sign in sign up
<<
Home , John Ellis (physicist), Superpartner

arXiv:0807.2601v1 [hep-ph] 16 Jul 2008 iheeg cls twl etefis ceeao oprobe to accelerator first the unprecedented be reach will It to scales. designed very energy is high a com- CERN is being parti- now vacuum at of in collider missioned the LHC level see, of The next shall decay possibility. we eventual reasonable the As the about , guesses again? cle change best set- now it current vacuum will our the or Has down, even emergence themselves. tled an time the and caused and space have force, of may nuclear transition strong phase rel- the earlier present of very phase the another plays for strength on, responsible it ative Earlier been that have life. so may everyday out transition our freeze in to role vacuum it little a nu- causing was weak the force there underlying clear stage symmetry the this It “broke” at that Bang. that shift Big certain the almost after shortly is happened have to physics thought decay”. “vacuum the as In known also water. are to of they analogous freezing context – or transitions” sym- “phase boiling are different the type Vacuum general, this forces. of in fundamental shifts has, different hence which and vacuum metries new results transition a tunneling called in eventual are vacua The long-lived very Uni- (cf. but “metastable”. energy unstable the lower The dramatic of with cosmologi- 1). configuration Fig. tunnelling undergo vacuum on quantum a occasionally into inert example, verse can for be as, it not shifts need timescales: vacuum cal the today, and weak gravity. (electromagnetic, and forces strong) vacuum “gauge” , the three on acting the of forces i.e., symmetries fundamental The seeks the determine Universe energy. symme- then the its that its fact minimize particular the to by precise in determined The vacuum, are tries, “vacuum”. the the of of configuration out excitations really are ∗ hsi re eiwtree rmrl tannepr aud non-expert a at primarily targeted review brief a is This n uhsmer-hnigpaetasto is transition phase symmetry-changing such One constant be to appear physics of laws the Although as see we what physics, quantum to According r oaodsc ntblt.Hwvr aysupersymmetri many However, Sta the Model instability. of such Standard avoid extension the favoured to in one try case is the be deca light. fac could may be This the which vacuum, is matter. metastable of a importance in particular trapped Of be to Universe them. between forces the oes hrb etn h tblt ftevcu,adfor and distingui vacuum, to the able of be stability will the LHC testing thereby The models, reasons. different for decay 1 nttt o atcePyisPeoeooy University Phenomenology, Physics Particle for Institute h H ilpoetentr ftevcu htdtrie th determines that vacuum the of nature the probe will LHC The ilteLCLo noteFt fteUniverse? the of Fate the into Look LHC the Will 2 hoyDvso,PyisDprmn,CR,C-21Geneva CH-1211 CERN, Department, Physics Division, Theory tvnA Abel, A. Steven 1 onEllis, John ience. 2 or Jaeckel, Joerg ietytentr ftevcu,adhnetepossible Universe. the the hence and of vacuum, fate the of nature the directly vacuum false a in live we may whether we cases tell many to a in able barrier), only can be the probe therefore nevertheless of will crossing (and a minimum LHC trigger present the many, never the need Although around may region bar- years. and small the of slow of extremely billions width be and many can height process prop the this particle on rier, in depending change However, drastic minimum a ties. to the to correspond correspond changing would particles minimum minimum, itself Since “true” a around the arrow). excitations in (wavy small up energy Uni- tun ends lower the eventually and of it barrier theory, where the latter transition through the phase nels “false” a In an undergo first is can the metastable. there verse that only where so is represents energy, theory minimum lower modified line of dashed slightly a minimum The a (i.e., additional vacuum in energy). stable potential the one the only of with minimum theory single a in potential the 1: FIG. et h raigo t ymty srltvl light relatively is symmetry, mani- its that of vacuum breaking Higgs the the the of fests excitation if quantum occur the could , decay vacuum Model, Standard oo n cuaeymauigisms soeo the of one is LHC mass the of its objectives measuring primary accurately and data boson by accelerators indirectly favoured lower-energy even from is Higgs light relatively ihnorcretprdg fpril hsc,the physics, particle of paradigm current our Within oesaeas odme ovacuum to condemned also are models c 1 tligteft fteUniverse. the of fate the etelling dr oe hc n ih noeto invoke might one which Model ndard ktho h oeta nry h oi ieshows line solid The energy. potential the of Sketch fDra,Dra,D13E UK 3LE, DH1 Durham, Durham, of n aetnV Khoze V. Valentin and htorcrettere lo the allow theories current our that t hbtendffrn supersymmetric different between sh ntedsatftr,cagn the changing future, distant the in y fteLCfid h ig oo to boson Higgs the finds LHC the if rpriso atce and particles of properties e 3 Switzerland 23, CERN-PH-TH/2008-154 4 3 ec,i h Standard the if Hence, . icvrn h Higgs the Discovering . 1 ∗ DCPT/08/100 IPPP/08/50 1,2 A . er- - . 2

Model is all there is, the LHC will tell us about the sta- metric theories, metastability is essentially inevitable, bility of its vacuum. and in fact the consistency of the theory requires it. The However, many expect more than just the Standard arguments hinge on one niggling issue with supersym- Model to be found at the LHC. One promising extension metry: it is hard (in a mathematical sense) to break it. of the is superymmetry, and indeed this As we shall see, if the breaking of supersymmetry is re- seemed a promising way to stabilize the vacuum5. How- alised in one favoured way it is practically guaranteed ever, recent developments6,7 suggest instead that super- that, in addition to the vacuum in which the Universe symmetry may actually condemn the Universe to vacuum currently resides, there is another state of lower energy - decay (for a precursor, see8). Again, the LHC may tell often called the “true” vacuum - in which supersymmetry us whether Nature has this fate in store. is unbroken (the present metastable vacuum is often re- Supersymmetry9 is a symmetry that relates elemen- ferred to as a “false” vacuum). Everyday physics in false tary particles of integer and half-integer spin, known as and true vacua is hard to distinguish, and in particular and , respectively. The Standard Model all the matter in the Universe we see today could very is not supersymmetric. Although it contains examples of well be composed of elementary particles which are quan- both, bosons (e.g., gauge bosons such as which tum excitations over a false vacuum, that is susceptible carry force, and the that gives particles to decay to the true vacuum in which supersymmetry their masses) and fermions (e.g., matter particles such is an exact symmetry of Nature. Moreover, the alter- as and ) they are not related by any native scenarios for supersymmetry breaking also offer symmetry. In a supersymmetric extension of the Stan- future vacuum decay as a possibility, if not an inevitabil- † dard Model, every particle would acquire a superpartner ity. The LHC cannot trigger this change in the vacuum , whose properties such as charge and mass are exactly but it can serve as a crystal ball that reveals the fate of the same, and which differ only in their spin. For ex- the Universe. ample, gauge bosons are accompanied by fermions called The recent developments involve a rather subtle web of , and quarks are accompanied by bosons called theoretical and experimental arguments, and so before we squarks. describe them we should (perhaps to cheer the reader up Supersymmetry provides a solution to profound con- a little) discuss the timescales on which our present vac- ceptional problems of by taming certain uum would decay, as indicated by the wavy line in Fig. 1. infinities in the theory, and offers practical advantages There is very firm evidence that the laws of physics have such as a candidate for the that appears to been constant since the first few minutes after the Big be cluttering up the Universe10. For these reasons, many Bang. Thus, unless we are rather unlucky, one would ex- physicists expect it to play a significant role in Nature. pect that the timescale would be at least billions of years. However, at currently accessible energies no superpart- However, we can do better than that: quantum mechan- ners have been found. Our best guess is that supersym- ics allows us to compute the lifetimes of false vacua. The metry is itself a broken symmetry much like the bro- physics underlying false vacuum decay was elucidated in ken symmetry of the weak nuclear force – this could re- a beautiful series of papers by Coleman and de Luccia12. sult in higher superpartner masses and explain why they They found that a false vacuum decays by creating huge have so far evaded detection, but would leave intact the instantaneous “lumps” of particles, called (appropriately nice mathematical properties which made supersymme- enough) instantons, on which bubbles of the new vacuum try so attractive in the first place. The LHC may well nucleate. The effect of such a lump, and hence the rate of discover supersymmetry4, in particular if it provides the decay, increases with the strength of the interactions in dark matter, as well as a light Higgs boson. the theory. For example, the simplest instantons, which Even within the simplest supersymmetric version of are comprised of only gauge bosons, allow tunneling be- tween different “gauge” vacua with a rate proportional the Standard Model (commonly called the Minimal 2 − 8π Supersymmetric extension of the Standard Model or to an exponentially small factor, e g2 ≪ 1, where g is MSSM), a particular choice of supersymmetry break- the interaction strength. The important point is that it ing pattern can lead to an unstable vacuum. Generally, is the self-interaction of the gauge bosons (i.e. the fact around half of the available parameter space of superpart- that g is not zero) which allows transitions between dif- ner masses leads to metastable vacua. In this case the ferent vacua. The decay of a false vacuum is catalyzed by endpoint of the eventual decay would be a new vacuum analogous but more complicated instantons which inter- with very little symmetry and hence practically no forces polate across the energy barrier separating true and false 11 acting at all except gravity . The change in physics vacua, and the forms of the energy barriers (in particular caused by these transitions would be drastic – in the new their heights and widths, cf. Fig. 1) determine the typ- vacuum, and nuclei would fall apart, and the Uni- ical decay time. The probability of vacuum decay is al- verse would become a soup of heavy, decoupled particles. So far, metastability of the vacuum seems to be just a quirk of the theory, which could, in principle, be avoided in a sizeable part of parameter space. Recent develop- † If they could, cosmic-ray collisions would already have done so ments however suggest that in large classes of supersym- long ago13. 3 ways exponentially suppressed in this manner, and in all realistic models, this makes the supersymmetry-breaking false vacuum very long-lived, with a life expectancy much longer than the age of the Universe. Let us now return to why we expect that metastability is unavoidable in certain well-defined and testable scenar- ios. This requires more information on how supersymme- try may be broken. In order to fit in with our current (lack of) observations, supersymmetry is almost certainly broken by what is known as a “hidden sector”. This is a part of the theory that interacts extremely weakly with the particles of the supersymmetric Standard Model – called in this context the “visible sector”. The super- symmetry breaking that ends up in the visible sector is filtered and weakened through these interactions, a pro- cess known as mediation. The models can be classified according to how the supersymmetry is broken in the hidden sector and how this breaking is mediated to the FIG. 2: The LHC may reveal the fate of the Universe by dis- visible sector. covering a light Higgs boson and/or supersymmetry. In cal- For example, the supersymmetry-breaking hidden sec- culable gauge-mediated models of supersymmetry breaking the tor could interact with the visible sector through gravi- present vacuum is necessarily unstable, and the same may be tational interactions alone, the option known as gravity true in gravity-mediated models. mediation. Since every particle interacts with gravity, this is the weakest sort of mediation one could imagine, and in these models the scale of supersymmetry break- The seeds of the inevitability of metastability in this ing in the hidden sector has to be very high – the energy class of models lie in an important theorem due to Nelson 16 scales involved are roughly 1011 GeV (remember that the and Seiberg , who identified a necessary and sufficient mass is about 1 GeV). An alternative scenario is condition for F -term supersymmetry breaking. Called that the supersymmetry-breaking hidden sector interacts R-symmetry, this condition is a generalisation of the fa- with the visible sector through the other fundamental miliar rotations in space that is unique to supersymmet- forces as well, i.e., the electroweak and strong gauge in- ric theories. The problem arises because in R-symmetric teractions. In this case the mediation is stronger and the theories the supersymmetric partners of the gauge bosons scale of supersymmetry breaking in the hidden sector is - called gauginos - must be massless, in conflict with correspondingly lower, typically 105−7 GeV. experiments, which require mgaugino & 100 GeV. The What about the way that supersymmetry is broken? dilemma is that non-vanishing masses require Either matter fields dominate the supersymmetry break- both supersymmetry breaking and R-symmetry break- ing14, the option known as F -term breaking, or gauge ing, but Nelson and Seiberg tell us that these two re- fields dominate15, the option known as D-term break- quirements are mutually exclusive. How to get around ing. An important difference is that F -term breaking is it? calculable in the sense that we have full mathematical There are two logical possibilities. One is to include control, whereas D-term breaking is rather more difficult in the theory a small, controlled amount of R-symmetry to handle – there are unknown factors that affect the size breaking. More precisely, the Lagrangian function, which of supersymmetry breaking or indeed whether supersym- defines all masses and interactions of the theory, would metry is broken at all. In order to be able to make firm be of the form conclusions here, therefore, we consider F -term breaking. L = LR + εLR−breaking , (1) We represent the situation schematically in Fig. 2, where the main classes of supersymmetric models are de- where LR describes a theory which preserves R- picted. The class of models that we consider primarily symmetry and breaks supersymmetry, whereas are the gauge-mediated models with F -term breaking – LR−breaking breaks R-symmetry, and ε is our small the scenario we refer to as ‘calculable gauge mediation’ control parameter. When ε = 0, the lowest-energy (CGM). It is in these models that metastability is gener- (ground) state breaks supersymmetry, and there is no ically unavoidable as we shall now see. The LHC has supersymmetric vacuum at all (solid line in Fig. 1), the capability to tell us whether Nature realizes this op- but the gauginos are massless. However, with a tion. Metastability may occur in the other scenarios as small ε =6 0, R-symmetry is broken explicitly. In well, but may be avoidable, by for example a judicious this case, the Nelson-Seiberg theorem requires that a choice of parameters. As we discuss at the end, in this supersymmetry-preserving vacuum appears in addition case the LHC can also reveal whether Nature has chosen to the supersymmetry-breaking one (dashed line in metastability. Fig. 1), since the full theory breaks R-symmetry. It 4 is a general consequence of supersymmetry that any classical theory (i.e., before we add in quantum effects) supersymmetric vacuum must be the state of lowest has an exact R-symmetry. However, the quantum the- energy. Hence, the non-supersymmetric vacuum must ory does not preserve the R-symmetry - the R-symmetry be metastable. However, it is important to note that is said to be “anomalous”, which guarantees that small the two vacua are separated by a distance that goes effects of the type εLR−breaking will appear. In the ISS to infinity as ε → 0 (in Fig. 1 the new minimum models, ε is a naturally small parameter, because it too moves further and further to the right). As the control is generated by instanton-like effects and hence is pro- 2 2 parameter ε → 0, the decay rate of our false vacuum portional to the factor e−8π /g ≪ 1. becomes exponentially longer and longer. This breakthrough has led to a burst of activity build- The second possible way to obtain non-vanishing gaug- ing gauge-mediated models incorporating the ISS models ino masses is for the vacuum itself to break the R- as hidden sectors. The complementary explicit and spon- symmetry – a possibility known as spontaneous breaking. taneous approaches to model-building were successfully With spontaneous breaking, the whole theory still obeys incorporated with a few twists. In the first approach, the the symmetry, but the effective physics we see in the sym- explicit R-breaking of the ISS models was not able to gen- metry breaking vacuum does not. Spontaneous (rather erate gaugino masses, so a second source of R-breaking than explicit) breaking of R-symmetry does not intro- was required. However, the smallness of this second term duce new supersymmetry preserving minima, and does - necessary for the longevity of the metastable vacuum, not by itself make the supersymmetry breaking vacuum turned out to be guaranteed within the ISS models if the metastable. In particular we do not need to introduce R-symmetry-breaking effects were generated at a very and explain the origins of a very small parameter ε, as we large energy scale, e.g., the Planck scale17. had to with explicit breaking. At the same time, gauginos In the second approach, the gauginos are already mas- acquire masses proportional to the scale of spontaneous sive and, as we discussed above, the job of the ex- R-breaking. plicit R-breaking is merely to give the R- a small Superficially then, it looks as if one might be able to mass maxion &100 MeV. The controlled quantum effects avoid metastability. Alas, spontaneous symmetry break- within all models of the ISS type are sufficient to do this, ing involves some subtleties: we begin with a symmetric and remarkably simple versions of the ISS model could theory and choose a vacuum that breaks it. But, since be found that led to the required spontaneous R break- the original theory had a symmetry, so must the set of ing18,19, so that gauginos receive sufficiently large masses choices of possible vacua. In other words, there is a de- mgaugino & 100 GeV. These are explicit, credible CGM generacy of vacua all with the same energy, correspond- models with metastable vacua. The LHC will be able to ing precisely to the symmetry we are breaking. Since produce gauginos weighing an order of magnitude more small fluctuations in the choice of vacuum do not cost any than the present lower limit4, offering a good prospect of energy, there must be a new – the Gold- testing such metastable CGM scenarios. stone mode, that reflects this symmetry. In the case of We have argued that, in such CGM scenarios of super- spontaneously-broken R-symmetry, this particle is called symmetry breaking, metastability is generically unavoid- the R-axion. In order to avoid astrophysical and exper- able because gaugino and R-axion masses must both be imental bounds, the R-axion must also acquire a mass, non-zero. Until now, we have not addressed the prob- although the lower bounds on its mass are much weaker lem of the cosmological constant: global supersymmetry than those on the gaugino mass: mR−axion & 100 MeV, breaking `ala CGM always generates a large vacuum en- and therefore easier to fulfill. Nevertheless, its mass ergy. This makes a contribution to the cosmological con- means that the original R-symmetry must itself be ex- stant that is much larger than the observed tiny value. plicitly broken by very small effects, and according to the This contribution can in principle be compensated in earlier arguments, this again implies that the vacuum is a “” theory, i.e., a theory combining super- metastable. In this case, however, the gaugino mass is di- symmetry with gravity, which can easily generate an vorced from the size of the explicit R-breaking parameter additional negative contribution to the vacuum energy. ε, which now determines the R-axion mass instead. This Adding this contribution would not change our conclu- exhausts the logical possibilities and shows that massive sions about the metastability of the vacuum in CGM gauginos and massive R- imply metastability. models. However, supergravity does offer the alternative An invaluable contribution to these arguments was possibility of using gravitational-strength interactions to made by the recent papers of Intriligator, Seiberg and mediate supersymmetry breaking, as illustrated in Fig. 2. Shih (ISS)6,7. In particular, the question that had previ- There is no theorem in such gravity-mediated models ously been unanswered was how to generate a Lagrangian that our present vacuum is necessarily unstable. How- of the form (1). ISS discovered an extremely simple ever, this is still a generic possibility11, and the cosmol- and beautiful class of supersymmetric models that gener- ogy of such metastable gravity-mediated scenarios was ate dynamically a small R-breaking term of the required discussed recently20. These scenarios can also be probed type by quantum effects, and hence lead to a long-lived by the LHC, through measurements of the spectrum of metastable vacuum. The Nelson-Seiberg theorem mani- supersymmetric particles, should they be discovered. fests itself in a truly wonderful way in these theories: the Before closing, we address one question that may 5 have been nagging the reader: if our present vacuum favourable one. This could arise in the Standard Model, is a “false” one, how did the Universe arrive in such a for example, if the Higgs boson is light. One way to metastable minimum? Why did it not start directly in avoid this would be to postulate an extension of the the “true” stable vacuum? In the models discussed above Standard Model to include supersymmetry. However, the the reason is that the early Universe was (presumably) metastability of our present vacuum is also unavoidable very hot. At high temperatures, what later became the in a generic class of supersymmetric theories. In either metastable vacuum is preferred by entropy, and the Uni- case, the LHC may be able to indicate whether Nature is verse was automatically driven into it. Later, as the Uni- metastable by for example discovering the Higgs boson verse cooled, it got trapped in the metastable state21,22,23 and measuring its properties, or by discovering super- (for a precursor, see8). partners and measuring their masses. By studying the In conclusion, we have argued that the present ground nature of the vacuum, the LHC will provide a unique state of the Universe may well be temporary, and that window on the fate of the universe. it may ultimately decay into an energetically more

1 P. H. Frampton, “Vacuum Instability And Higgs Scalar 13 I. Y. Kobzarev, L. B. Okun and M. B. Voloshin, “Bubbles Mass,” Phys. Rev. Lett. 37 (1976) 1378 [Erratum-ibid. 37 In Metastable Vacuum,” Sov. J. Nucl. Phys. 20 (1975) 644 (1976) 1716]. [Yad. Fiz. 20 (1974) 1229]. 2 For a recent study of vacuum instability within the Stan- 14 L. O’Raifeartaigh, “Spontaneous Symmetry Breaking For dard Model, see: J. R. Espinosa, G. F. Giudice and A. Ri- Chiral Scalar Superfields,” Nucl. Phys. B 96 (1975) 331. otto, “Cosmological implications of the Higgs mass mea- 15 P. Fayet and J. Iliopoulos, “Spontaneously Broken Super- surement,” JCAP 0805 (2008) 002 [arXiv:0710.2484 [hep- gauge Symmetries and Goldstone Spinors,” Phys. Lett. B ph]]. 51 (1974) 461. 3 For the current indirect indications on the possible mass 16 A. E. Nelson and N. Seiberg, “R symmetry breaking versus of the Higgs boson within the Standard Model, see supersymmetry breaking,” Nucl. Phys. B 416 (1994) 46 http://lepewwg.web.cern.ch/LEPEWWG/. [arXiv:hep-ph/9309299]. 4 ATLAS Collaboration, “Detector and Physics Performance 17 H. Murayama and Y. Nomura, “Gauge mediation Technical Design Report,” CERN/LHCC/99-15 (1999); simplified,” Phys. Rev. Lett. 98 (2007) 151803 CMS Collaboration, “CMS Physics Technical Design Re- [arXiv:hep-ph/0612186]. port. Volume II: Physics Performance,” CERN/LHCC 18 S. Abel, C. Durnford, J. Jaeckel and V. V. Khoze, 2006-021, CMS TDR 8.2 (2006). “Dynamical breaking of U(1)R and supersymmetry in 5 J. R. Ellis and D. Ross, “A light Higgs boson would a metastable vacuum,” Phys. Lett. B 661 (2008) 201 invite supersymmetry,” Phys. Lett. B 506 (2001) 331 [arXiv:0707.2958 [hep-ph]]. [arXiv:hep-ph/0012067]. 19 S. A. Abel, C. Durnford, J. Jaeckel and V. V. Khoze, “Pat- 6 K. Intriligator, N. Seiberg and D. Shih, “Dynamical SUSY terns of Gauge Mediation in Metastable SUSY Breaking,” breaking in meta-stable vacua,” JHEP 0604 (2006) 021 JHEP 0802 (2008) 074 [arXiv:0712.1812 [hep-ph]]. [arXiv:hep-th/0602239]. 20 J. Ellis, J. Giedt, O. Lebedev, K. Olive and M. Srednicki, 7 K. Intriligator, N. Seiberg and D. Shih, “Supersymmetry “Against Tachyophobia,” arXiv:0806.3648 [hep-ph]. Breaking, R-Symmetry Breaking and Metastable Vacua,” 21 S. A. Abel, C. S. Chu, J. Jaeckel and V. V. Khoze, JHEP 0707 (2007) 017 [arXiv:hep-th/0703281]. “SUSY breaking by a metastable ground state: Why 8 J. R. Ellis, C. H. Llewellyn Smith and G. G. Ross, “Will the early universe preferred the non-supersymmetric vac- The Universe Become Supersymmetric?,” Phys. Lett. B uum,” JHEP 0701 (2007) 089 [arXiv:hep-th/0610334]; 114 (1982) 227. S. A. Abel, J. Jaeckel and V. V. Khoze, “Why the early 9 J. Wess and B. Zumino, “Supergauge Transformations in universe preferred the non-supersymmetric vacuum. II,” Four-Dimensions,” Nucl. Phys. B 70 (1974) 39. JHEP 0701 (2007) 015 [arXiv:hep-th/0611130]. 10 F. Zwicky, “Spectral displacement of extra galactic nebu- 22 N. J. Craig, P. J. Fox and J. G. Wacker, “Reheat- lae,” Helv. Phys. Acta 6 (1933) 110. ing metastable O’Raifeartaigh models,” Phys. Rev. D 75 11 J. A. Casas, A. Lleyda and C. Munoz, “Strong constraints (2007) 085006 [arXiv:hep-th/0611006]. on the parameter space of the MSSM from charge and 23 W. Fischler, V. Kaplunovsky, C. Krishnan, L. Man- color breaking minima,” Nucl. Phys. B 471 (1996) 3 nelli and M. A. C. Torres, “Meta-Stable Supersymmetry [arXiv:hep-ph/9507294]. Breaking in a Cooling Universe,” JHEP 0703 (2007) 107 12 S. R. Coleman and F. De Luccia, “Gravitational Effects On [arXiv:hep-th/0611018]. And Of Vacuum Decay,” Phys. Rev. D 21 (1980) 3305.