Do New Experimental Results Indicate a Consistent Framework?

Do new experimental results indicate a consistent framework?

Martti Raidal

CERN TH and NICPB, Tallinn, Estonia

WHAT IS ν?: from new experimental neutrino results to a deeper understanding of theoretical physics and cosmology,

GGI, June 20, 2012 Motivation: new data from many diﬀerent experiments

Neutrino ﬂavour physics - large θ13 measured Why all nontrivial mixing angles√ are related to the Cabbibo angle? θ12 ∼ π/4 − θc, θ13 ∼ θc/ 2 LHC Higgs boson SUSY New resonances, extra dimensions etc DM direct detection WIMPs - Xenon100 (new results coming very soon!) Axion experiments become sensitive to DM parameters DM indirect detection - Fermi 130 GeV gamma ray peak

Is there a consistent emerging picture of new physics?

Meetings like this are meant to encourage discussions The “standard" paradigms of NP beyond the SM

SUSY Hierarchy problem is solved by SUSY

There is a desert between MZ and MGUT

Flavour physics generated at MP RH neutrino/leptogenesis mass scale 1012 GeV is obtained as MN = yτMGUT After imposing R-parity DM is the lightest neutralino

Alternatively Extra dimensions to solve hierarchy/ﬂavour/DM problems New strong interactions: composite Higgs and higgsless models Split SUSY & anthropic principle Lessons to learn from collider searches

CMSSM before 125 GeV Higgs CMSSM after 125 GeV Higgs arXiv:1104.3572 arXiv:1112.3647

CMSSM 10-42

10-43 Xenon 2011 2300 460 2200 440 10-44 2

cm 2100 420 in

SI 2000 400 Σ 10-45 1900 380 [GeV] [GeV] 1 ˜ g ˜ `

M 1800 360 M -46 10 1700 340 1600 320 10-47 1500 300 0 200 400 600 800 700 800 900 1000 1100 1200 1300 1400 1500 700 800 900 1000 1100 1200 1300 1400 1500 M ˜ [GeV] M ˜ [GeV] DM mass in GeV t1 t1

Naturalness/mathematical beauty etc seem not to be good arguments. LHC:

After Moriond 2012 M1/2 = m0 > 1.5 TeV New Z’ type and KK resonances above 3-4 TeV New strongly interacting resonances above multi-TeV Does model building without solid physical measurement make sense? Higgs boson status

I assume that the LHC evidence does correspond to some Higgs boson

I assume that its mass is 125 GeV

I allow its couplings to deviate from the SM predictions

I shall be very surprised if Higgs not conﬁrmed at ICHEP 2012 The Higgs mass 125 GeV is a very interesting one

There are two reasons why this Higgs mass is special

From theoretical point of view mh = 125 GeV is an uncomfortable value This is well below the SM vacuum stability bound 130 GeV This is almost too high for the MSSM Higgs boson motivating (i) unnaturally high SUSY scale or (ii) models beyond the MSSM

From the LHC experiment’s point of view mh = 125 GeV is almost an ideal value All decay branching fractions to the SM particles are sizable Most of the interesting signal rates, σ × BR, are measurable

The ideal situation for interesting physics Is the Higgs boson standard? arXiv:1203.4254 Overview of Higgs data after Moriond 2012

mh = 125 GeV 4

D0 D0 D0 2.0 - - - Atlas Atlas Atlas Atlas Atlas Atlas CMS CMS CMS CMS CMS CMS CMS

3 CDF CDF CDF 1.5

1.0 2 rate rate SM

SM 0.5 T jj p Rate ΤΤ ΤΤ

1 ΓΓ ΓΓ ΓΓ ZZ ZZ Rate bbV bbV bbV ΓΓ WW WW WW ΓΓ WWjj 0.0

0 -0.5

-1.0 -1 110 115 120 125 130 135 140 Higgs mass in GeV

 2.1 ± 0.5 photons observed rate  =  0.5 ± 0.3 vectors: W and Z  SM rate  1.3 ± 0.5 fermions: b and τ

The SM fit is good: χ2 ≈ 17 (15 dof), average rate is 1.1 ± 0.2 Our results agree (semiquantitatively) with the ATLAS and CMS ones Is data fluctuating around the SM or is this first emerging signal of NP? Allowing non-standard Higgs couplings to vectors and fermions

Assume common deviation for gauge (a) and Yukawa couplings (c)

a = RV ≡ RW = RZ, c = Rt = Rb = Rτ

mh = 125 GeV mh = 125 GeV 2 2

c 1 SM 1 SM SM t to fermions to 0 FP 0 FP 0t coupling coupling Higgs

Higgs -1 -1

68,95% CL 68,95% CL -2 -2 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 Higgs coupling to vectors a Higgs coupling to b and ΤSM Data prefers enhanced h → γγ obtained for y < −ySM due to constructive interference between W and t loops Summary of non-standard best ﬁts

Atlas CMSCDF-D0CMS Atlas CMSCDF-D0Atlas CMS Atlas CMSCDF-D0Atlas CMS Atlas CMS

Χ2 = 17. SM 2 6 Χ = 5.2 best fit: free BRΓΓ, BRgg Χ2 = 6.5 best fit: free couplings Χ2 = 10. best fit: free positive couplings Χ2 = - 4 22. top phobic Χ2 = 27. fermio-phobic rate SM

Rate 2 1 0

bbV bbV bbV WWjj WW WW WW ZZ ZZ ΓΓ ΓΓ ΓΓ ΓΓ ΓΓ jj ΤΤ ΤΤ pT

The SM fit is good, the FP Higgs fit is as good, driven by new FP data We introduced two new variables to fit γγ excess and WW deficit Overfitting– χ2 does not tell which scenario is preferred More data should show which model is realized in nature The importance of top Yukawa - naturalness and Higgs boson couplings

2 Quadratic divergences to the Higgs boson mass, δmh are dominated by top quark loops The same top Yukawa coupling enters into the dominant gluon-gluon fusion (ggF) Higgs production mechanism at the LHC, gg → h

t t g h h « h

t t

2 δmh gg → h

Exp. error in mt measurement is now more important than any theoretical error - need to conﬁrm that also fermions get a mass from the Higgs Implications of the 125 GeV SM Higgs boson What is the fate of the Universe?

RGE running makes the Higgs coupling λ < 0, destabilizing vacuum

Does the SM Higgs mh = 125 GeV correspond to λ(MGUT ) = 0? This would indicate/support a fundamental scale of BSM theories NO, in the SM we would live in a metastable vacuum

Λ Λ 0.06

0.10 0.04 0.08

0.02 0.06

128 GeV L log10 0.04 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 GeV 126 GeV ΛS1= 0.3 125 GeV -0.02 124 GeV 0.02

ΛS1= 0 L log10 -0.04 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 GeV The SM 2 loop RGEs Singlet scalar DM, 1 loop RGEs

NNLO computation exist, the SM vacuum stability bound is 130 GeV My favourite solution is that Higgs couples to scalar Dark Matter † † Adding a singlet scalar S with λS1(S S)(H H) is enough to save us Is there a new fundamental scale at 1012 GeV?

λ = 0 can be associated with the new fundamental scale where scalars and ﬂavour physics is generated It coincides with the seesaw and leptogenesis scale It agrees with the allowed axion decay constant window 9 12 10 GeV < fa < 10 GeV Alessandro Strumia advocates a scenario Higgs boson is a pseudo-goldstone of some tecnhicolour like theory at 1012 GeV DM is the axion Gauge couplings uniﬁcation due to the new particles at that scale Anthropic principle/landscape explains the absence of naturalness

Experiments should decide whether the DM is a WIMP or an axion New indirect evidence that DM is WIMP!

C. Weniger discovered a monochromatic gamma-ray line in Fermi publicly available data coming from the center of Galaxy We conﬁrmed in arXiv:1205.1045 the existence of a clear peak Data is consistent with DM annihilations with xc of 10% of the standard thermal cx

10-4 ] -1 sr -1 s -2 [GeV cm Φ

2 -5

E 10

130 GeV peak significance: 4.5σ Central region (l=-1.0, b=-0.7): r=3deg

20 100 130 200 E [GeV]

Today there is no question whether the peak exists or not! Fermi collaboration has conﬁrmed that. They check whether this is an instrumental artifact or physics! DM substructure?

The signal originates from small regions in the center of Galaxy

10-4 ] -1 sr -1 s -2 [GeV cm Φ

2 -5

E 10 130 GeV peak significance: 3.2σ l=-10, b=0: r=3deg

20 100 130 200 E [GeV]

Our preliminary results show the 130 GeV line also coming from galaxy clusters Non-trivial model building is needed to couple DM to photons with such a cross section Conclusions

Intermediate scale 1012 GeV may play fundamental role in physics DM experiments should decide whether the DM is WIMP or axion motivate the intermediate scale LHC needs to test Higgs boson and top/bottom/tau couplings with better precision

We are going to know much more after ICHEP 2012/Xenon100/Fermi new results The emerging picture may not be the standard one expected before LHC started We going to know a lot more just in two weeks