Non-standard EWSB scenarios

Veronica Sanz CERN and YorkU

Annecy March 2012 Outline Spontaneous Symmetry Breaking Beyond the SM: New Physics at the Terascale Non-Standard EWSB scenarios Composite Higgs Higgsless Spontaneous Symmetry Breaking FACT: We don’t understand most of the Universe

Some new form of matter

Particle Physics? Us The origin of mass in the SM good story, unknown ending SM is based on gauge symmetries The origin of mass in the SM good story, unknown ending SM is based on gauge symmetries φ(x) eiα(x) φ(x) →

physical degrees of freedom GAUGE BOSONS Force carriers Gauge symmetry Force carriers conserved are massless

Force is long range

This picture works extremely well with EM QED 1 = 137,035 999 084 (33)(39) α theory BUT SM also theory of weak interactions

Weak interactions are short range

1 e-r/r0 r2 → r2

18 r0 10− m m 100 GeV ∼ ∼ Force carrier Symmetry is broken massive So, we have to break the symmetry So what!? That’s a no-no So, we have to break the symmetry So what!? That’s a no-no

How do we compute in Particle Physics? = + + Lphysical Lclas Lqua Lreg

Physical quantities If we just add a mass term to the classical theory + m2 Z2 Lweak Z We can’t regularize the theory!

Conclusion massive force carrier=no predictions? divergences cancelled if precise adjustment of constants? Fine-tuning Feinberg, 1958 Spontaneous Symmetry Breaking The

solution Spontaneous Symmetry Breaking The

solution Lagrangian preserves the symmetry BUT the vacuum of the theory doesn’t Spontaneous Symmetry Breaking The

solution Lagrangian preserves the symmetry BUT the vacuum of the theory doesn’t

SM way: the Higgs mechanism

(DH)(DH)† V (H) − DH ∂ H ig A H ≡ − ew Higgs = Scalar charged under EW interactions Scalar=no Lorentz structure

Higgs potential False vacuum

True vacuum Scalar=no Lorentz structure

Higgs potential False vacuum

True vacuum

Physics=expand around true vacuum H H H → −# $ Breaks EW symmetry H H H → −# $ Breaks EW symmetry Shift = masses for EW force carriers

2 2 2 2 2 (DH)(DH)† g H A = m A → " # ew ew ew H H H → −# $ Breaks EW symmetry Shift = masses for EW force carriers

2 2 2 2 2 (DH)(DH)† g H A = m A → " # ew ew ew Lagrangian preserves the symmetry no new infinities to deal with shift doesn’t change the UV structure of the theory secret renormalizability H H H → −# $ Breaks EW symmetry Shift = masses for EW force carriers

2 2 2 2 2 (DH)(DH)† g H A = m A → " # ew ew ew Lagrangian preserves the symmetry no new infinities to deal with shift doesn’t change the UV structure of the theory secret renormalizability

Conclusion Spontaneous Symmetry Breaking= predictive theory of massive force carriers EWPTs SM way: forces are local symmetries EW symmetry is spontaneously broken

outstanding success EWPTs SM way: forces are local symmetries EW symmetry is spontaneously broken

outstanding success

W,Z discovery just the beginning EWTPs characterization principle: EWSB TOKEN: masses for everybody!

Yukawa interactions y HΨΨ¯ y H ΨΨ¯ Ψ → Ψ" # preserve EW

EWSB is the origin of mass: short range forces AND massive fermions TOKEN: masses for everybody!

Yukawa interactions y HΨΨ¯ y H ΨΨ¯ Ψ → Ψ" # preserve EW

Conclusion Higgs, and only Higgs= origin of SM masses? Nice story, unknown ending

1.) Higgs sector is incomplete Interacting Higgs H 2 m2 /λ ! " ∼ h λ after LEP, quartic order 1 Nice story, unknown ending

1.) Higgs sector is incomplete Interacting Higgs H 2 m2 /λ ! " ∼ h λ after LEP, quartic order 1 Triviality & stability= need new physics @ high scale or theory is trivial or unstable(=no SSB) Nice story, unknown ending

1.) Higgs sector is incomplete Interacting Higgs H 2 m2 /λ ! " ∼ h λ after LEP, quartic order 1 Triviality & stability= need new physics @ high scale or theory is trivial or unstable(=no SSB)

2.) New Physics talking to the Higgs=disaster Why New Physics+Higgs = disaster? Why New Physics+Higgs = disaster?

Higgs is a new type of particle: scalar Any new states coupled to the Higgs: threshold correction

+ classical quantum 2 2 mtree + δmH δm2 M 2 H ∼ new m M phys ∼ new or cancellations 1.Triviality, stability New States 2. Quantum Higgs mass ~ largest scale corrections

Conclusion: Higgs mass is at least TeV, possibly Planck 1.Triviality, stability New States 2. Quantum Higgs mass ~ largest scale corrections

Conclusion: Higgs mass is at least TeV, possibly Planck

BUT

EWPTs Higgs below ~200 GeV Indeed

Exciting news from Moriond

ATLAS, CMS and TeVatron hints of a Higgs around 125 GeV Option#1 No Higgs something else breaks EW symm unitarization WW scattering = something else MUST be @TeV Option#1 No Higgs something else breaks EW symm unitarization WW scattering = something else MUST be @TeV

Option#2 Higgs Need (very special) new physics Option#1 No Higgs something else breaks EW symm unitarization WW scattering = something else MUST be @TeV

Option#2 Higgs Need (very special) new physics

TeV physics is the origin of SM masses Beyond the SM: New Physics at the Terascale Principle: Spontaneous symmetry breaking

Realization? Principle: Spontaneous symmetry breaking

Realization?

Higgs particle Superconductivity Compactification Principle: Spontaneous symmetry breaking

Realization?

Higgs particle A scalar particle ad hoc properties needs fine-tuning

as in the massive force carriers: new principle? Supersymmetry? Principle: Spontaneous symmetry breaking

Realization?

Superconductivity fermions/ Known and vectors tightly natural bound to each (no fine-tuning) other condense

aka Technicolor Principle: Spontaneous symmetry breaking

Realization?

Compactification Particles live in more than 4D some dimensions are boxes zero-point energy=mass aka Extra-Dimensions: UED, RS... Ideas on mechanisms for EWSB abound LHC= window toTeV scale Exciting times for New Physics

Higgs particle Superconductivity Compactification Non-Standard EWSB scenarios What is standard? EWSB by elementary Higgs(es) In this talk

includes SM and SUSY

What is non-standard? EWSB by -composite Higgs - no scalar at all

includes Little Higgs, Extra-Dimensions and Technicolor Composite Higgs Composite Higgs - Motivation What if there is a Higgs? Light scalar Need stabilization mechanism (or we have no clue about QFT) Symmetries Fermionic SUSY Bosonic Goldstone 0 Squark-gluino-neutralino model, m("# ) = 0 GeV 2000 1 ATLAS Preliminary Combined

1800 CLs observed 95% C.L. limit since SUSY may not be CLs median expected limit Expected limit ±1 ! 1600 ATLAS EPS 2011 $ L dt = 4.71 fb-1, s=7 TeV squark mass [GeV] !SUSY = 1 fb there to save the day 1400

Higgs as a PGB 1200 !SUSY = 10 fb like the pion of QCD 1000

800 ! = 100 fb composite Higgs SUSY 600 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600 1800 2000 gluino mass [GeV] Composite Higgs - Realizations

Composite Higgs is realized in Little Higgs, Extra-Dimensions and Technicolor

symmetry PGB -Little Higgs, TC: new 4D symmetry -Extra-dimensions: SM 5D gauge= 4D gauge+GB Composite Higgs-Generic features scalar resonance WW unitarization non-SM scalar: deviations

v2 ξ = Giudice, Grojean, Pomarol f 2 degree of fine-tuning and Rattazzi ‘07

Theory study 300 ifb @ 14 TeV for ξ> 0.2 4πf composite Higgs already unitarize WW f ξ 0 → SM-like v generic features are too SM-like Composite Higgs-Generic features scalar resonance WW unitarization non-SM scalar: deviations

v2 ξ = Giudice, Grojean, Pomarol f 2 degree of fine-tuning and Rattazzi ‘07

Theory study 300 ifb @ 14 TeV for ξ> 0.2 Azatov, Contino and 4πf composite Higgs Galloway, 12023415. already unitarize WW f ξ 0 → SM-like v generic features are too SM-like Composite Higgs-Common

ρ s=1 ex. Z’, TC , Z KK not crucial for WW scattering Composite Higgs-Common

ρ s=1 ex. Z’, TC , Z KK not crucial for WW scattering new gauge symms? Composite Higgs-Common

ρ s=1 ex. Z’, TC , Z KK not crucial for WW scattering new gauge symms?

TC s=2 ex. GKK , f2 Extra-Dimensions and TC-type see next Composite Higgs-Common

ρ s=1 ex. Z’, TC , Z KK not crucial for WW scattering new gauge symms?

TC s=2 ex. GKK , f2 Extra-Dimensions and TC-type see next

Q s=1/2 ex. T, KK , techni-baryons New heavy quarks mix with SM quarks Composite Higgs-Common

ρ s=1 ex. Z’, TC , Z KK not crucial for WW scattering new gauge symms?

TC s=2 ex. GKK , f2 Extra-Dimensions and TC-type see next

Q s=1/2 ex. T, KK , techni-baryons New heavy quarks 3rd gen mix with SM quarks light quarks Composite Higgs-Common

ρ s=1 ex. Z’, TC , Z KK not crucial for WW scattering new gauge symms?

TC s=2 ex. GKK , f2 Extra-Dimensions and TC-type see next

Q s=1/2 ex. T, KK , techni-baryons New heavy quarks 3rd gen 4th gen? mix with SM quarks light quarks see next How to tell apart a graviton from an impostor? Fok, Guimaraes, Lewis, VS arXiV-1203.2917 i.e. massive spin-2 resonance = smoking gun of extra-dimensions? How to tell apart a graviton from an impostor? Fok, Guimaraes, Lewis, VS arXiV-1203.2917 i.e. massive spin-2 resonance = smoking gun of extra-dimensions? G Gˆ KK-graviton TC-type impostor How to tell apart a graviton from an impostor? Fok, Guimaraes, Lewis, VS arXiV-1203.2917 i.e. massive spin-2 resonance = smoking gun of extra-dimensions? G Gˆ KK-graviton TC-type impostor

propagation Pauli-Fierz Pauli-Fierz How to tell apart a graviton from an impostor? Fok, Guimaraes, Lewis, VS arXiV-1203.2917 i.e. massive spin-2 resonance = smoking gun of extra-dimensions? G Gˆ KK-graviton TC-type impostor

propagation Pauli-Fierz Pauli-Fierz c i G T µν interactions M µν i,SM

c M TeV i overlap G with fields i and ∼ How to tell apart a graviton from an impostor? Fok, Guimaraes, Lewis, VS arXiV-1203.2917 i.e. massive spin-2 resonance = smoking gun of extra-dimensions? G Gˆ KK-graviton TC-type impostor

propagation Pauli-Fierz Pauli-Fierz c i G T µν interactions M µν i,SM ? c M TeV i overlap G with fields i and ∼ vs Gˆ couplings?

Lorentz and gauge no dimension-4 vs Gˆ couplings?

Lorentz and gauge no dimension-4 dimension-5 flavor and CP invariant same as in T µ ν

Gˆ couples like G

same spin determination vs Gˆ couplings?

Lorentz and gauge no dimension-4 dimension-5 flavor and CP invariant same as in T µ ν

Gˆ couples like G

same spin determination How do we distinguish them? vs

Br( gg) 8c2 R = → = g g/γ Br( γγ) c2 → γ

In any extra-dimension of the type ds2 = w(z)2 (η dxµdxν dz2) µν − example UED,RS vs

Br( gg) 8c2 R = → = g g/γ Br( γγ) c2 → γ

In any extra-dimension of the type ds2 = w(z)2 (η dxµdxν dz2) µν − example UED,RS

G : Rg/γ =8 ˆ G can produce any other ratio First generation compositeness Martin and VS JHEP (2010) Composite baryons and elementary quarks mix Redi,VS, Weiler in preparation u mixing = λ uL,RU¯L +(u d) y λ λ L L,R → ∝ L R First generation compositeness Martin and VS JHEP (2010) Composite baryons and elementary quarks mix Redi,VS, Weiler in preparation u mixing = λ uL,RU¯L +(u d) y λ λ L L,R → ∝ L R 1st generation compositeness! Flavor? First generation compositeness Martin and VS JHEP (2010) Composite baryons and elementary quarks mix Redi,VS, Weiler in preparation u mixing = λ uL,RU¯L +(u d) y λ λ L L,R → ∝ L R 1st generation compositeness! Flavor? MFV if composite sector flavor invariant Redi, Weiler ‘11 λ Id, λ Id Lu ∝ Ld ∝ • Left-handed compositeness: λ y ,λ y Ru ∝ u Rd ∝ d λ y ,λ y • Right-handed compositeness: Lu ∝ u Ld ∝ d λ Id, λ Id Ru ∝ Rd ∝ First generation compositeness Martin and VS JHEP (2010) Composite baryons and elementary quarks mix Redi,VS, Weiler in preparation u mixing = λ uL,RU¯L +(u d) y λ λ L L,R → ∝ L R 1st generation compositeness! Flavor? MFV if composite sector flavor invariant Redi, Weiler ‘11

half of the proton MFV could be composite How to tell apart 1st generation RH or LH compositeness? Signature: single production heavy quark q Q ρ

LH compositeness RH compositeness W,Z

Q Q q How to tell apart 1st generation RH or LH compositeness? LH compositeness Martin and VS JHEP (2010) W,Z Q q How to tell apart 1st generation RH or LH compositeness? LH compositeness Martin and VS JHEP (2010) W,Z ATLAS-PH-EP-2011-193. Q Lepton channel w/ 1 ifb. q

EW production How to tell apart 1st generation RH or LH compositeness? RH compositeness Looking at current bounds and discovery prospects Redi,VS, Weiler BGs: multijet, W+jets, Z+jets, top pair and single top in preparation ATLAS-PH-EP-2011-154 Rejection: exclude dijet near W or Z and veto b-tagging, cut Q on leading jet QCD generated with ALPGEN -> PYTHIA signal xsecs mQ=1 TeV, mG=2 TeV Log10(σ(fb))

4

mG = 2 TeV 3

2 mG = 3 TeV

1 mG = 4 TeV

500 1000 1500 2000

mQ (GeV ) How to tell apart 1st generation RH or LH compositeness? Redi,VS, Weiler RH compositeness in preparation

We use two methods: deltaR and leading jet optimized for high-low mQ

500

-1 QCD 400 Signal

300

200

100 Number of Events for 10 fb

0 0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500 4000 m3j (GeV) Higgsless Higgsless ? No Scalar-Generic features Realized in warped extra-dimensions and TC-type s=1 resonances do unitarize WW scattering No Scalar-Generic features Realized in warped extra-dimensions and TC-type s=1 resonances do unitarize WW scattering THE problem: S parameter solutions do not abound No Scalar-Generic features Realized in warped extra-dimensions and TC-type s=1 resonances do unitarize WW scattering THE problem: S parameter solutions do not abound Eichten, Lane Non-calculable, ignore TCSM Phys. Lett. B ‘89 No Scalar-Generic features Realized in warped extra-dimensions and TC-type s=1 resonances do unitarize WW scattering THE problem: S parameter solutions do not abound Eichten, Lane Non-calculable, ignore TCSM Phys. Lett. B ‘89 Mechanisms to cancel, warped models Cured Higgsless Cacciapaglia et al (s=1)-(s=1/2) cancellation Phys. Rev. D ‘05 Holographic TC Hirn,VS Phys. Rev. Lett. ‘06 s=1 cancellation How to tell apart scenarios of dynamical EWSB? Banerjee, Martin and VS In dileptons... JHEP (2012) 1. Invariant mass

TCSM 1200 HTC 103 1000 CHL CHL

800 102

600 Arbitary Units

Arbitary Units 10 400 KK Z1 200 KK 1 Z2 0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200

0 m + - (GeV) 550 600 650 700 750 800 850 900 l l

ml + l- (GeV)

MG> PYTHIA> ATLFAST and DELPHES@7 TeV How to tell apart scenarios of dynamical EWSB? Banerjee, Martin and VS 2. Charge asymmetry JHEP (2012) N(∆η> 0) N(∆η< 0) Acharge = − ∆η = η + η N(∆η> 0) + N(∆η< 0) | ! |−| !− |

eta asym is a good measure can tell V,A admixture of chirality Vector (R=L) A V 2 × A2 + V 2 Non-vector (R=(1/3)L) ! " 500 0.25 ! ! Chiral (R=0) !

400 0.20 !

0.15 ! 300

0.10 Arbitary Units 200 !! 0.05 ! 100 !! 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0 -2.5 -2 -1.5 -1 -0.5 0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 Asymmetry |! +|-|! -| l l A after simulation Conclusions ✦ Non-standard EWSB ideas abound and have a very rich phenomenology.

✦ May not be easy to discover by just looking at scalar EWSB sector. Need correlations with other signals.

✦ Tell apart Extra-Dimensions from TC-type: gravitons and its impostor.

✦ First generation RH or LH compositeness in multijets.

✦ Tell apart different scenarios of DEWSB in dileptons. Operators ratio to gluons gluon-jet from quark-jet?

1. most models: G coupling to light quarks suppressed 2. Angular correlations dσ (qq¯ G) = 1 + c2 1 4s2 to fermions θ∗ θ∗ d cos θ∗ → − =1! c"4 to gluons , − θ∗ 3. Tag light jet using Galliccio-Schwartz techniques