478
Rl
20.767 ± 0.025
20.742
0,l
Afb
Al(Pτ)
Rb
0.01714 ± 0.00095 0.01645
0.1465 ± 0.0032
0.1481
0.21629 ± 0.00066 0.21579
Rc
0.1721 ± 0.0030
0.1723
Afb
0,b
0.0992 ± 0.0016
0.1038
Afb
0,c
0.0707 ± 0.0035
0.0742
Ab
0.923 ± 0.020
0.935
Ac
0.670 ± 0.027
0.668
Al(SLD)
0.1513 ± 0.0021
0.1481
2 lept
sin θeff (Qfb)
0.2324 ± 0.0012
0.2314
mW [GeV]
80.385 ± 0.015
80.377
ΓW [GeV]
2.085 ± 0.042
2.092
mt [GeV]
March 2012
meas
fit
meas
|O
−O |/σ
0
1
2
3
173.20 ± 0.90
RGE evolution
Inverse Strength
Gravitational
Force
EM/Hypercharge
Force
Weak Force
Strong Force
vev
173.26
0
1
2
3
102
MGUT
MPl
1016 1019 E [GeV]
Slide 11
But Keep in Mind…
Slide 11
But Keep in Mind…
•
Fine tuning (required to keep a large hierarchy stable)
exists in Nature:
Slide 11
But Keep in Mind…
•
exists in Nature:
๏
Solar eclipse: angular size of the sun is the same as the
angular size of the moon within 2.5% (pure coincidence!)
Slide 11
But Keep in Mind…
•
exists in Nature:
๏
๏
Politics: Florida 2000 recount, 2,913,321/2,913,144 =
Slide 11
But Keep in Mind…
•
exists in Nature:
๏
๏
1.000061 (!!)
Slide 11
But Keep in Mind…
•
exists in Nature:
๏
๏
๏
1.000061 (!!)
Numerology: 987654321/123456789 =
Slide 11
But Keep in Mind…
•
exists in Nature:
๏
๏
๏
1.000061 (!!)
Numerology: 987654321/123456789 =
8.000000073 (!!!)
Slide 11
But Keep in Mind…
•
exists in Nature:
๏
๏
๏
1.000061 (!!)
Numerology: 987654321/123456789 =
8.000000073 (!!!)
(HW Assignment: is it really numerology?)
Slide 11
But Keep in Mind…
•
exists in Nature:
๏
๏
๏
•
1.000061 (!!)
Numerology: 987654321/123456789 =
8.000000073 (!!!)
Nevertheless: beware of the anthropic principle
Slide 11
But Keep in Mind…
•
exists in Nature:
๏
๏
๏
•
1.000061 (!!)
Numerology: 987654321/123456789 =
8.000000073 (!!!)
๏
Properties of the universe are so special because we
happen to exist and be able to ask these very questions
Slide 11
But Keep in Mind…
•
exists in Nature:
๏
๏
๏
•
1.000061 (!!)
Numerology: 987654321/123456789 =
8.000000073 (!!!)
๏
๏
Properties of the universe are so special because we
happen to exist and be able to ask these very questions
Is it time to give up science for philosophy? – So far we’ve
been able to explain the universe entirely with science!
Slide 12
Beyond the Standard Model
Slide 12
✦
Apart from the naturalness argument:
๏
Standard Model accommodates, but does not explain:
EWSB
• CP-violation
• Fermion masses (i.e., the values of the Yukawa couplings to the Higgs field)
•
๏
It doesn’t provide natural explanation for the:
Neutrino masses
• Cold dark matter
•
Slide 12
✦
Apart from the naturalness argument:
๏
Standard Model accommodates, but does not explain:
EWSB
• CP-violation
• Fermion masses (i.e., the values of the Yukawa couplings to the Higgs field)
•
๏
It doesn’t provide natural explanation for the:
Neutrino masses
• Cold dark matter
•
✦
Logical conclusion:
๏
Standard model is an effective theory – a low-energy approximation of a more
complete theory, which ultimately explains the above phenomena
๏
This new theory must take off at a scale of ~1 TeV to avoid significant amount
of fine tuning
๏
Three classes of solutions:
Ensure automatic cancellation of divergencies (SUSY/Little Higgs)
✤ Eliminate fundamental scalar and/or introduce intermediate scale Λ ~ 1 TeV
(Technicolor/Higgsless models) - basically dead now
✤ Reduce the highest physics scale to ~1 TeV (Extra Dimensions)
✤
Slide 13
Looking for SUSY
✦
Everything you always wanted to know about SUSY
but were afraid to ask:
๏
๏
๏
๏
✦
What is SUSY?
Three SUSY miracles
Supersymmetric particle zoo
“Natural” SUSY
SUSY and Higgs - the marriage made in heaven
๏
What did we learn about SUSY in the aftermath of the
Higgs discovery?
The Beauty in the Mirror
Slide 14
✦
The mirror world: discrete symmetry of spin
๏
Every Standard Model (SM) fermion has a
bosonic “superpartner,” and vice versa, e.g.:
(J = ½) → Squark (J = 0)
✤ Photon (J = 1) → Photino (J = ½)
✤ Quark
✦
✦
Supersymmetry must be “broken” as we do
not see a selectron with the mass of 0.5 MeV!
To avoid multiple constraints, typically
introduce conserved R-parity [Farrar, Fayet,
Phys. Lett. B 76 (1978) 575]:
๏
✦
3B+L+2S
R = (-1)
= +1 (SM) and -1 (SUSY)
This leads to the lightest supersymmetric
particle (LSP) being stable and pair-production
of SUSY as the only possible mechanism
Norman Rockwell “Girl at Mirror”
The LSP is an excellent Dark Matter (DM) Candidate
Slide 15
SUSY: Gauge Sector
✦
Higgses: two complex doublets (8 degrees of freedom)
๏
๏
๏
๏
๏
๏
๏
✦
One gives masses to down-type, and
another one – to up-type quarks
Ratio of vacuum expectation values is
conventionally called tanβ
±
3 d.o.f. are “eaten” by massive Z, W 5 remaining d.o.f. become physical
0
0
±
0
states: h , H , H , A MH > Mh by definition; Mh < 135 GeV
A is a CP-odd Higgs
Supersymmetric partners of the two
Higgs doublets mix with the partners
of SM EW gauge bosons to give four
neutral (neutralinos) and two pairs of
charged (charginos) gauginos
Gluino remains unmixed
Slide 16
Supersymmetry Breaking
We know that SUSY is a broken symmetry, but we do not know how it is
broken
✦ Several theoretical models exist:
✦
The scale of SUSY-breaking
•
Gravitino mass: m3/2 = p
•
Sparticle masses:
m2sof t
=
F
3Mpl
2
✓
F
M
104 GeV
David Shih
◆2
⇠ TeV
1010 GeV
M = “Messenger scale”
1012 GeV
Gauge
mediation
Gravity Anomaly
mediation mediation
M ⌧ Mpl
↵
⇠
4⇡
M ⇠ Mpl M ⇠ Mpl
↵
⇠
⇠1
4⇡
p
F
“Low scale SUSY-breaking”
“High scale SUSY-breaking”
Gravitino LSP. No WIMP DM. Calculable.
Solves SUSY flavor problem.
Neutralino or sneutrino LSP. WIMP dark
matter possible. Generally not calculable.
Can have severe SUSY flavor problem.
Slide 17
MSSM and cMSSM
SUSY is a renormalizable and calculable theory and has been thoroughly
studied theoretically over the last four decades
✦ MSSM has just two Higgs doublets; nevertheless the number of
parameters describing the model is still very large: 124
✦
๏
๏
18 are the SM ones + Higgs boson mass (now known!)
105 genuinely new parameters:
✤5
real parameters and 3 CP-violating phases in gaugino sector
✤ 21 squark/slepton masses and 36 mixing angles
✤ 40 CP-violating phases in the sfermion sector
This makes it very challenging to search for generic SUSY, and simplifying
assumptions are typically made
✦ One of these simplifications is constrained MSSM, or cMSSM, which
assumes gaugino unification and degenerate squark/slepton masses at
high energy (typical of gravity-mediated SUSY breaking)
✦
๏
That results in just five parameters fixing all the SUSY interactions: common scalar and fermion masses M0, M1/2, ratio of the vacuum expectations
of the two Higgs doublets tanβ, sign of Higgsino mass term sign(μ), and
trilinear coupling A0
Slide 17
MSSM and cMSSM
SUSY is a renormalizable and calculable theory and has been thoroughly
studied theoretically over the last four decades
✦ MSSM has just two Higgs doublets; nevertheless the number of
parameters describing the model is still very large: 124
✦
๏
๏
18 are the SM ones + Higgs boson mass (now known!)
105 genuinely new parameters:
✤5
real parameters and 3 CP-violating phases in gaugino sector
✤ 21 squark/slepton masses and 36 mixing angles
✤ 40 CP-violating phases in the sfermion sector
This makes it very challenging to search for generic SUSY, and simplifying
assumptions are typically made
✦ One of these simplifications is constrained MSSM, or cMSSM, which
assumes gaugino unification and degenerate squark/slepton masses at
high energy (typical of gravity-mediated SUSY breaking)
✦
๏
That results in just five parameters fixing all the SUSY interactions: common scalar and fermion masses M0, M1/2, ratio of the vacuum expectations
of the two Higgs doublets tanβ, sign of Higgsino mass term sign(μ), and
trilinear coupling A0
Typically most important
Three Miracles of SUSY
Slide 18
✦
✦
Elegant solution to the hierarchy
problem (i.e.,
why the Higgs
mass is not at
the Planck scale)
✦
Gauge unification
Dark matter candidate with the right abundance
Excluded squarks to ~2.0 TeV and gluinos to ~1.3 TeV or did we?
m1/2 [GeV]
✦
MSUGRA/CMSSM: tan(β) = 30, A = -2m0, µ > 0
900
0
∼
τ
LSP
All limits at 95% CL.
ATLAS
s = 8 TeV, L = 20 fb
-1
)
800
600
GeV)
eV)
h (126
h (124 G
700
Expected ( ±1 σ exp )
SUSY
Observed (±1 σ theory )
Expected
(0+1)-lepton combination
Observed
miss
Expected
0-lepton + 7-10 jets + E
T
Observed
miss
Expected
0/1-lepton + 3 b-jets + E
T
Observed
miss
Expected
Taus + jets + E
T
Observed
miss
Expected
SS/3L + jets + E
T
Observed
miss
Expected
1-lepton (hard) + 7 jets + E
T
Observed
~
g (1400 GeV)
6000
cMSSM/mSUGRA
CMS
tan( ) = 30, A 0 = -2max(m ,m1/2)
0
µ > 0;
mh = 127 GeV
4000
Mtop = 172.5 GeV
Observed limit ± 1
Expected limit ± 1
4500
experiment
theory
mh = 126 GeV
3500
3000
mh = 125 GeV
2000
1500
800
= LSP
1000
1200
1400
300
0
1600
1800
2000
m~g [GeV]
JHEP 05 (2015) 078
5000
~ (1
g
000 GeV)
)
5500
400
~
q (2400 GeV)
19.5 fb-1 (8 TeV)
~q (1600 GeV
m~q [GeV]
500
2500
Slide 19
1000
h (122 GeV
SuperSymmetry or SuperCemetery?
1000
2000
3000
4000
5000
6000
m0 [GeV]
Slide 19
SuperSymmetry or SuperCemetery?
✦
Excluded squarks to ~2.0 TeV and gluinos to ~1.3 TeV or did we?
Read the fine print!
Slide 20
Greg Landsberg - CMS Results on Higgs & Beyond - Beijing 08/13/13
What SUSY Have We Excluded?
✦
We set strong limits on squarks and gluinos, and yet we have not
excluded SUSY
๏
✦
We ventured for an “easy-SUSY” or “lazy-SUSY” and we basically failed to find it
๏
✦
✦
Moreover, we basically excluded VERY LITTLE!
So what? - Nature could be tough!
L
Y
A
S
Z
U
What we probed is a tiny sliver of multidimensional SUSY space, simply most “convenient” from the point of view of theory
All it takes to avoid these limits is to give up squark degeneracy!
S
Y
●
●
●
●
excluded SUSY
Many๏ possible
Moreover,variations
we basically excluded VERY LITTLE!
SUSY breaking
mechanism:
✦ We ventured for an gravity-,
gauge-, anomaly-mediated, …
“easy-SUSY” or ●
Long lived sparticles
“lazy-SUSY”
and we ?
3(B-L)+2S
basically
failed
to find
it
Is R-parity
= (-1)
conserved?
๏
●
So what? - Nature could If not,
RPViolating models
be tough!
✦ What
we probed
is a tiny Wide
range
of possible
sliver of multidimensional signatures
for SUSY to
SUSY space, simply most be “convenient”
searched for
from the andpoint
many
ways
hide
of view
of to
theory
Slide 20
●
SUSY
–
not
just
one
model
✦ We set strong limits on squarks and gluinos, and yet we have not
L
Y
A
S
Z
U
S
Y
✦ All it takes to avoid these limits is to give up squark degeneracy!
The
goal is to find hints of SUSY particles in the LHC range
Warsaw PL
MS
●
●
m∼χ0 [GeV]
CMS , L = 19.5 fb-1, s = 8 TeV
700
0
pp → ~
q~
q, ~
q→ q∼
χ NLO+NLL exclusion
1
excluded VERY LITTLE!
600
theory
SUSY breaking
mechanism:
L
Expected ± 1Y
σexperiment
✦ We ventured for an gravity-, gauge-, anomaly-mediated,
500…(a)
A
“easy-SUSY” or ~ ~~
~
~
~
q +q (u,d,s,c)
●
Long lived sparticles
L
R
S
“lazy-SUSY”
and we ?
400
3(B-L)+2S
basically
failed
to find
it
Is R-parity
= (-1)
conserved?
300
Observed ± 1 σ
1
1
๏
●
So what? - Nature could If not,
RPViolating models
be tough!
✦ What
we probed
is a tiny Wide
range
of possible
sliver of multidimensional signatures
for SUSY to
SUSY space, simply most be “convenient”
searched for
from the andpoint
many
ways
hide
of view
of to
theory
U
One light ~
q
200
0
300
Z
10-2
Y
S
100
10-1
-3
400
500
600
700
JHEP 06 (2014) 055
800
900 1000
10
m~q [GeV]
✦ All it takes to avoid these limits is to give up squark degeneracy!
The
goal is to find hints of SUSY particles in the LHC range
95% C.L. upper limit on cross section (pb)
●
excluded SUSY
Many๏ possible
Moreover,variations
we basically Slide 20
●
SUSY
–
not
just
one
model
✦ We set strong limits on squarks and gluinos, and yet we have not
Warsaw PL
●
MS
Slide 21
We are at a SUSY Crossroad
Light 125 GeV Higgs boson strongly prefers SUSY as the fundamental explanation
of the EWSB mechanism (via soft SUSY-breaking terms and radiative corrections)
✦ But what kind of SUSY?
✦
Nima Arkani-Hamed,
SavasFest 2012
Implies: light stops/sbottom,
reasonably light gluinos and charginos/neutralinos
Likely: long-lived particles, light neutralino, multi-TeV Z’, ...
widespread
belief of
that
must be
at of
very
high energies
inclu
Figure
4: Contours
mthe
the MSSM
as extended
a function
a common
stoptomass
h inMSSM
e key
equations:
m
Naturalness
for
Experimentalists
Fine-Tuning in (p)MSSM
relates
themixing
effectiveparameter
value of §µ X
tot , the
supersymmetry-breaking
mechanism
in
som
h̃
and
the
stop
for
tan
=
20.
The
red/blue
bands
show
2
tionships
between
the
19
weak scale soft SUSY-breaking
m
11.2
and
11.3
and
ref.
[66]
for
examples.
2
2
h
Suspect/FeynHiggs
for m+
the range 124–126 GeV. The left panel shows con
h in
⇥
|µ|
m
u the
Even
the⇥
value
of µ19),
is set
by soft
supersymmetry
breaking,
theand
cancellation
ed tuning
here as
pi ifHiggs
(1
i⇥
mass
of the
Z
boson
the n
of
mass,
2the
mh , and we see that
mh > 75(100) in order to achi
is often remarkable when evaluated in specific model frameworks, after constraints
of
124
(126) potential.
GeV.
The
right
panel shows contours
of the lightest
stop mass,
ne”the
Higgs
Specifically,
we
consider
the
relation
cancellations
are
“unnatural”
✦
for
the
Higgs
bosons
and
superpartners
are
taken
into
account.
For
example,
expa
Fine-tuning:
cancellation
of
two
or
more
large
L̃ , ẽ
alive,
than
300
(500)
GeV
when
the
Higgs
mass
is
124
(126)
GeV.
2
aliheavier
t̃
ve eq. (8.1.11) becomes
B̃
, 3yt 22
22
2configuration
ucial
numbers
2A2t ) log M/mt̃
+
m
+
crucmiaul configu2r(m
mH
tt̃R mHu
t̃L
2 8⇥ atio
nd
2
i
W̃
Q̃1,2 , ũ1,2
2
2
4
2
2 ,
2
= ✦ 2µ
+ 2consider the
(4)
(m
−
m
)
+
O(1/
tan
β).
m
=
−2(m
+
|µ|
)
+
h
WepMSSM:
now
degree
of
fine-tuning
[5,
6,
7,
8,
9]
necessary
in
the
MS
H
H
Z
H
In
b̃
2β
2
tan
t
1
date a Higgs of 125 GeV. We have just seen that g̃rather
heavy stops are nece
m
g̃
|µ|
is
small
→
light
higgsinos
8 solutions
.5800
scale
soft
s
Typical
viable
for the MSSM have −m2H and |µ|2 each
much
larger than
2 SUSY-breaking
2
imentalists
t̃
boost
the
Higgs
to
125
GeV
using
the
loop
correction.
The
(well-known)
probl
⇥m
m
log
M/m
g̃needed. In particular,
t̃
t̃
2 cant
cancellation
is
large
top
squark
squared
masses,
needed
m
is
small
→
lights
stops
(at
one-loop
level)
3⇤
Hu doublet mass Small
he
terms
the
Higgsterm
potential.
This
restop in
mass
assusual
of
the
Z
boson
and
the
t̃ toft̃ the Higgs
stops
lead
to
large
contributions
to
the
quadratic
potential,
andHiggs
gluinos
(atmass
two-loop
boson
turn level)
out too small [see eq. (8.1.25)
b̃ below] compared to the dire
ond
tree-level
and
include
well-known
radiative
corrections.
2in .any
(to be
made
more
precise
SB-mediation
ly,
we
consider
the
relation
✓ model
◆ may there
Thegiven
cancellation
needed
in scheme)
the minimal
LEP,
will
feed
into
m
H
Small
higgsino
masses
2
L̃
,
ẽ
H̃ SUGRA-mediation,
see, e.g.,3y
Dimopoulos, Giudice for
1995
⇤ whether
t
2 It is impossible
2to objectively
2
2
per cent
level, orthe
worse.
characterize
this
es depend
various
p
via
these
loop
corrections,
t̃upon
m
+
m
+
|A
|
ln
,
B̃mH =
i
t
Q
u
2
u
u
d
R
u
L
R
L
u
i
i
1,2
1,2
1,2
{
u
3
3
˜
Q̃ , ũ8⇡
, dsubjective
t̃
mt̃ decoupled
worrisome,
but
it
certainly
causes
worry
asSUSY
the LHC bounds
on superp
M/m
Ms-particles
natural
SUS
W̃ t̃L , t̃R , b̃L , h̃ weakly
ll
other than g̃,
constrained
/mt̃t̃
Slide 22
Equations (8.1.8)-(8.1.11)
are based on
the tree-level
potential, and involve r
Cartoon from
(4)
stops
2
h
2
2
b̃R supersymmetry
where
⇤M
is the
messenger
scale
for
breaking.
If
m
becom
arXiv:1110.6926
⇤(log
)
p
⇤M
Lagrangian
parameters,
which
depend
on
the
choice
of
renormalization
In
Huscale.
i
h
Z
Z
= parameters
= theory
(5)
include
corrections
order, ateach
least,
in order
to get numerica
of the
beone-loop
tuned
other
to achieve
corr
g̃ g̃g̃radiative
2 must at
FIG. 1: against
Natural electroweak
symmetry
breaking
constrains thethe
superpartne
⇤(log
pione
) can compute
M
⇤piloop
nd order
Z
do
this,
the
corrections
∆V
toto5the
effective
potential
2
contributions
second
term
eff1(v
t̃
light.
Meanwhile,
the superpartners
on the
right
can
be heavy,
MV⇥
Te
troweak symmetry breaking.
Weloop
see
from
equation
that
large
stop
mixing
au
gluino-top
loop
drives
the
stop
mass
further
up
t̃ This
function
Thereimpact
of
this
isInthat
the
governing
thedata
VEV
he
Higgs
potential.
also
require
the
gluino
naturalness.
this
paper,
weequations
focus on determining
how the LHC
cons
t̃R the VEVs.
t̃L tt of
We
then
define
the
overall
amount
of
FT
in
a
given
pMSSM
cost
because
A
induces
fine-tuning.
At
large
tan
,
X
⇡
A
,
and
maximal
mixi
t obtained by simply
t
t 10
17/13
b̃L
potential
are
superpartners
on the in
left. mass.
not replacing
tothebe
too large
-nown
me diatioradiative
corrections.
-mediation
n scscheme)
hethe
m
e
)
introduces
same
amount
of fine-tuning as doubling both stop masses in th
23,
24]
los, GGiudice
ulos,
1995
iu dice fofor
rH̃
SUSUGRA-mediation,
G
1 ∂(∆V )
1 ∂(∆V )
RA-me diation, 192
2
2
2
Slide 23
Natural SUSY Spectrum
Nima Arkani-Hamed,
SavasFest 2012
Slide 24
Natural SUSY
✦
If SUSY is natural, we should find it soon:
๏
✦
And we most likely will find it by observing 3rd generation SUSY particles
first!
Requires shifting of the SUSY search paradigm: going for the third
generation partners, push gluino reach, and look for EW boson partners
L̃i , ẽi
B̃
W̃
Papucci, Ruderman, Weiler arXiv:1110.6926
Q̃1,2 , ũ1,2 , d˜1,2
b̃R
g̃
t̃L
b̃L
t̃R
H̃
natural SUSY
decoupled SUSY
Slide 24
Natural SUSY
✦
๏
✦
first!
L̃i , ẽi
B̃
W̃
Q̃1,2 , ũ1,2 , d˜1,2
b̃R
g̃
t̃L
b̃L
t̃R
H̃
natural SUSY
decoupled SUSY
Slide 24
Natural SUSY
✦
๏
✦
first!
L̃i , ẽi
B̃
W̃
Q̃1,2 , ũ1,2 , d˜1,2
b̃R
g̃
t̃L
b̃L
t̃R
H̃
natural SUSY
decoupled SUSY
mostly by the stop and sbottom. Radiative corrections from the gluino can make light stops
and sbottoms unnatural, so the gluino should not be too heavy. Finally, Higgsino masses are
partially set by tree-level terms that also directly control the weak scale (the µ-parameter),
and hence should be light. While these comments apply most directly to supersymmetry, the
structure suggested by naturalness is often mirrored in other scenarios with extra dimensions.
✦ Moreover,
Once we
onscenarios
naturalthat
SUSY,
thethe
spectra
andproblem,
the signatures
become
in focus
all known
address
naturalness
some kind of
partner
particle
the top –and
bottomlike
quark
plays a crucial
role. spectra”
Typical natural SUSY spectra are
ratherofsimple
almost
“simplified
model
shown in Fig. 1.
✦ Basically have to consider three types of spectra and related decay
Slide 25
Natural SUSY Spectra
modes
1.2 Natural Supersymmetry
Testing Naturalness and Natural Supersymmetry
Table 1: Decay modes for stops and sbottoms, assuming that either one is the lightest colored
particle.
Abbreviation
Decay mode
Conditions
Figure 1: Natural
bet̃ >
very
Tt SUSY spectra.
t̃ ! All
t 0 other squarks can m
mt massive
+ m 0 (i.e. more than 10
+
TeV), beyond the
theb LHC.
Tb reach of
t̃ !
! bW + 0 mt̃ > mb + m + , m + > m 0 + mW
Tb0
t̃ ! b + ! bW +⇤ 0 mt̃ > mb + m + , m + < m 0 + mW
Tt0
t̃ ! t⇤ 0 ! bW + 0
mt̃ < mt + m 0 , mt̃ < m + + mb
0 + E
Standard SUSY
/T , are
SUSY
+ +
Tc searches, e.g.,
t̃ ! cjets
mt̃only
< mpartially
mt̃ < m to
mb scenarios
t + m 0 , sensitive
with light third-generation
squarks.
Bb
b̃ ! b 0Given the attractiveness of naturalness in SUSY, it is
0
important to cover
with targeted
There
aremtwo
distinct
Bt this phase
b̃ ! t space
! tW
mb̃ > searches
mt + m in, CMS.
m >
m 0+
W
⇤ 0
production mechanisms
that
be considered:
Bt0
b̃ ! tneed!totW
mb̃ > mt + m , m < m 0 + mW
mostly by the stop and sbottom. Radiative corrections from the gluino can make light stops
and sbottoms unnatural, so the gluino should not be too heavy. Finally, Higgsino masses are
partially set by tree-level terms that also directly control the weak scale (the µ-parameter),
and hence should be light. While these comments apply most directly to supersymmetry, the
structure suggested by naturalness is often mirrored in other scenarios with extra dimensions.
✦ Moreover,
Once we
onscenarios
naturalthat
SUSY,
thethe
spectra
andproblem,
the signatures
become
in focus
all known
address
naturalness
some kind of
partner
particle
the top –and
bottomlike
quark
plays a crucial
role. spectra”
Typical natural SUSY spectra are
ratherofsimple
almost
“simplified
model
shown in Fig. 1.
✦ Basically have to consider three types of spectra and related decay
Slide 25
Natural SUSY Spectra
modes
1.2 Natural Supersymmetry
Testing Naturalness and Natural Supersymmetry
Table 1: Decay modes for stops and sbottoms, assuming that either one is the lightest colored
particle.
Abbreviation
Decay mode
Conditions
Figure 1: Natural
bet̃ >
very
Tt SUSY spectra.
t̃ ! All
t 0 other squarks can m
mt massive
+ m 0 (i.e. more than 10
+
TeV), beyond the
theb LHC.
Tb reach of
t̃ !
! bW + 0 mt̃ > mb + m + , m + > m 0 + mW
Tb0
t̃ ! b + ! bW +⇤ 0 mt̃ > mb + m + , m + < m 0 + mW
Tt0
t̃ ! t⇤ 0 ! bW + 0
mt̃ < mt + m 0 , mt̃ < m + + mb
0 + E
Standard SUSY
/T , are
SUSY
+ +
Tc searches, e.g.,
t̃ ! cjets
mt̃only
< mpartially
mt̃ < m to
mb scenarios
t + m 0 , sensitive
with light third-generation
squarks.
Bb
b̃ ! b 0Given the attractiveness of naturalness in SUSY, it is
0
important to cover
with targeted
There
aremtwo
distinct
Bt this phase
b̃ ! t space
! tW
mb̃ > searches
mt + m in, CMS.
m >
m 0+
W
⇤ 0
production mechanisms
that
be considered:
Bt0
b̃ ! tneed!totW
mb̃ > mt + m , m < m 0 + mW
Slide 26
Natural SUSY Reach
✦
-1
With ∫Ldt ~ 20/fb and 1 fb cross section produce 20 events;
typically 1-10 events observed after acceptance/efficiencies
σ, pb
http://www.thphys.uni-heidelberg.de/~plehn/
10
tot[pb]:
pp
10
10
~~ M(g)
~ ≲ 1.3 TeV
gg:
~~
~
t1t1: M(t1) ≲ 0.8 TeV
~ M(χ)
~ ≲ 0.6 TeV
~
χχ:
S = 8 TeV
1
10
SUSY
q̃g̃
-1
q̃q̃
*
q̃q̃
-2
-3
˜ o2 ˜ +1
˜ e ˜e*
200
˜ o2g̃
t̃1t̃1*
g̃g̃
l̃el̃e*
400
600
800
1000
1200
1400
1600
maverage [GeV]
Strong Dynamics
New, QCD like force with “pions” at ~ 100 GeV and a number of QCD meson-like
bound state
✦ No fundamental Higgs particle; global EW symmetry is broken dynamically, which
results in nearly massless Goldstone bosons, analogous to pions in QCD
Slide 27
✦
๏
๏
๏
๏
✦
Three degrees of freedom are consumed by the longitudinal W/Z modes; the rest
become physical meson-like particles
This is the way chiral symmetry is broken in QCD
To explain observed W/Z masses, need new techniparticles to be ~103 times heavier
than the QCD particles
The role of Higgs boson in SM is played by a condensate of fermion-antifermion pair
(e.g., new pion), resembling superconductivity
Several realizations, e.g. technicolor
๏
๏
Excluded by LEP precision measurements in its simplest form
Cures: walking technicolor, topcolor assisted TC, extended TC
fT
πT0
๏
✦
fT
b
ETC
b
Analogous to the Higgs decay
Still, EW corrections are ~(MW/MTC)2 – hard to satisfy LEP constraints for MTC ~ 1 TeV
Observation of a scalar Higgs boson with properties close to the SM ones really kills TC
Strong Dynamics
New, QCD like force with “pions” at ~ 100 GeV and a number of QCD meson-like
bound state
✦ No fundamental Higgs particle; global EW symmetry is broken dynamically, which
results in nearly massless Goldstone bosons, analogous to pions in QCD
Slide 27
✦
๏
๏
๏
๏
✦
Three degrees of freedom are consumed by the longitudinal W/Z modes; the rest
become physical meson-like particles
This is the way chiral symmetry is broken in QCD
To explain observed W/Z masses, need new techniparticles to be ~103 times heavier
than the QCD particles
The role of Higgs boson in SM is played by a condensate of fermion-antifermion pair
(e.g., new pion), resembling superconductivity
Several realizations, e.g. technicolor
๏
๏
Excluded by LEP precision measurements in its simplest form
Cures: walking technicolor, topcolor assisted TC, extended TC
fT
πT0
๏
✦
fT
b
ETC
b
Analogous to the Higgs decay
N. Arkani-Hamed, Savasfest
Still, EW corrections are ~(MW/MTC)2 – hard to satisfy LEP constraints for MTC ~ 1 TeV
Observation of a scalar Higgs boson with properties close to the SM ones really kills TC
1998: Large Extra Dimensions
Slide 28
•
But: what if there is no other scale, and
SM model is correct up to MPl?
๏
๏
•
Give up naturalness: inevitably leads to
anthropic reasoning
Radically new approach – ArkaniHamed, Dimopoulos, Dvali (ADD, 1998):
maybe the fundamental Planck scale is
only ∼ 1 TeV?!! • Gravity is fundamentally strong force,
but we do not feel that as it is diluted by
Gravity is made strong at a TeV scale due
the large volume of the bulk space [3+n]
to existence of large (r ~ 1mm – 1fm)
GN = 1/(MPl )2 = 1/MD2; MD ∼ 1 TeV
extra spatial dimensions:
–SM particles are confined to a 3D “brane”
–Gravity is the only force that permeates
“bulk” space
•
1 m1 m2
2
n+1
MPl
1
[3+n]
MPl
⇥n+2
m1 m2
n+1
Ruled out for infinite ED, but does not
apply for the compact ones:
V( )
1
[3+n]
MPl
⇥n+2
m1 m2
, for ⇥ r
rn
2
MPl
/rn
• More precisely, from Gauss’s law:
What about Newton’s law?
V( )=
•
n+2
MD
r= ⇤
1
4 MD
MPl
MD
⇥2/n
⇤
8 1012 m,
⌃
⌃
⇧
0.7mm,
⇥
3nm,
⌃
⌃
⌅
6 10 12 m,
n=1
n=2
n=3
n=4
• Amazing as it is, but as of 1998 no one
has tested Newton’s law to distances
less than ∼ 1mm! (Even now it’s been
tested to only 37 µm!)
• Thus, the fundamental Planck scale
could be as low as 1 TeV for n > 1
Slide 29
1999: Randall-Sundrum Model
✦
Randall-Sundrum (RS) model [PRL 83, 3370 (1999);
PRL 83, 4690 (1999)]
–One + brane – no low energy effects
–Two + and – branes – TeV Kaluza-Klein modes AdS
of graviton
–Low energy effects on SM brane are given by
Λπ; for kr ~ 10, Λπ ~ 1 TeV and the hierarchy
problem is solved naturally
G
Pla
nc
ra
kb
ne
Slide 29
✦
PRL 83, 4690 (1999)]
of graviton
G
kb
P
c
lan
e
ran
SM
n
bra
e
φ
Slide 29
✦
PRL 83, 4690 (1999)]
of graviton
G
kb
c
lan
e
ran
SM
P
n
bra
φ
e
Anti-deSitter space-time metric:
2
AdS5
ds = e
r
φ
2kr|⇤|
= M Pl e
µ⇥ dx
kr
k – AdS curvature
Reduced Planck mass:
SM brane (φ = π)
Planck brane (φ = 0)
M Pl
⇥
MPl / 8
µ
dx
⇥
2
2
r d⇥
Slide 30
Extra Dimensions: a Brief Summary
ADD Paradigm:
Pro: “Eliminates” the hierarchy
problem by stating that physics
ends at a TeV scale
• Only gravity lives in the “bulk”
space
• Size of ED’s (n=2-7) between ~100
µm and ~1 fm
•
Black holes at the LHC and in the
UHE cosmic rays
• Con: Doesn’t explain why ED are so
large
•
RS Model:
• Pro: A rigorous solution to the
hierarchy problem via localization of
gravity
• Gravitons (and possibly other
particles) propagate in a single ED,
with special metric
• Black holes at the LHC and in UHE
cosmic rays
• Con: Somewhat disfavored by
precision EW fits
G
k
nc
Pla ne
bra
SM e
n
bra
φ
Slide 31
Examples of Compact Dimensions
[M.C.Escher, Mobius Strip II (1963)]
[M.C.Escher, Relativity (1953)]
[All M.C. Escher works and texts copyright © Cordon Art B.V., P.O. Box 101, 3740 AC The Netherlands. Used by permission.]
Slide 32
Large ED: Gravity at Short Distances
D. Kapner et al., PRL 98 (2007) 0211001
MD = 1 TeV)
• Sub-millimeter gravity
measurements could probe
only n=2 case only within the
ADD model
– The best sensitivity so far
have been achieved in the U of Washington torsion
balance experiment – a
high-tech “remake” of the
1798 Cavendish
experiment
• R<
~ 37 µm (MD >
~ 2 TeV)
|α| - strength of interaction relative to Newtonian gravity
• Sensitivity vanishes quickly
with the distance – can’t push
limits further down
significantly
– Started restricting ADD
with 2 extra dimensions;
can’t probe any higher
number
• No sensitivity to the RS
models
Slide 33
Higgs Leads the Way
Slide 34
4th of July 2012 Fireworks
A New Boson Discovery
Fig. 8. The observed local p 0 as a function of the hypothesised Higgs boson mass
for the (a) H → Z Z (∗) → 4ℓ, (b) H → γ γ and (c) H → W W (∗) → ℓν ℓν channels.
The dashed curves show the expected local p 0 under the hypothesis of a SM Higgs
√
boson signal at that mass. Results are shown separately for the s = 7 TeV data
√
(dark, blue in the web version), the s = 8 TeV data (light, red in the web version),
and their combination (black).
✦
Phys. Lett. B 716 (2012) 1-29 and 30-61
/ Physics Letters B 716 (2012) 30–61
ATLAS PLB 716 (2012) 1
41
Fig. 9. The observed (solid) local p 0 as a function of m H in the low mass range.
The dashed curve shows the expected local p 0 under the hypothesis of a SM Higgs
boson signal at that mass with its ±1σ band. The horizontal dashed lines indicate
the p-values corresponding to significances of 1 to 6 σ .
Slide 35
e νµν channels combined is 4.9 σ , and occurs at m H = 126.5 GeV
(3.8σ expected).
The significance of the excess is mildly sensitive to uncertainties in the energy resolutions and energy scale systematic uncertainties for photons and electrons; the effect of the muon energy
CMS
716 (2012)
30 of these
scale systematic uncertainties
is PLB
negligible.
The presence
f the
SUSY: the Higgs Aftermath
Slide 36
Implications of LHC Higgs and SUSY searches for MSSM
✦
✦
Farvah Mahmoudi
Parameter
Value
Experiment
A 125 GeV Higgs boson is challenging to
125.9±2.1 GeV
ATLAS [1] + CMS [2]
H
accommodate in M
(over)constrained
1.71±0.33
gg
versions of SUSY,µparticularly
for “natural” ATLAS [19] + CMS [20]
µZZ masses
0.95±0.40
ATLAS [21] + CMS [22]
values of superpartner
๏ Started to constrain
µbb̄ some
<1.64
(95%
C.L.)
CMS [23]
of the
simpler
models
µtt
<1.06 (95% C.L.)
CMS [24]
Big question: if SUSY exists, can it still be
Arbey et al “natural”, i.e. offer a non-fine-tuned
Table 3: Input parameters used for the pMSSM study. arXiv:1207.1348
solution to the hierarchy problem
๏
If not, we would be giving up at least one of
the three SUSY “miracles”
Mahmoudi et al arXiv:1211.2794
Slide 37
✦
Existence of several Higgs bosons is the
key prediction of low-scale SUSY
๏
SUSY
Higgs
Higgs & SUSY - a marriage made in
heaven!
The lightest one looks largely like the SM
Prediction for MW in the SM and th
Higgs and has to be light (≲135 GeV); the Example:
[S.H., W. Hollik, D. Stockinger, G. Weiglein, L. Zeune ’
other ones could be relatively heavy
80.60
experimental errors 68% CL:
✦ Discovery of the Higgs boson at 125-126
LEP2/Tevatron: today
GeV was the crucial missing proof that
M = 123 .. 127 GeV
80.50
Heinemeyer low-scale SUSY can still exists, despite
MSSM
arXiv:1301.7197
the fact that we haven’t seen it yet
✦
h
๏
๏
Precision EW data does prefer MSSM
over SM (only by 1 standard deviation)
Had the Higgs boson been just 10%
heavier, I wouldn’t be even including
SUSY in this talk!
MW [GeV]
SUSY & Higgs
80.40
MH = 123 GeV
80.30
SM MH = 127 GeV
MSSM, Mh = 123..127 GeV
SM, MSSM
Heinemeyer, Hollik, Stockinger, Weiglein, Zeune ’12
168
170
172
174
mt [GeV]
176
178
The simultaneous measurement of the Higgs boson and top quark masses
allowed for the first time to infer properties of the very vacuum we leave in!
๏
๏
✦
We are in a highly fine-tuned situation: the vacuum is at the verge of being either stable
or metastable!
~1 GeV in either the top-quark or the Higgs boson mass is all it takes to tip the scales!
Perhaps Nature is trying to tell us something here?
๏
๏
Very important to improve on the precision of top quark mass measurements, including
various complementary methods and reduction of theoretical uncertainties
LHC has by now
exceeded
the
Tevatron precision!
Mass of the Top
Quark
15
180
Slide 38
6 8 10
GeV
July 2014
7
10
CDF-I dilepton
Instability
(* preliminary)
8
10
± 4.90)
167.40 ± 11.41 (± 10.30
109
DØ-I dilepton
178
Top pole mass Mt in GeV
Butazzo et al arXiv:1307.3536
DØ-II dilepton
174
174.00 ± 2.80
CDF-II lepton+jets
1016
172.85 ± 1.12 (± 0.52 ± 0.98)
DØ-II lepton+jets
1,2,3 s
174.98 ± 0.76
CDF-II alljets *
170
168
120
1017
1019
174.94 ± 1.50 (0.83 ± 0.47 ± 1.16)
Lint = 3.6 fb-1
D0 RunII, di-lepton
174.00 ± 2.79 (2.36 ± 0.55 ± 1.38)
Lint = 5.3 fb-1
ATLAS 2011, l+jets
172.31 ± 1.55 (0.23 ± 0.72 ± 1.35)
Lint = 4.7 fb-1
173.09 ± 1.63 (0.64
Lint = 4.7 fb-1
(± 0.41 ± 0.63)
CMS 2011, l+jets
Lint = 4.9 fb
186.00 ± 11.51 (± 10.00 ± 5.70)
(± 1.19 ± 1.55)
CDF-II track
166.90 ± 9.43
(± 9.00 ± 2.82)
CDF-II MET+Jets
173.93 ± 1.85
(± 1.26 ± 1.36)
174.34 ± 0.64
(± 0.37 ± 0.52)
124
150
173.93 ± 1.85 (1.26 ± 1.05 ± 0.86)
D0 RunII, l+jets
Lint = 4.9 fb-1
CMS 2011, all jets
Lint = 3.5 fb-1
Stability
World comb. 2014
126
160
χ2/dof
= 10.8/11
(± 1.50(46%)
± 2.20)
12.40
±2.66
170 128 180
Mt (GeV/c2)
Higgs pole mass Mh in GeV
130
190
132
200
1
± 1.50)
173.49 ± 1.06 (0.27 ± 0.33 ± 0.97)
-1
CMS 2011, di-lepton
( ± stat ± syst)
0
+jets
Lint = 8.7 fb-1
(± 3.90 ± 3.60)
175.07 ± 1.95
CDF March’07
122
miss
CDF RunII, ET
± 3.13)
172.47 ± 2.01 (1.43 ± 0.95 ± 1.04)
-1
ATLAS 2011, di-lepton
18
10
Tevatron combination *
10
Lint = 5.8 fb
10
12
(
± 5.10 ± 5.30)
10
1013
180.10 ± 5.31
CDF-I alljets
172
CDF RunII, all jets
(± 2.3611
± 1.49)
DØ-I lepton+jets
170.28 ± 3.69 (1.95
Lint = 5.6 fb-1
10
176.10 ± 7.36
172.85 ± 1.12 (0.52 ± 0.49 ± 0.86)
Lint = 8.7 fb-1
CDF RunII, di-lepton
10
(± 1.83 ± 2.69)
CDF-I lepton+jets
Meta-stability
14
200
170.80 ± 3.26
Tevatron+LHC mtop combination - March 2014, Lint = 3.5 fb-1 - 8.7 fb-1
ATLAS + CDF + CMS + D0 Preliminary
CDF RunII, l+jets
168.40 ± 12.82 (± 12.30 ± 3.60)
CDF-II dilepton *
176
17
Previous
Comb.
✦
Non-perturbativity
0
Just-So Higgs?
172.50 ± 1.52 (0.43
± 1.46)
173.49 ± 1.41 (0.69
± 1.23)
173.34 ± 0.76 (0.27 ± 0.24 ± 0.67)
χ 2 / ndf =4.3/10
χ 2 prob.=93%
Tevatron March 2013 (Run I+II)
173.20 ± 0.87 (0.51 ± 0.36 ± 0.61)
LHC September 2013
173.29 ± 0.95 (0.23 ± 0.26 ± 0.88)
total
165
170
175
180
ATLAS+CDF+CMS+D0 arXiv:1411.0820
(stat.
iJES
syst.)
185
mtop [GeV]
✦
Stable vacuum?
✦Metastable
166
176
165
Unstable vacuum?
METASTAB
163
a3 HmZ L=0.12
174
a3
13
162
a3 HmZ L=0.11
ml
96
mt @GeVD
✦
ILITY
164
161
Slide 39
Masina arXiv:1301.2175
vacuum?
mt Hmt L @GeVD
What Vacuum Do We Live In?
172
a3 HmZ L=0.11
79
STABILITY
160
124.5
125.0
mH @GeVD
125.5
126.0
170
126.5
127.0
Slide 40
Thank You!

BSM-Traunkirchen-Lecture-1 - Particles and Interactions

Transcription

Similar documents

2:00 to 6:00 pm

Albert De Roeck

Física do LHC - Nautilus - Universidade de Coimbra

sHponglE8

Albert De Roeck UCDavis California 5th May 2015

Indirect Dark Matter Searches

Tow-down BSM review

Indirect Detection of Dark Matter

World Airshow News 1