1 / 16

Supersymmetry, naturalness and environmental selection

Supersymmetry, naturalness and environmental selection. G.F. Giudice. G.F.G., R. Rattazzi, hep-ph/0606105 [& N. Arkani-Hamed, A. Delgado, G.F.G., NPB 741, 108 (2006) ]. Guiding principle for physics BSM One of the main motivations for LHC. Hierarchy problem. SM. Broken EW. Unbroken EW.

melanie-mccoy
Download Presentation

Supersymmetry, naturalness and environmental selection

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Supersymmetry, naturalness and environmental selection G.F. Giudice G.F.G., R. Rattazzi, hep-ph/0606105 [& N. Arkani-Hamed, A. Delgado, G.F.G., NPB 741, 108 (2006)]

  2. Guiding principle for physics BSM • One of the main motivations for LHC Hierarchy problem SM Broken EW Unbroken EW 0 Why is nature so close to the critical line? Formulation in terms of criticality:

  3. Exact susy (and =0)  critical line • Dynamical susy breaking MS~MP e1/  • For “generic” parameters  mH2 ~ MS2 small departure from critical line stabilization of flat direction |H1|=|H2| Supersymmetry: Expectations for discovery at LEP: unfulfilled!

  4. unrelated to MS (depends on ci, a) • much smaller than UV scale QC ~ e1/MP Why supersymmetry should prefer to be near critical? “generic” supersymmetry: MS << QC << MP MS and QC equal to few % “tuned” supersymmetry: MS ~ QC << MP MS < QC broken EW; MS > QC unbroken EW

  5. Phase diagram of supersymmetric SM • A measure of the fine tuning • A characterization of the tuning

  6. Need large stop corrections  close to criticality

  7. STATISTICAL CRITICALITY Assume soft terms are environmental parameters Simplest case: mi=ci MS and MS scans in multiverse QC = MP F(ci,a,t) is fixed Two possibilities: MS > QC: unbroken EW 2) MS < QC: broken EW Impose prior that EW is broken (analogy with Weinberg)

  8. In “field-theoretical landscapes” we expect Probability distributiondP= • Susy prefers to be broken at high scale • Prior sets an upper bound on MS Susy near-critical Little hierarchy: Supersymmetry visible at LHC, but not at LEP (post-diction)

  9. CRITICALITY Distribution of vacua Prior of EW breaking Supersymmetry looks tuned because there many more vacua with <H> = 0 than with <H>  0 The level of tuning is dictated by RG running, and it is of the order of a one-loop factor

  10. TESTING STATISTICAL CRITICALITY:

  11. MZ Weak Principle MS QC Atomic Principle MZ Weak Principle “untuned” susy “split” susy MS QC STABILITY UNDER DIFFERENT PRIORS “tuned” susy If we require vF < 103QCD (to form chemical structures) If alsoQCD scans, we go back to “tuned” supersymmetry “Tuned” susy is obtained if enough parameters scan

  12. solution to  problem • prediction for  and tan • compatible with well-tempered bino-higgsino Statistical solution to  problem If  and MS scan independently: Critical line: Assume

  13. Susy-breaking vacua V(X) Susy vacuum X Denef, Douglas Dine, O’Neil, Sun Distribution of susy scale 3 conditions on complex parameters to have a local minimum (k1=0), stable (|k3|>2|k2|) with susy breaking at MS (|a1|=MS) If susy vacua dominate and strong dynamics occur:

  14. dynamics? chance ? statistics ? Problem of criticality: Quantitative difference after LEP & WMAP: DMh2=0.127 For MS>MZ :  is almost pure state +0.0070.013 B-ino: annihilation through sleptons (too slow without coannihilation): me < 115 GeV at 95% CL (LEP: me > 100 GeV) H-ino, W-ino: annihilation through gauge bosons (too fast) ~ ~ RECAP: Supersymmetry & Naturalness EW BREAKING Talks by Nomura, Dermisek, Toro, Okumura, Kitano, Falkowski, Shirman, Maekawa After LEP: a % tuning on soft terms DARK MATTER

  15. DM is possible in “special” regions: • coannihilation • Higgs resonance • “Well-tempered” • or non-thermal Both MZ and DM can be reproduced by low-energy supersymmetry, but with “atypical” parameter choices. Unlucky circumstances or dynamical explanation? Statistics? (always assumed when tuning is discussed?)

  16. RECAP: Supersymmetry & Environmental Selection • Use of anthropic principle controversial • Symmetry principles have been very successful • Lack of predictive power • However: • Failure of dynamical explanation for CC • Landscape in string theory • Predictions are possible: probabilistic (CC, axion) • change of perspective (Split Susy) • Near-criticality of susy?

More Related