DOCSLIB.ORG

Higgs Collider Phenomenology: Important Backgrounds, Naturalness Probes and the Electroweak Phase Transition

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Higgs Collider Phenomenology: Important Backgrounds, Naturalness Probes and the Electroweak Phase Transition Higgs collider phenomenology: important backgrounds, naturalness probes and the electroweak phase transition. A Dissertation presented by Harikrishnan Ramani to The Graduate School in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy in Physics and Astronomy Stony Brook University August 2017 (include this copyright page only if you are selecting copyright through ProQuest, which is optional) Copyright by Harikrishnan Ramani 2017 Stony Brook University The Graduate School Harikrishnan Ramani We, the dissertation committee for the above candidate for the Doctor of Philosophy degree, hereby recommend acceptance of this dissertation Patrick Meade - Dissertation Advisor Associate Professor, Department of Physics and Astronomy George Sterman - Chairperson of Defense Distinguished Professor, Department of Physics and Astronomy Dmitri Tsybychev - Committee Member Associate Professor, Department of Physics and Astronomy Eder Izaguirre - Outside Member Assistant Physicist, Department of Physics, Brookhaven National Laboratory This dissertation is accepted by the Graduate School Charles Taber Dean of the Graduate School ii Abstract of the Dissertation Higgs collider phenomenology: important backgrounds, naturalness probes and the electroweak phase transition. by Harikrishnan Ramani Doctor of Philosophy in Physics and Astronomy Stony Brook University 2017 The Higgs boson discovered in 2012, might be the portal to new physics. With the Higgs as the common theme we present the following research arcs. In order to study the Higgs, it is important to have a very good handle on Standard model(SM) backgrounds. One such background process is SM WW production, which reported routine 3 sigma excesses in early run 1 of the LHC. However, experiments use Parton Showers for theoreti- cal prediction and this might be inadequate for exclusive cross-sections. We show that taking into account higher order Sudakov logarithms through transverse momentum and jet-veto resummation predicts a larger cross-section than parton showers and reduces the theory-experiment disagree- ment. iii Next, improvements are suggested to the state-of-the-art finite temperature field theory cal- culations that can predict the nature of the electroweak phase transitions in beyond-the-standard model scenarios. We find that relaxing the high-temperature approximation and resumming logs of temperature to super-daisy order can have significant changes in the order of the phase transition. This in turn can have important consequences for the possibility of creating the baryon anti-baryon asymmetry across this phase transition. Our improved calculation in general predicts weaker phase transitions, and hence smaller baryon-anti baryon asymmetry. This strengthens the case for build- ing future colliders in the form of a no-lose theorem; absence of deviation from the Standard model in Higgs precision physics can falsify the possibility of Electroweak Baryogenesis. Finally, we present another consequence of Higgs precision studies, constraining new physics invented to ameliorate the hierarchy problem. These theories generically predict top partners at the electroweak scale, which are connected with the top quark through a symmetry. However these top partners have not been detected at colliders making the electroweak scale severely fine-tuned. We find that generically, top-partner mass limits will reach a TeV just from Higgs precision at future colliders. iv Dedication Page To my grandfather, who taught me to ask questions. v Contents 1 Introduction 1 1.1 Standard Model of Particle Physics . 1 1.2 Problems from Astronomical / Cosmological Observations . 2 1.3 Small or Arbitrary parameter problems . 4 1.4 The Hierarchy Problem . 5 1.5 Baryogenesis . 7 1.6 Colliders: Past, Current and Future State of Experiments . 9 1.7 Outline of Thesis . 11 + 2 Transverse momentum resummation effects in W W − measurements 13 2.1 Introduction . 13 + 2.2 W W − transverse momentum resummation . 18 2.3 Numerical results . 21 2.4 Transverse Momentum Reweighting and Fiducial Cross Sections . 24 2.5 Reweighting Results . 27 2.6 Jet Veto . 30 2.7 Discussion . 32 3 Precision diboson measurements and the interplay of pT and jet-veto resummations 36 3.1 Introduction . 36 3.2 Jet-Veto and pT Resummation Theory . 40 3.3 Reweighting MC events and Applications . 43 vi 3.4 Results and Comparison . 47 3.5 Jet Definitions and other QCD effects . 48 3.6 Discussion . 50 3 + 4 Resummation of jet veto logarithms at N LLa + NNLO for W W − production at the LHC 55 4.1 Introduction . 55 4.2 fixed order . 56 4.3 Jet veto resummation . 58 4.3.1 Hard function . 59 4.3.2 Beam function . 61 4.3.3 Rapidity Renormalization Group . 64 4.4 Results . 65 5 Thermal Resummation and Phase Transitions 71 5.1 Introduction . 71 5.2 Review: Calculating the Electroweak Phase Transition . 77 5.2.1 Tree-level Potential . 77 5.2.2 Coleman Weinberg Potential . 78 5.2.3 Finite Temperature . 79 5.2.4 Resummation of the Thermal Mass: Truncated Full Dressing (TFD) . 81 5.2.5 Types of Electroweak Phase Transitions . 84 5.2.6 Problems with the standard one-loop TFD calculation of the phase transition 88 5.3 Formal aspects of finite-temperature mass resummation . 91 5.3.1 Tadpole resummation in φ4 theories . 92 5.3.2 A general resummation procedure for BSM theories . 98 5.3.3 Future Directions . 100 5.4 Computing the the Strength of the Phase Transition . 102 5.4.1 Zero-Temperature Calculation . 102 vii 5.4.2 Finite-Temperature Calculation . 104 5.4.3 Comparing Resummation Schemes . 112 5.5 Physical Consequences . 114 5.6 Conclusions . 119 6 Higgs Precision Constraints on Colored Naturalness 122 6.1 Introduction . 122 6.2 Naturalness and Higgs Couplings . 125 6.3 Higgs Precision Constraints & Colored Top Partners . 127 6.3.1 Definitions for non-Standard Model Higgs couplings . 128 6.3.2 How to Constrain and Hide Top Partners . 130 6.4 Data Sets and Fitting Procedure . 133 6.4.1 Current and future proton collider data . 133 6.4.2 Future lepton collider data . 135 6.5 Canonical Top Partner Models and Extensions . 137 6.5.1 Spin-0 . 137 6.5.2 Spin-1/2 . 144 6.5.3 Spin-1 . 148 6.6 Results and Discussions . 150 6.6.1 Constraints on top partners that only affect hgg, hγγ loops . 151 6.6.2 Constraints on top-partners with modified SM Higgs couplings . 154 6.6.3 Constraints on canonical models and extensions . 157 6.7 Conclusions . 161 Appendices 164 A Instruction Manual for Optimized Partial Dressing Calculation of Phase Transition 165 B Future Complementary Higgs Precision Probes 168 C Loop-induced Higgs Couplings 173 viii D Cross-check with HiggsSignals 175 E Data Tables 177 ix List of Figures + 2.1 Plot of resummed, finite (matching) and fixed-order W W − transverse momen- tum distributions from 8 TeV proton collisions. Note that the LO pT distribution has the same ↵s order as the NLO total cross section. 21 + 2.2 Plot of renormalization, factorization and resummation scale variations of the W W − transverse momentum distribution for 8 TeV collisions. 22 + 2.3 NNLO+LO predictions, with error bands, for the W W − transverse momentum distribution for 7,8 and 14 TeV collisions. 22 2.4 NNLL+LO prediction for the WW transverse momentum distribution at 8 TeV, with and without the non-perturbative Gaussian smearing factor exp 1GeV2 b2 . 23 − 2.5 Comparision of our resummed WW pT distribution with a SCET-based⇥ resumma-⇤ tion calculation, with error bands shown for both. 24 + 2.6 Plot of Resummation predicted and MC+shower predictions for W W − trans- verse momentum distributions at 8 TeV. The shaded region represents the scale Q variation by a factor of 2 relative to the central scale choice Q = mW for the resummation prediction. 26 + 2.7 aMC@NLO+Herwig++ observables histogrammed for W W − transverse mo- mentum distribution for 7 TeV collisions and including the reweighting correction. ............................................ 30 x 2.8 The top row shows the reweighting correction for left (Powheg+Pythia8), center miss (aMC@NLO+Herwig++), right (Powheg+Herwig++) to the pT (ll + ET ) ob- servable. The bottom row has bin-by-bin percentage difference in events between reweighting and the MC + PS. 31 2.9 Events before the Jet veto. The number of 0 jet events or events with 1 or more jets is shown as a function of the pT of the diboson system. Since 1 or more jet - events are vetoed, this sculpts the pT -shape. 32 j 3.1 For ps =8TeV and R =0.4 anti-kT jet algorithm, in the left hand panel dσ/dpT is plotted. For the distribution shown in blue, errors come from scale variations without NP factors, in red ⇤NP =500MeVuncertainties are included. In the right j hand panel, the fractional uncertainty of dσ/dpT from scale variation relative to the central scale choice is shown with and without NP uncertainties. 46 a........................................46 b........................................46 WW 3.2 correlation variable ⇢ as a function of pT ..................... 47 WW 3.3 Comparison of jet-veto efficiency and pT in the zero jet bin, from jet veto re- summation and pT resummation for R=0.4 at 8 TeV (top) and 13 TeV (bottom). 50 a 8TeV..................................... 50 b 13TeV .................................... 50 3.4 Comparison of jet veto efficiencies for 8 TeV for R=0.4, 0.5 and 1. 51 3.5 Comparison of jet veto efficiencies for 8 TeV using pT reweighting method with MPI off vs on for R =0.4, 0.5 and 1. 51 + 3.6 The pT (` `− +MET)distribution after a parametrized smearing of MET.....52 + 4.1 Summary of jet veto resummation results for qq¯ W W −. We include results at ! 8 TeV and 13 TeV, under ATLAS or CMS jet veto cuts.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Two Notions of Naturalness
    For almost 40 years, the requirement that models of BSM physics be natural has heavily inuenced model-building in high-energy physics. Porter Williams (University of Pittsburgh) Two notions of naturalness February 28, 2018 1 / 60 The expectation of a natural solution to the hierarchy problem was probably the most popular argument for expecting new particles at the LHC. Porter Williams (University of Pittsburgh) Two notions of naturalness February 28, 2018 2 / 60 The Standard Model reigns supreme. As of today, the LHC has discovered no evidence for SUSY or any other mechanism for naturally stabilizing the weak scale. Porter Williams (University of Pittsburgh) Two notions of naturalness February 28, 2018 4 / 60 As of today, the LHC has discovered no evidence for SUSY or any other mechanism for naturally stabilizing the weak scale. The Standard Model reigns supreme. Porter Williams (University of Pittsburgh) Two notions of naturalness February 28, 2018 4 / 60 This has left many people in the HEP community unsure about how to proceed. Porter Williams (University of Pittsburgh) Two notions of naturalness February 28, 2018 5 / 60 Now What? Aspen 2013 - Higgs Quo Vadis Nathan Seiberg IAS TexPoint fonts used in EMF. Read the TexPoint manual before you delete this box.: AAAAAA AA If neither supersymmetry nor any other sort of natural solution...appears in the data...[t]his would...give theorists a strong incentive to take the ideas of the multiverse more seriously. – Nima Arkani-Hamed (2012) Porter Williams (University of Pittsburgh) Two notions of naturalness February 28, 2018 8 / 60 If the electroweak symmetry breaking scale is anthropically xed, then we can give up the decades long search for a natural solution to the hierarchy problem.
    [Show full text]
  • Cern Quick Facts 2017
    BUDGET Total Member States’ and additional contributions 1141.7 million CHF COUNCIL CERN QUICK FACTS 2017 Normalized contributions from the Member States (%) Austria 2.17 Belgium 2.76 Bulgaria 0.29 Czech Republic 0.94 Denmark 1.77 Finland 1.35 MANAGEMENT France 14.32 Directorate Germany 20.44 Greece 1.20 Director-General Fabiola Gianotti Hungary 0.60 Director for Accelerators and Technology Frédérick Bordry Israel 1.49 Director for Finance and Human Resources Martin Steinacher Italy 10.62 Director for International Relations Charlotte Warakaulle Netherlands 4.77 Director for Research and Computing Eckhard Elsen Norway 2.90 Poland 2.82 Council Support John Pym Portugal 1.11 Internal Audit John Steel Romania 0.99 Legal Service Eva-Maria Gröniger-Voss Slovakia 0.48 Occupational Health & Safety and Environmental Protection Simon Baird Spain 7.22 Ombuds Sudeshna Datta Cockerill Sweden 2.73 Switzerland 3.92 Scientific Information Services Jens Vigen United Kingdom 15.10 Education, Communications and Outreach Ana Godinho Associate Member States in the pre-stage Host States Relations Friedemann Eder to Membership Media and Press Relations Arnaud Marsollier Cyprus 0.01 Member State Relations Pippa Wells Serbia 0.17 Non-Member State Relations Emmanuel Tsesmelis Slovenia 0.03 Protocol Service Wendy Korda Relations with International Organizations Olivier Martin Associate Member States India 1.03 Departments Pakistan 0.13 Beams (BE) Paul Collier Turkey 0.43 Engineering (EN) Roberto Losito Ukraine 0.09 Experimental Physics (EP) Manfred Krammer Finance
    [Show full text]
  • Largest Temperature of the Radiation Era and Its Cosmological
    View metadata, citation and similar papers at core.ac.ukLargest temperature of the radiation era brought to you by CORE and its cosmological implications provided by CERN Document Server Gian Francesco Giudice∗ CERN Theory Division, CH-1211 Geneva 23, Switzerland Edward W. Kolb NASA/Fermilab Astrophysics Center, Fermi National Accelerator Laboratory, Batavia, Illinois 60510-0500, and Department of Astronomy and Astrophysics, Enrico Fermi Institute, The University of Chicago, Chicago, Illinois 60637-1433 Antonio Riotto Scuola Normale Superiore, Piazza dei Cavalieri 7, I-56126 Pisa, Italy, and INFN, Sezione di Pisa, I-56127 Pisa, Italy (May 2000) The thermal history of the universe before the epoch of nucleosynthesis is unknown. The maxi- mum temperature in the radiation-dominated era, which we will refer to as the reheat temperature, may have been as low as 0.7 MeV. In this paper we show that a low reheat temperature has impor- tant implications for many topics in cosmology. We show that weakly interacting massive particles (WIMPs) may be produced even if the reheat temperature is much smaller than the freeze-out temperature of the WIMP, and that the dependence of the present abundance on the mass and the annihilation cross section of the WIMP differs drastically from familiar results. We revisit predic- tions of the relic abundance and resulting model constraints of supersymmetric dark matter, axions, massive neutrinos, and other dark matter candidates, nucleosynthesis constraints on decaying parti- cles, and leptogenesis by decay of superheavy
    [Show full text]
  • On Future High-Energy Colliders
    On Future High-Energy Colliders Gian Francesco Giudice CERN, Theoretical Physics Department, Geneva, Switzerland Abstract An outline of the physics reasons to pursue a future programme in high-energy colliders is presented. While the LHC physics programme is still in full swing, the preparations for the European Strategy for Particle Physics and the recent release of the FCC Conceptual Design Report bring attention to the future of high-energy physics. How do results from the LHC impact the future of particle physics? Why are new high-energy colliders needed? Where do we stand after the LHC discovery of the Higgs boson? Undoubtedly, the highlight of the LHC programme so far has been the discovery of the Higgs boson, which was announced at CERN on 4 July 2012. The result has had a profound impact on particle physics, establishing new fundamental questions and opening a new experimental programme aimed at exploring the nature of the newly found particle. The revolutionary aspect of this discovery can be understood by comparing it with the previous discovery of a new elementary particle { the one of the top quark, which took place at Fermilab in 1995. The situation at the time was completely different. The properties of the top quark were exactly what was needed to complete satisfactorily the existing theoretical framework and the new particle fell into its place like the missing piece of a jigsaw puzzle. Instead, the discovery of the Higgs boson leaves us wondering about many questions still left unanswered. The top quark was the culmination of a discovery process; the Higgs boson appears to be the starting point of an exploration process.
    [Show full text]
  • The Dawn of the Post-Naturalness Era Arxiv:1710.07663V1 [Physics.Hist-Ph]
    CERN-TH-2017-205 The Dawn of the Post-Naturalness Era Gian Francesco Giudice CERN, Theoretical Physics Department, Geneva, Switzerland Abstract In an imaginary conversation with Guido Altarelli, I express my views on the status of particle physics beyond the Standard Model and its future prospects. Contribution to the volume \From My Vast Repertoire" { The Legacy of Guido Altarelli. 1 A Master and a Friend Honour a king in his own land; honour a wise man everywhere. | Tibetan proverb [1] Guido Altarelli was an extraordinary theoretical physicist. Not only was Guido one of the heroes of the Standard Model, but he incarnated the very essence of that theory: a perfect synthesis of pure elegance and brilliance. With his unique charisma, he had a great influence on CERN and contributed much in promoting the role of theoretical physics in the life of the laboratory. With the right mixture of vision, authority, and practical common sense, he led the Theory Division from 2000 to 2004. I have always admired Guido for his brilliance, humour, knowledge, leadership, and intellectual integrity. I learned much from his qualities and his example is a precious legacy for me and for all of his colleagues. Guido had a very pragmatic attitude towards scientific theories. He was not attracted arXiv:1710.07663v1 [physics.hist-ph] 18 Oct 2017 by elaborate mathematical constructions, but wanted to understand the essence behind the formalism and get straight to the concept. In physics, I would define him as a conservative revolutionary or as an optimistic skeptical. One episode illustrates the meaning of this definition.
    [Show full text]
  • Arxiv:0801.2562V2 [Hep-Ph]
    NATURALLY SPEAKING: The Naturalness Criterion and Physics at the LHC Gian Francesco GIUDICE CERN, Theoretical Physics Division Geneva, Switzerland 1 Naturalness in Scientific Thought Everything is natural: if it weren’t, it wouldn’t be. Mary Catherine Bateson [1] Almost every branch of science has its own version of the “naturalness criterion”. In environmental sciences, it refers to the degree to which an area is pristine, free from human influence, and characterized by native species [2]. In mathematics, its meaning is associated with the intuitiveness of certain fundamental concepts, viewed as an intrinsic part of our thinking [3]. One can find the use of naturalness criterions in computer science (as a measure of adaptability), in agriculture (as an acceptable level of product manipulation), in linguistics (as translation quality assessment of sentences that do not reflect the natural and idiomatic forms of the receptor language). But certainly nowhere else but in particle physics has the mutable concept of naturalness taken a form which has become so influential in the development of the field. The role of naturalness in the sense of “æsthetic beauty” is a powerful guiding principle for physicists as they try to construct new theories. This may appear surprising since the final product is often a mathematically sophisticated theory based on deep fundamental principles, arXiv:0801.2562v2 [hep-ph] 30 Mar 2008 and one could believe that subjective æsthetic arguments have no place in it. Nevertheless, this is not true and often theoretical physicists formulate their theories inspired by criteria of simplicity and beauty, i.e. by what Nelson [4] defines as “structural naturalness”.
    [Show full text]
  • Lopsided Gauge Mediation JHEP05(2011)112 7 8 (1.1) Originate Is a Gauge Μ G B
    Published for SISSA by Springer Received: May 4, 2011 Accepted: May 7, 2011 Published: May 25, 2011 Lopsided gauge mediation JHEP05(2011)112 Andrea De Simone,a Roberto Franceschini,a Gian Francesco Giudice,b Duccio Pappadopuloa and Riccardo Rattazzia aInstitut de Th´eoriedes Ph´enom`enesPhysiques, EPFL, CH-1015 Lausanne, Switzerland bCERN, Theory Division, CH-1211 Geneva 23, Switzerland E-mail: [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected] Abstract: It has been recently pointed out that the unavoidable tuning among supersym- metric parameters required to raise the Higgs boson mass beyond its experimental limit opens up new avenues for dealing with the so called µ-Bµ problem of gauge mediation. In fact, it allows for accommodating, with no further parameter tuning, large values of Bµ and of the other Higgs-sector soft masses, as predicted in models where both µ and Bµ are generated at one-loop order. This class of models, called Lopsided Gauge Mediation, offers an interesting alternative to conventional gauge mediation and is characterized by a strikingly different phenomenology, with light higgsinos, very large Higgs pseudoscalar mass, and moderately light sleptons. We discuss general parametric relations involving the fine-tuning of the model and various observables such as the chargino mass and the value of tan β. We build an explicit model and we study the constraints coming from LEP and Tevatron. We show that in spite of new interactions between the Higgs and the messenger superfields, the theory can remain perturbative up to very large scales, thus retaining gauge coupling unification.
    [Show full text]
  • Naturalness, Wilsonian Renormalization, and “Fundamental Parameters” in Quantum Field Theory
    TTK-19-04, ELHC 2018-005 January 2019 Naturalness, Wilsonian Renormalization, and \Fundamental Parameters" in Quantum Field Theory Joshua Rosaler and Robert Harlander Institute for Theoretical Particle Physics and Cosmology, RWTH Aachen University, D-52056 Aachen, Germany Abstract The Higgs naturalness principle served as the basis for the so far failed prediction that signatures of physics beyond the Standard Model (SM) would be discovered at the LHC. One influential formulation of the princi- ple, which prohibits fine tuning of bare Standard Model (SM) parameters, rests on the assumption that a particular set of values for these parame- ters constitute the \fundamental parameters" of the theory, and serve to mathematically define the theory. On the other hand, an old argument by Wetterich suggests that fine tuning of bare parameters merely reflects an arbitrary, inconvenient choice of expansion parameters and that the choice of parameters in an EFT is therefore arbitrary. We argue that these two interpretations of Higgs fine tuning reflect distinct ways of formulat- ing and interpreting effective field theories (EFTs) within the Wilsonian framework: the first takes an EFT to be defined by a single set of physical, fundamental bare parameters, while the second takes a Wilsonian EFT to be defined instead by a whole Wilsonian renormalization group (RG) trajectory, associated with a one-parameter class of physically equivalent parametrizations. From this latter perspective, no single parametrization constitutes the physically correct, fundamental parametrization of the the- ory, and the delicate cancellation between bare Higgs mass and quantum corrections appears as an eliminable artifact of the arbitrary, unphysical reference scale with respect to which the physical amplitudes of the the- ory are parametrized.
    [Show full text]
  • Grand Unification at the Electroweak Scale
    Large Extra Dimensions & Grand Unification at the Electroweak Scale Behrad Taghavi Department of Physics & Astronomy, Stony Brook University. ! Advisor: Dr. Patric Meade OUTLINE • Motivations • Kaluza-Klein Theory • Localization on Topological Defects • Large Extra Dimensions Paradigm • ADD Model • Hierarchy Problem • Proton Stability • Other Models (eg. UED) • References 2 MOTIVATIONS We need beyond standard model theories to answer questions like hierarchy problem, unification of all fundamental forces, etc. Most of beyond standard model theories (like String Theory, M Theory, GUTs, MSSM, etc.) predict unification of forces at the energy scale close to planck mass. Large Extra Dimensions paradigm is capable of answering most of unanswered questions in SM elegantly and also keeps high energy physics as a experiment-based field of physics. 3 KALUZA-KLEIN THEORY Kaluza–Klein theory (KK theory) is a unified field theory of gravitation and electromagnetism built around the idea of a fifth dimension beyond the usual 4 of space and time. “Kaluza-Klein” mechanism has been first introduced in the 1921 paper of “Theodor Kaluza” , which extended classical GR to 4+1 dimensions that resulted in unification of Electromagnetism and Einstein’s Gravity. In 1926, “Oskar Klein” gave Kaluza's classical 5-dimensional theory a quantum interpretation by introduction of “curled up” or “compact” dimensions. 4 KALUZA-KLEIN THEORY Assume that the world is (4+ n )-dimensional (n 1 ), but the extra ≥ dimensions are compact. If n =1 , our world is a M 4 S 1 manifold. ! ⌦ All fields are defined on this “M 4 S 1 cylinder”. ⌦ ! For a scalar field Φ ( x µ ,Z ) single-valuedness condition reads: Φ(xµ,Z)=Φ(xµ,Z+2⇡R),µ=0, 1, 2, 3.
    [Show full text]
  • THE FUTURE MACHINES in PROJECT for CONFRONTING the FUTURE of PARTICLE PHYSICS Thursday, 23 May 2019 18:30 (2 Hours)
    5th Summer School on INtelligent signal processing for FrontIEr Research and Industry Contribution ID: 8 Type: not specified THE FUTURE MACHINES IN PROJECT FOR CONFRONTING THE FUTURE OF PARTICLE PHYSICS Thursday, 23 May 2019 18:30 (2 hours) ‼ THIS IS THE MOST IMPORTANT TOPIC IN THE HIGH ENERGY WORLD ‼ WHAT ARE THE NEXT MACHINES TO BE BUILT FOR EXPLORING and EXPLAIN THE ELEMENTARY PARTICLE WORLD MUCH BEYOND WHAT HAS BEEN ALREADY DISCOVERED⁇ These are WORLDWIDE & INTERNATIONAL PROJECTS for the next 50 or more years tocome. The accelerators of particles in project in the world, China, Europe and Japan will be presented, withtheir Physics reach as well as their Physics and Technological Challenges, by international experts. These projects include: • The electron-positron linear colliders; two such colliders in project: 1) the ILC (International Linear Collider) at 250 GeV in c.m.s. in Japan (see abstract by Prof. Hitoshi Hayano). Five Technical Design Reports describe in details the whole project. 2) CLIC ( Compact Linear Collider) at CERN (CH) first at 380 GeV, then 1.5 TeV and up to 3TeV. Four Conceptual Design Reports (CDR) describe the Machine, Detectors and Physics of this project. • Two combined e+e- and pp colliders in project: 1) the CepC/SppC project in China aiming to build a 100 kms long circular machine. This machine will be in a first stage an electron-positron collider, running at 90, 160 and 250 GeV (Z, W factory, Higgs Factory, Flavor factory).The CepC is expected to run towards end of 2030. In a second stage of this project, the circular tunnel is used as a proton-proton collider running at about 100 TeV center of mass energy.
    [Show full text]
  • Cern Quick Facts 2020
    BUDGET (at 31.12.2019) Total of contributions 1 196.89 MCHF Member States’ contributions 1 168.92 MCHF Associated Member States’ contributions CERN QUICK FACTS 2020 27.97 MCHF Contributions from the Member States (%) Austria 2.16 Belgium 2.68 Bulgaria 0.31 Czech Republic 0.99 Denmark 1.76 Finland 1.32 MANAGEMENT France 13.94 Germany 20.80 Directorate Greece 1.05 Director-General Fabiola Gianotti Hungary 0.64 Director for Accelerators and Technology Frédérick Bordry Israel 1.86 Director for Finance and Human Resources Martin Steinacher Italy 10.29 Director for International Relations Charlotte Warakaulle Netherlands 4.55 Director for Research and Computing Eckhard Elsen Norway 2.31 Poland 2.78 Council Support John Pym Portugal 1.09 Internal Audit John Steel Romania 1.09 Legal Service Eva-Maria Gröniger-Voss Serbia 0.23 Occupational Health & Safety and Environmental Protection Doris Forkel-Wirth Slovakia 0.49 Ombud Pierre Gildemyn Spain 7.09 Sweden 2.61 Scientific Information Services Alexander Kohls Switzerland 4.14 United Kingdom 15.82 Education, Communications and Outreach Ana Godinho Host States Relations Friedemann Eder Total Member States: 100% Media and Press Relations Anaïs Rassat Member State Relations Pippa Wells Additional contributions (% of total) Non-Member State Relations Emmanuel Tsesmelis Protocol Office Stéphanie Molinari Associate Member States in the Pre-stage Relations with International Organisations Olivier Martin to Membership (Total: 0.17%) Cyprus 0.08 Departments Slovenia 0.09 Beams (BE) Paul Collier Engineering
    [Show full text]
  • PERSONAL INFORMATION Gianguido Dall'agata
    Curriculum vitae (Short version) and Research Interests PERSONAL INFORMATION Gianguido Dall’Agata Dipartimento di Fisica e Astronomia “Galileo Galilei”, Università degli Studi di Padova, Via Marzolo, 8, 35131 Padova, Italy +39 049 8277183 [email protected] Nationality Italian PROFESSIONAL EXPERIENCE February 2016–present Full Professor (FIS/02: Theoretical Physics and Mathematical Methods), Università degli Studi di Padova, Padova, Italy. August 2015/September 2015 CNRS Associated Researcher, CPHT, Ecole Polytechnique, Paris, France. March 2011–January 2016 Professore Associato (FIS/02: Theoretical Physics and Mathematical Methods), Università degli Studi di Padova, Padova, Italy. Sept. 2009/Jan.–Feb. 2010 CNRS Associated Researcher, LPT, Ecole Normale Superieure, Paris, France. October 2006–February 2011 Ricercatore (FIS/02: Theoretical Physics and Mathematical Methods), Università degli Studi di Padova, Padova, Italy. October 2004–September 2006 CERN Fellowship, CERN, Geneva, Switzerland. October 2002–September 2004 PostDoctoral Fellowship of the DFG at the Physics Department (Research group of Dieter Lüst) of the von Humboldt University of Berlin, Germany. October 2000–September 2002 PostDoctoral Fellowship of the EU under RTN contract HPRN-CT-2000-00131 “The quantum structure of spacetime and the geometric nature of fundamental interactions” at the Physics Department (Research group of Dieter Lüst) of the von Humboldt University of Berlin, Germany. EDUCATION October 1997–December 2000 Ph. D. in Physics at the Dipartimento di Fisica Teorica, University of Turin, Italy. TEACHING AND ACADEMIA Students Ph.D. 2015/16–2017/18 N. Cribiori, then postdoc at TU Wien. 2010/11–2012/13 G. Inverso (co-advisor with M. Bianchi), then postdoc at NIKHEF, ITP Lisboa and Queen Mary U.
    [Show full text]