Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory Recent Work
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory Recent Work Title SUPERSYMMETRIC MODELS OF PARTICLE PHYSICS AND THEIR PHENOMENOLOGY Permalink https://escholarship.org/uc/item/0rs098sm Author Hinchliffe, I. Publication Date 1986-02-01 eScholarship.org Powered by the California Digital Library University of California LB~-21176 Preprint ~~ Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA L.AWRSNCE Physics Division BEl=IKFLEY I_AB'"'PI\T(')RY . l APR l U 1986 LIBRARY AND [IC",...., ..,~ENTS SECTION Submitted to Annual Review of Nuclear and Particle Sciences SUPERSYMMETRIC MODELS OF PARTICLE PHYSICS AND THEIR PHENOMENOLOGY I. Hinchliffe February 1986 L""".'"'"""""''·------------------------..... Prepared for the U.S. Department of Energy under Contract DE-AC03-76SF00098 DISCLAIMER This document was prepared as an account of work sponsored by the United States Government. While this document is believed to contain correct infor!mltion, neither the United States Government nor any agency thereof, nor the Regents of the University of California, nor any of their employees, makes any warranty, express or implied, or assumes any legal responsibility for the accuracy, completeness, or usefulness of any information, apparatus, product, or process disclosed, or represents that its use would not infringe privately owned rights. Reference herein to any specific commercial product, process, or service by its trade name, trademark, manufacturer, or otherwise, does not necessarily constitute or imply its endorsement, recommendation, or favoring by the United States Government or any agency thereof, or the Regents of the University of Califomia. The views and opinions of authors expressed herein do not necessarily state or reflect those of the United States Govemment or any agency thereof or the Regents of the University of Califomia. .. February 1986 LBL-21176 Table of Contents 1. Introduction: The need for supersymmetry. SUPERSYMMETRIC MODELS OF PARTICLE PHYSICS AND 2. Features of Supersymmetric models. THEIR PHENOMENOLOGY* 3. (a) Low energy experiments. (b) Supersymmetry in e+e- annihilation. Ian Hinchliffe (c) Supersymmetry in hadronic reaction. Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory (d) Supersymmetry in cosmology. University of California Berkeley, California 94720 4. Conclusions. *This work was supported by the Director, Office of Energy Research, Office of High Energy and Nuclear Physics, Division of High Energy Physics of the U.S. Department of Energy under contract DE-AC03-76SF00098. 1 2 1. Introduction: The Need for Supersymmetry constant GF = 9i/4VZMJ,. This mass scale is generated dynamically. The theory contains a scalar (spin 0) field, the Higgs field, which transforms under SU(2) x Over the last few years there has been a remarkable synthesis in the theories U(1). The state of minimum energy occurs when this field acquires a non-zero of elementary particle interactions. An elegant standard model has emerged which value, its vacuum expectation value or vev, of order 250 GeV. This vev breaks the describes the interactions of the known quarks and leptons. The model is consis SU(2) x U(1) symmetry down to U(1) , corresponding to electromagnetism with tent with all available data. It describes the strong interactions which bind quarks its massless photon, and generates a mass for the W and Z bosons. A physical into hadrons in terms of a non-Abelian gauge theory called quantum chromody neutral scalar, the Higgs boson, whose mass is not determined is a residue of this namics (QCD) (Bardeen, Fritzsch, and Geii-Mann, 1973; Gross and Wilczek, 1973; breakdown (Higgs, 1964; Weinberg, 1967). The Higgs boson is the only particle in Weinberg, 1973), based on the group SU(3). the standard model for which we have no experimental evidence. The strong (color) force between the quarks is carried by eight massless spin one gluons which transform according to the octet representation of SU(3). This The very success of the standard model has pointed up its limitations. There is theory has the remarkable property of asymptotic freedom (Gross and Wilczek, no explanation of the relative values of the three coupling constants, of why there are 1973; Politzer, 1973) according to which the interactions of quarks become weak six quarks, or of the pattern of quark and lepton masses. Most serious, however, is when probed at short distances or high momentum transfers. This property enables the problem of the mass scale of weak interactions. We are aware of two other mass one to explain the success of the naive parton model, according to which electron scales in physics, the Planck mass (Mp = 1/.,;a;:; where GN is Newton's constant) proton scattering at large momentum transfer can be described in terms of electrons which is the mass scale at which gravitational interactions become relevant for scattering from pointlike, free partons (quarks) which exist as constituents of the particle physics, and the scale of hadron masses in QCD (~ 1GeV). proton. A review of the basic properties of QCD can be found in (Wilczek, 1982). A qualitative explanation of one of these hierarchies, the ratio of hadron masses The weak and electromagnetic interactions of quarks and leptons are described to the Planck mass is possible. As indicated earlier the QCD coupling constant in the standard model by a theory based on the group SU(2) X U(1) (Glashow, becomes larger at long distances, or low momentum transfers. Quarks are bound 1961; Weinberg, 1967; Salam, 1968). This theory has four, spin-one, gauge bosons into hadrons by QCD. This binding is difficult to understand so long as the cou (three in the adjoint representation of SU(2) and one corresponding to the U(1) pling is weak and perturbation theory is applicable. If the coupling is strong, group). Unlike the case of strong interactions, this symmetry is not exact and all non-perturbative effects can generate the binding, so that one might expect that the bosons are not massless. Only one, the photon, remains massless while the other the scale of hadronic binding and hence of the hadron masses should be close to three (W±, Z) have masses of order 100 GeV. The relative feebleness and very short the scale at which the QCD coupling constant becomes of order one. The coupling range of the weak interactions is due to the exchange of these heavy bosons between constant varies only logarthmically with energy (Gross and Wilczek, 1973; Politzer, ·the interacting fermions. 1973). This standard model is capable of explaining a large amount of data in terms of rather few fundamental parameters. There are three gauge coupling constants 2 1211' a,(Q ) = (33- 2!) log(Q2 / A2)' (9', 92 and 93) corresponding to each of the group factors. There are masses for each of the six known quarks (up, down, strange, charm, top and bottom)* and Here Q is the scale at which a is evaluated, A is a constant and f is the number of the three charged leptons (the electron, the muon, and the tau). We have no I quark flavors (6 in the standard model). If a,(Mp) has a value of order 1/100 then indication that the neutrino masses are non-zero. There is one other parameter 2 2 2 a 2 (Q ) will become of order one when Q ~ 1GeV • This idea can be made more which sets the scale for the masses of the W and Z, or for the size of the Fermi quantitative in theories where all the interactions are unified at some large scale *The top quark is not yet well established. There are some experimental indications that it may (Georgi and Glashow 1974; Ramond, 1983). Notice that it is the slow evolution of 2 have a mass of around 50 GeV (Rubbia, 1985) a,(Q ) which enables the hierarchy Mp/mhadron to be explained. 3 4 •. There is no such natural explanation for the hierarchy Mw / Mp. The difficulty where m 1 - mj is the mass difference between the Higgs and its fermionic partner. is caused by the behaviour of scalar masses. If we consider a radiative correction to If we require that this correction not be much larger than the Higgs mass itself we the Higgs mass we find contributions which are quadratically divergent. Figure 1 conclude that the mass of the superpartner is lighter than a TeV or so. In most shows a contribution at one loop which arises from the Higgs self interaction. The supersymmetric models the masses of all the superpartners are comparable; they loop has only one propagator and so the integral over the loop momentum has the are expected to be observed in the not too distant future. following form There is another perhaps more fundamental reason why theorists are so excited d4f. about supersymmetry. Supersymmetric theories are the only ones which hold a hope I~ j (f.2- m2) of being able to unify gravitational interactions with the strong, weak and electro which is quadratically divergent. In the case of corrections to the coupling constants magnetic interactions. In such supergravity (Van Nieuwenhuizen, 1981) theories the we encounter only logarithmic divergences. These quadratic divergences imply that supersymmetry is realised as a local symmetry. I shall make a few remarks about the Higgs mass or alternatively the ratio Mw jMp is unstable with respect to ra~ such unifications of all the interactions later. Let us now consider the features diative corrections and that the parameters of the model have to be very delicately of supersymmetric models. More details can be found in several more extensive tuned (Wilson, 1971; 't Hooft, 1980; Gildener, 1976; Weinberg, 1979). This insta and technical review articles (Nilles, 1984; Haber and Kane, 1984; Nanopoulos and bility can be avoided if the the quadratic divergences can be eliminated. Supersym Savoy-Navarro, 1983; Ellis, 1984). metry (Gol'fand and Likhtman, 1971; Volkov and Akulov, 1973; Wess and Zumino, 1974; Salam and Strathdee, 1974; Fayet and Ferrara, 1977; Wess and Bagger, 1983) provides a natural solution to this problem.