DOCSLIB.ORG

SM and SUSY Higgs

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
SM and SUSY Higgs Lecture III Higgs Bosons in Supersymmetric Models Outline The significance of the TeV-scale—Part 2 • The MSSM Higgs sector at tree-level • Saving the MSSM Higgs sector—the impact of radiative corrections • LHC searches for the heavy Higgs states of the MSSM • Alignment without decoupling in the MSSM? • Beyond the MSSM Higgs sector • The significance of the TeV scale—Part 2 Despite the tremendous success of the Standard Model (SM) of particle physics, we know that there are some missing pieces. Neutrinos are not massless—perhaps suggestive of a new high energy • (see-saw) scale. Dark matter is not accounted for. • There is no explanation for the baryon asymmetry of the universe. • There is no explanation for the inflationary period of the very early universe. • The gravitational interaction is omitted. • Consequently, the SM is an low-energy effective theory. New high energy scales must exist where more fundamental physics resides. Indeed, quantum gravitational effects are likely to be relevant only at the Planck scale, M =(c~/G )1/2 1019 GeV , PL N ≃ 2 which arises as follows. Consider the gravitational potential energy, GN M /r, of a particle of mass M evaluated at its Compton wavelength, r = ~/(Mc). If this energy is of order the rest mass, Mc2 (i.e., when M M ), then ∼ PL pair production is possible and quantum gravitational effects can no longer be ignored. Denote scale at which new physics enters by Λ. Predictions made by the SM depend on a number of parameters that must be taken as input to the theory. These parameters are sensitive to ultraviolet physics, and since the physics at very high energies is not known, one cannot predict their values. However, one can determine the sensitivity of these parameters to the ultra- violet scale (which one can take as the Planck scale or some other high energy scale at which new physics beyond the Standard Model enters). In the 1930s, it was already appreciated that a critical difference exists between bosons and fermions. Fermion masses are logarithmically sensitive to ultraviolet physics. Ultimately, this is due to the chiral symmetry of massless fermions, which implies that δm m ln(Λ2/m2 ) . f ∼ f f No such symmetry exists for bosons (in the absence of supersymmetry), and consequently we expect quadratic sensitivity of the boson squared-mass to ultraviolet physics, δm2 Λ2 . B ∼ 2 2 2 1 2 2 In the SM, mh = λv and mW = 4g v imply that 2 mh 4λ 2 = 2 , mW g which one would expect to be roughly of (1). A 125 GeV Higgs boson O satisfies this expectation. However, the Higgs boson is a consequence of a spontaneously broken scalar potential, 2 1 2 V (Φ) = µ (Φ†Φ) + λ(Φ†Φ) , − 2 2 1 2 where we identify µ = 2λv in terms of the vacuum expectation value v of the Higgs field. The parameter µ2 is quadratically sensitive to Λ. Hence, to obtain v = 246 GeV in a theory where v Λ requires a significant fine-tuning ≪ of the ultraviolet parameters of the fundamental theory. Indeed, the one-loop contribution to the squared-mass parameter µ2 would be expected to be of order (g2/16π2)Λ2. Setting this quantity to be of order of v2 (to avoid an unnatural fine-tuning of the tree-level parameter and the loop contribution) yields Λ 4πv/g (1 TeV) ≃ ∼ O A natural theory of electroweak symmetry breaking (EWSB) would seem to require new physics at the TeV scale to govern the EWSB dynamics. The Principle of Naturalness In 1939, Weisskopf announces in the abstract to this paper that “the self-energy of charged particles obeying Bose statistics is found to be quadratically divergent”…. …. and concludes that in theories of elementary bosons, new phenomena must enter at an energy scale of order m/e (e is the relevant coupling)—the first application of naturalness. Principle of naturalness in modern times How can we understand the magnitude of the EWSB scale? In the absence of new physics beyond the SM, its natural value would be the Planck scale (or perhaps the GUT scale or seesaw scale that controls neutrino masses). The alternatives are: Naturalness is restored by a symmetry principle—supersymmetry—which • ties the bosons to the more well-behaved fermions. The Higgs boson is an approximate Goldstone boson—the only other known • mechanism for keeping an elementary scalar light. The Higgs boson is a composite scalar, with an inverse length of order the • TeV-scale. The naturalness principle does not apply. The Higgs boson is very • unlikely, but unnatural choices for the EWSB parameters arise from other considerations (landscape?). Avoiding quadratic sensitivity to Λ with elementary scalars A lesson from history The electron self-energy in classical E&M goes like e2/a (a 0), i.e., it → is linearly divergent. In quantum theory, fluctuations of the electromagnetic fields (in the “single electron theory”) generate a quadratic divergence. If these divergences are not canceled, one would expect QED to break down at an energy of order me/e far below the Planck scale. The linear and quadratic divergences will cancel exactly if one makes a bold hypothesis: the existence of the positron (with a mass equal to that of the electron but of opposite charge). Weisskopf was the first to demonstrate this cancellation in 1934...well, actually he initially got it wrong, but thanks to Furry, the correct result was presented in an erratum. A remarkable result: e e e e e a b The linear and quadratic divergences of a quantum theory of elementary fermions are precisely canceled if one doubles the particle spectrum—for every fermion, introduce an anti-fermion partner of the same mass and opposite charge. In the process, we have introduced a new CPT-symmetry that associates a fermion with its anti-particle and guarantees the equality of their masses. TeV-scale supersymmetry to the rescue Take the SM and double the particle spectrum. Introduce supersymmetry (SUSY), which dictates that for every boson, there is a fermion superpartner of equal mass and vice versa. Supersymmetry relates the self-energy of the boson to the self-energy of its fermionic partner. Since the latter is only logarithmically sensitive to Λ, we conclude that the quadratic sensitivity of the boson squared-mass to ultraviolet physics must exactly cancel. Naturalness is restored! Since no superpartners exist that are degenerate in mass with the corresponding SM particle, SUSY must be a broken symmetry. Conclusion: The effective scale of SUSY-breaking cannot be much larger than of order 1 TeV, if SUSY is responsible for the EWSB scale. The minimal supersymmetric extension of the SM The minimal supersymmetric extension of the Standard Model (MSSM) consists of the fields of the two-Higgs-doublet extension of the Standard Model and the corresponding superpartners. A particle and its superpartner together form a supermultiplet. The corresponding field content of the supermultiplets of the MSSM and their gauge quantum numbers are shown in the following table. The enlarged Higgs sector of the MSSM constitutes the minimal structure needed to guarantee the cancellation of anomalies from the introduction of the higgsino superpartners. Moreover, without a second Higgs doublet, one cannot generate mass for both “up”-type and “down”-type quarks (and charged leptons) in a way consistent with a holomorphic superpotential. To account for supersymmetry (SUSY) breaking, one adds the most general set of soft-SUSY-breaking terms consistent with the SM gauge symmetry. Field content of the MSSM Super- Super- Bosonic Fermionic multiplets field fields partners SU(3) SU(2) U(1) gluon/gluino V8 g g 8 1 0 0 0 gauge/ V W ± , W W ± , W 1 3 0 b e gaugino Vb′ B f Bf 1 1 0 slepton/ L (ν , e−) (ν, e−) 1 2 1 b L L e L − lepton Ec e˜+ ec 1 1 2 b e Re L squark/ Qb (uL, dL) (u, d)L 3 2 1/3 c c quark U u∗ u 3¯ 1 4/3 b e Re L − c c D d∗ d 3¯ 1 2/3 b eR L 0 0 Higgs/ Hd (H e, H−) (H , H−) 1 2 1 b d d d d − + 0 + 0 higgsino Hbu (Hu , Hu) (Heu , He u) 1 2 1 b e e The fields of the MSSM and their SU(3) SU(2) U(1) quantum numbers are listed. The electric charge is × × 1 given in terms of the third component of the weak isospin T3 and U(1) hypercharge Y by Q = T3 + 2Y . For simplicity, only one generation of quarks and leptons is exhibited. For each lepton, quark, and Higgs super- multiplet, there is a corresponding anti-particle multiplet of charge-conjugated fermions and their associated scalar partners. The L and R subscripts of the squark and slepton fields indicate the helicity of the corresponding fermionic superpartners. More on anomaly cancellation One-loop VVA and AAA triangle diagrams with three external gauge bosons, with fermions running around the loop, can contribute to a gauge anomaly. (Here V refers to a γµ vertex and A refers to a γµγ5 vertex.) A theory that possesses gauge anomalies is inconsistent as a quantum theory. To cancel the gauge anomalies, we must satisfy certain group theoretical constraints. W iW jB triangle Tr(T 2Y ) = 0 , ⇐⇒ 3 BBB triangle Tr(Y 3) = 0 . ⇐⇒ Example: contributions of the fermions to Tr(Y 3) Tr(Y 3) = 3 1 + 1 64 + 8 1 1+8=0 . SM 27 27 − 27 27 − − + 0 Suppose we only add the higgsinos (Hu , Hu). The resulting anomaly factor 3 3 is Tr(Y ) = Tr(Y )SM + 2, leading to a gauge anomaly.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Download -.:: Natural Sciences Publishing
    Quant. Phys. Lett. 5, No. 3, 33-47 (2016) 33 Quantum Physics Letters An International Journal http://dx.doi.org/10.18576/qpl/050302 About Electroweak Symmetry Breaking, Electroweak Vacuum and Dark Matter in a New Suggested Proposal of Completion of the Standard Model In Terms Of Energy Fluctuations of a Timeless Three-Dimensional Quantum Vacuum Davide Fiscaletti* and Amrit Sorli SpaceLife Institute, San Lorenzo in Campo (PU), Italy. Received: 21 Sep. 2016, Revised: 18 Oct. 2016, Accepted: 20 Oct. 2016. Published online: 1 Dec. 2016. Abstract: A model of a timeless three-dimensional quantum vacuum characterized by energy fluctuations corresponding to elementary processes of creation/annihilation of quanta is proposed which introduces interesting perspectives of completion of the Standard Model. By involving gravity ab initio, this model allows the Standard Model Higgs potential to be stabilised (in a picture where the Higgs field cannot be considered as a fundamental physical reality but as an emergent quantity from most elementary fluctuations of the quantum vacuum energy density), to generate electroweak symmetry breaking dynamically via dimensional transmutation, to explain dark matter and dark energy. Keywords: Standard Model, timeless three-dimensional quantum vacuum, fluctuations of the three-dimensional quantum vacuum, electroweak symmetry breaking, dark matter. 1 Introduction will we discover beyond the Higgs door? In the Standard Model with a light Higgs boson, an The discovery made by ATLAS and CMS at the Large important problem is that the electroweak potential is Hadron Collider of the 126 GeV scalar particle, which in destabilized by the top quark. Here, the simplest option in the light of available data can be identified with the Higgs order to stabilise the theory lies in introducing a scalar boson [1-6], seems to have completed the experimental particle with similar couplings.
    [Show full text]
  • An Introduction to Quantum Field Theory
    AN INTRODUCTION TO QUANTUM FIELD THEORY By Dr M Dasgupta University of Manchester Lecture presented at the School for Experimental High Energy Physics Students Somerville College, Oxford, September 2009 - 1 - - 2 - Contents 0 Prologue....................................................................................................... 5 1 Introduction ................................................................................................ 6 1.1 Lagrangian formalism in classical mechanics......................................... 6 1.2 Quantum mechanics................................................................................... 8 1.3 The Schrödinger picture........................................................................... 10 1.4 The Heisenberg picture............................................................................ 11 1.5 The quantum mechanical harmonic oscillator ..................................... 12 Problems .............................................................................................................. 13 2 Classical Field Theory............................................................................. 14 2.1 From N-point mechanics to field theory ............................................... 14 2.2 Relativistic field theory ............................................................................ 15 2.3 Action for a scalar field ............................................................................ 15 2.4 Plane wave solution to the Klein-Gordon equation ...........................
    [Show full text]
  • Higgs Bosons and Supersymmetry
    Higgs bosons and Supersymmetry 1. The Higgs mechanism in the Standard Model | The story so far | The SM Higgs boson at the LHC | Problems with the SM Higgs boson 2. Supersymmetry | Surpassing Poincar´e | Supersymmetry motivations | The MSSM 3. Conclusions & Summary D.J. Miller, Edinburgh, July 2, 2004 page 1 of 25 1. Electroweak Symmetry Breaking in the Standard Model 1. Electroweak Symmetry Breaking in the Standard Model Observation: Weak nuclear force mediated by W and Z bosons • M = 80:423 0:039GeV M = 91:1876 0:0021GeV W Z W couples only to left{handed fermions • Fermions have non-zero masses • Theory: We would like to describe electroweak physics by an SU(2) U(1) gauge theory. L ⊗ Y Left{handed fermions are SU(2) doublets Chiral theory ) right{handed fermions are SU(2) singlets f There are two problems with this, both concerning mass: gauge symmetry massless gauge bosons • SU(2) forbids m)( ¯ + ¯ ) terms massless fermions • L L R R L ) D.J. Miller, Edinburgh, July 2, 2004 page 2 of 25 1. Electroweak Symmetry Breaking in the Standard Model Higgs Mechanism Introduce new SU(2) doublet scalar field (φ) with potential V (φ) = λ φ 4 µ2 φ 2 j j − j j Minimum of the potential is not at zero 1 0 µ2 φ = with v = h i p2 v r λ Electroweak symmetry is broken Interactions with scalar field provide: Gauge boson masses • 1 1 2 2 MW = gv MZ = g + g0 v 2 2q Fermion masses • Y ¯ φ m = Y v=p2 f R L −! f f 4 degrees of freedom., 3 become longitudinal components of W and Z, one left over the Higgs boson D.J.
    [Show full text]
  • Supersymmetric Dark Matter
    Supersymmetric dark matter G. Bélanger LAPTH- Annecy Plan | Dark matter : motivation | Introduction to supersymmetry | MSSM | Properties of neutralino | Status of LSP in various SUSY models | Other DM candidates z SUSY z Non-SUSY | DM : signals, direct detection, LHC Dark matter: a WIMP? | Strong evidence that DM dominates over visible matter. Data from rotation curves, clusters, supernovae, CMB all point to large DM component | DM a new particle? | SM is incomplete : arbitrary parameters, hierarchy problem z DM likely to be related to physics at weak scale, new physics at the weak scale can also solve EWSB z Stable particle protect by symmetry z Many solutions – supersymmetry is one best motivated alternative to SM | NP at electroweak scale could also explain baryonic asymetry in the universe Relic density of wimps | In early universe WIMPs are present in large number and they are in thermal equilibrium | As the universe expanded and cooled their density is reduced Freeze-out through pair annihilation | Eventually density is too low for annihilation process to keep up with expansion rate z Freeze-out temperature | LSP decouples from standard model particles, density depends only on expansion rate of the universe | Relic density | A relic density in agreement with present measurements (Ωh2 ~0.1) requires typical weak interactions cross-section Coannihilation | If M(NLSP)~M(LSP) then maintains thermal equilibrium between NLSP-LSP even after SUSY particles decouple from standard ones | Relic density then depends on rate for all processes
    [Show full text]
  • Physical Masses and the Vacuum Expectation Value
    View metadata, citation and similar papers at core.ac.uk brought to you by CORE PHYSICAL MASSES AND THE VACUUM EXPECTATION VALUE provided by CERN Document Server OF THE HIGGS FIELD Hung Cheng Department of Mathematics, Massachusetts Institute of Technology Cambridge, MA 02139, U.S.A. and S.P.Li Institute of Physics, Academia Sinica Nankang, Taip ei, Taiwan, Republic of China Abstract By using the Ward-Takahashi identities in the Landau gauge, we derive exact relations between particle masses and the vacuum exp ectation value of the Higgs eld in the Ab elian gauge eld theory with a Higgs meson. PACS numb ers : 03.70.+k; 11.15-q 1 Despite the pioneering work of 't Ho oft and Veltman on the renormalizability of gauge eld theories with a sp ontaneously broken vacuum symmetry,a numb er of questions remain 2 op en . In particular, the numb er of renormalized parameters in these theories exceeds that of bare parameters. For such theories to b e renormalizable, there must exist relationships among the renormalized parameters involving no in nities. As an example, the bare mass M of the gauge eld in the Ab elian-Higgs theory is related 0 to the bare vacuum exp ectation value v of the Higgs eld by 0 M = g v ; (1) 0 0 0 where g is the bare gauge coupling constant in the theory.We shall show that 0 v u u D (0) T t g (0)v: (2) M = 2 D (M ) T 2 In (2), g (0) is equal to g (k )atk = 0, with the running renormalized gauge coupling constant de ned in (27), and v is the renormalized vacuum exp ectation value of the Higgs eld de ned in (29) b elow.
    [Show full text]
  • 1 Standard Model: Successes and Problems
    Searching for new particles at the Large Hadron Collider James Hirschauer (Fermi National Accelerator Laboratory) Sambamurti Memorial Lecture : August 7, 2017 Our current theory of the most fundamental laws of physics, known as the standard model (SM), works very well to explain many aspects of nature. Most recently, the Higgs boson, predicted to exist in the late 1960s, was discovered by the CMS and ATLAS collaborations at the Large Hadron Collider at CERN in 2012 [1] marking the first observation of the full spectrum of predicted SM particles. Despite the great success of this theory, there are several aspects of nature for which the SM description is completely lacking or unsatisfactory, including the identity of the astronomically observed dark matter and the mass of newly discovered Higgs boson. These and other apparent limitations of the SM motivate the search for new phenomena beyond the SM either directly at the LHC or indirectly with lower energy, high precision experiments. In these proceedings, the successes and some of the shortcomings of the SM are described, followed by a description of the methods and status of the search for new phenomena at the LHC, with some focus on supersymmetry (SUSY) [2], a specific theory of physics beyond the standard model (BSM). 1 Standard model: successes and problems The standard model of particle physics describes the interactions of fundamental matter particles (quarks and leptons) via the fundamental forces (mediated by the force carrying particles: the photon, gluon, and weak bosons). The Higgs boson, also a fundamental SM particle, plays a central role in the mechanism that determines the masses of the photon and weak bosons, as well as the rest of the standard model particles.
    [Show full text]
  • B1. the Generating Functional Z[J]
    B1. The generating functional Z[J] The generating functional Z[J] is a key object in quantum field theory - as we shall see it reduces in ordinary quantum mechanics to a limiting form of the 1-particle propagator G(x; x0jJ) when the particle is under thje influence of an external field J(t). However, before beginning, it is useful to look at another closely related object, viz., the generating functional Z¯(J) in ordinary probability theory. Recall that for a simple random variable φ, we can assign a probability distribution P (φ), so that the expectation value of any variable A(φ) that depends on φ is given by Z hAi = dφP (φ)A(φ); (1) where we have assumed the normalization condition Z dφP (φ) = 1: (2) Now let us consider the generating functional Z¯(J) defined by Z Z¯(J) = dφP (φ)eφ: (3) From this definition, it immediately follows that the "n-th moment" of the probability dis- tribution P (φ) is Z @nZ¯(J) g = hφni = dφP (φ)φn = j ; (4) n @J n J=0 and that we can expand Z¯(J) as 1 X J n Z Z¯(J) = dφP (φ)φn n! n=0 1 = g J n; (5) n! n ¯ so that Z(J) acts as a "generator" for the infinite sequence of moments gn of the probability distribution P (φ). For future reference it is also useful to recall how one may also expand the logarithm of Z¯(J); we write, Z¯(J) = exp[W¯ (J)] Z W¯ (J) = ln Z¯(J) = ln dφP (φ)eφ: (6) 1 Now suppose we make a power series expansion of W¯ (J), i.e., 1 X 1 W¯ (J) = C J n; (7) n! n n=0 where the Cn, known as "cumulants", are just @nW¯ (J) C = j : (8) n @J n J=0 The relationship between the cumulants Cn and moments gn is easily found.
    [Show full text]
  • A Young Physicist's Guide to the Higgs Boson
    A Young Physicist’s Guide to the Higgs Boson Tel Aviv University Future Scientists – CERN Tour Presented by Stephen Sekula Associate Professor of Experimental Particle Physics SMU, Dallas, TX Programme ● You have a problem in your theory: (why do you need the Higgs Particle?) ● How to Make a Higgs Particle (One-at-a-Time) ● How to See a Higgs Particle (Without fooling yourself too much) ● A View from the Shadows: What are the New Questions? (An Epilogue) Stephen J. Sekula - SMU 2/44 You Have a Problem in Your Theory Credit for the ideas/example in this section goes to Prof. Daniel Stolarski (Carleton University) The Usual Explanation Usual Statement: “You need the Higgs Particle to explain mass.” 2 F=ma F=G m1 m2 /r Most of the mass of matter lies in the nucleus of the atom, and most of the mass of the nucleus arises from “binding energy” - the strength of the force that holds particles together to form nuclei imparts mass-energy to the nucleus (ala E = mc2). Corrected Statement: “You need the Higgs Particle to explain fundamental mass.” (e.g. the electron’s mass) E2=m2 c4+ p2 c2→( p=0)→ E=mc2 Stephen J. Sekula - SMU 4/44 Yes, the Higgs is important for mass, but let’s try this... ● No doubt, the Higgs particle plays a role in fundamental mass (I will come back to this point) ● But, as students who’ve been exposed to introductory physics (mechanics, electricity and magnetism) and some modern physics topics (quantum mechanics and special relativity) you are more familiar with..
    [Show full text]
  • Higgsino DM Is Dead
    Cornering Higgsino at the LHC Satoshi Shirai (Kavli IPMU) Based on H. Fukuda, N. Nagata, H. Oide, H. Otono, and SS, “Higgsino Dark Matter in High-Scale Supersymmetry,” JHEP 1501 (2015) 029, “Higgsino Dark Matter or Not,” Phys.Lett. B781 (2018) 306 “Cornering Higgsino: Use of Soft Displaced Track ”, arXiv:1910.08065 1. Higgsino Dark Matter 2. Current Status of Higgsino @LHC mono-jet, dilepton, disappearing track 3. Prospect of Higgsino Use of soft track 4. Summary 2 DM Candidates • Axion • (Primordial) Black hole • WIMP • Others… 3 WIMP Dark Matter Weakly Interacting Massive Particle DM abundance DM Standard Model (SM) particle 500 GeV DM DM SM Time 4 WIMP Miracle 5 What is Higgsino? Higgsino is (pseudo)Dirac fermion Hypercharge |Y|=1/2 SU(2)doublet <1 TeV 6 Pure Higgsino Spectrum two Dirac Fermions ~ 300 MeV Radiative correction 7 Pure Higgsino DM is Dead DM is neutral Dirac Fermion HUGE spin-independent cross section 8 Pure Higgsino DM is Dead DM is neutral Dirac Fermion Purepure Higgsino Higgsino HUGE spin-independent cross section 9 Higgsino Spectrum (with gaugino) With Gauginos, fermion number is violated Dirac fermion into two Majorana fermions 10 Higgsino Spectrum (with gaugino) 11 Higgsino Spectrum (with gaugino) No SI elastic cross section via Z-boson 12 [N. Nagata & SS 2015] Gaugino induced Observables Mass splitting DM direct detection SM fermion EDM 13 Correlation These observables are controlled by gaugino mass Strong correlation among these observables for large tanb 14 Correlation These observables are controlled by gaugino mass Strong correlation among these observables for large tanb XENON1T constraint 15 Viable Higgsino Spectrum 16 Current Status of Higgsino @LHC 17 Collider Signals of DM p, e- DM DM is invisible p, e+ DM 18 Collider Signals of DM p, e- DM DM is invisible p, e+ DM Additional objects are needed to see DM.
    [Show full text]
  • Higgsino Models and Parameter Determination
    Light higgsino models and parameter determination Krzysztof Rolbiecki IFT-CSIC, Madrid in collaboration with: Mikael Berggren, Felix Brummer,¨ Jenny List, Gudrid Moortgat-Pick, Hale Sert and Tania Robens ECFA Linear Collider Workshop 2013 27–31 May 2013, DESY, Hamburg Krzysztof Rolbiecki (IFT-CSIC, Madrid) Higgsino LSP ECFA LC2013, 29 May 2013 1 / 21 SUSY @ LHC What does LHC tell us about 1st/2nd gen. squarks? ! quite heavy Gaugino and stop searches model dependent – limits weaker ATLAS SUSY Searches* - 95% CL Lower Limits ATLAS Preliminary Status: LHCP 2013 ∫Ldt = (4.4 - 20.7) fb-1 s = 7, 8 TeV miss -1 Model e, µ, τ, γ Jets ET ∫Ldt [fb ] Mass limit Reference ~ ~ ~ ~ MSUGRA/CMSSM 0 2-6 jets Yes 20.3 q, g 1.8 TeV m(q)=m(g) ATLAS-CONF-2013-047 ~ ~ ~ ~ MSUGRA/CMSSM 1 e, µ 4 jets Yes 5.8 q, g 1.24 TeV m(q)=m(g) ATLAS-CONF-2012-104 ~ ~ MSUGRA/CMSSM 0 7-10 jets Yes 20.3 g 1.1 TeV any m(q) ATLAS-CONF-2013-054 ~~ ~ ∼0 ~ ∼ qq, q→qχ 0 2-6 jets Yes 20.3 m(χ0 ) = 0 GeV ATLAS-CONF-2013-047 1 q 740 GeV 1 ~~ ~ ∼0 ~ ∼ gg, g→qqχ 0 2-6 jets Yes 20.3 m(χ0 ) = 0 GeV ATLAS-CONF-2013-047 1 g 1.3 TeV 1 ∼± ~ ∼± ~ ∼ ∼ ± ∼ ~ Gluino med. χ (g→qqχ ) 1 e, µ 2-4 jets Yes 4.7 g 900 GeV m(χ 0 ) < 200 GeV, m(χ ) = 0.5(m(χ 0 )+m( g)) 1208.4688 ~~ ∼ ∼ ∼ 1 1 → χ0χ 0 µ ~ χ 0 gg qqqqll(ll) 2 e, (SS) 3 jets Yes 20.7 g 1.1 TeV m( 1 ) < 650 GeV ATLAS-CONF-2013-007 ~ 1 1 ~ GMSB (l NLSP) 2 e, µ 2-4 jets Yes 4.7 g 1.24 TeV tanβ < 15 1208.4688 ~ ~ GMSB (l NLSP) 1-2 τ 0-2 jets Yes 20.7 tanβ >18 ATLAS-CONF-2013-026 Inclusive searches g 1.4 TeV ∼ γ ~ χ 0 GGM (bino NLSP) 2 0 Yes 4.8
    [Show full text]
  • New Physics of Strong Interaction and Dark Universe
    universe Review New Physics of Strong Interaction and Dark Universe Vitaly Beylin 1 , Maxim Khlopov 1,2,3,* , Vladimir Kuksa 1 and Nikolay Volchanskiy 1,4 1 Institute of Physics, Southern Federal University, Stachki 194, 344090 Rostov on Don, Russia; [email protected] (V.B.); [email protected] (V.K.); [email protected] (N.V.) 2 CNRS, Astroparticule et Cosmologie, Université de Paris, F-75013 Paris, France 3 National Research Nuclear University “MEPHI” (Moscow State Engineering Physics Institute), 31 Kashirskoe Chaussee, 115409 Moscow, Russia 4 Bogoliubov Laboratory of Theoretical Physics, Joint Institute for Nuclear Research, Joliot-Curie 6, 141980 Dubna, Russia * Correspondence: [email protected]; Tel.:+33-676380567 Received: 18 September 2020; Accepted: 21 October 2020; Published: 26 October 2020 Abstract: The history of dark universe physics can be traced from processes in the very early universe to the modern dominance of dark matter and energy. Here, we review the possible nontrivial role of strong interactions in cosmological effects of new physics. In the case of ordinary QCD interaction, the existence of new stable colored particles such as new stable quarks leads to new exotic forms of matter, some of which can be candidates for dark matter. New QCD-like strong interactions lead to new stable composite candidates bound by QCD-like confinement. We put special emphasis on the effects of interaction between new stable hadrons and ordinary matter, formation of anomalous forms of cosmic rays and exotic forms of matter, like stable fractionally charged particles. The possible correlation of these effects with high energy neutrino and cosmic ray signatures opens the way to study new physics of strong interactions by its indirect multi-messenger astrophysical probes.
    [Show full text]
  • MIT at the Large Hadron Collider—Illuminating the High-Energy Frontier
    Mit at the large hadron collider—Illuminating the high-energy frontier 40 ) roland | klute mit physics annual 2010 gunther roland and Markus Klute ver the last few decades, teams of physicists and engineers O all over the globe have worked on the components for one of the most complex machines ever built: the Large Hadron Collider (LHC) at the CERN laboratory in Geneva, Switzerland. Collaborations of thousands of scientists have assembled the giant particle detectors used to examine collisions of protons and nuclei at energies never before achieved in a labo- ratory. After initial tests proved successful in late 2009, the LHC physics program was launched in March 2010. Now the race is on to fulfill the LHC’s paradoxical mission: to complete the Stan- dard Model of particle physics by detecting its last missing piece, the Higgs boson, and to discover the building blocks of a more complete theory of nature to finally replace the Standard Model. The MIT team working on the Compact Muon Solenoid (CMS) experiment at the LHC stands at the forefront of this new era of particle and nuclear physics. The High Energy Frontier Our current understanding of the fundamental interactions of nature is encap- sulated in the Standard Model of particle physics. In this theory, the multitude of subatomic particles is explained in terms of just two kinds of basic building blocks: quarks, which form protons and neutrons, and leptons, including the electron and its heavier cousins. From the three basic interactions described by the Standard Model—the strong, electroweak and gravitational forces—arise much of our understanding of the world around us, from the formation of matter in the early universe, to the energy production in the Sun, and the stability of atoms and mit physics annual 2010 roland | klute ( 41 figure 1 A photograph of the interior, central molecules.
    [Show full text]