1 / 26

Signals in the Co-annihilation Region of Supersymmetry at the LHC

This presentation discusses supersymmetry, dark matter, and the measurement of small mass differences in the co-annihilation region. It explores the motivation for supersymmetry, the cold dark matter problem, and the role of the LHC in studying supersymmetric particles.

mstephens
Download Presentation

Signals in the Co-annihilation Region of Supersymmetry at the LHC

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. Signals in the Co-annihilation Region of Supersymmetry at the LHC- Supersymmetry and Dark Matter - Adam Aurisano In Collaboration with Richard Arnowitt, Bhaskar Dutta, Teruki Kamon, Nikolay Kolev*, Paul Simeon, David Toback & Peter Wagner Texas A&M University Regina University* Masters Defense Texas A&M University

  2. Outline • Supersymmetry (SUSY) and Cosmology • Dark matter • Supersymmetric particles • How to measure a small mass difference (DM) and mass ( ) • Counting methods • Invariant mass methods • Results • Conclusions Masters Defense Texas A&M University

  3. Introduction • Current cosmology data indicates that ~24% of universe’s energy content is cold dark matter. • There are many candidates for dark matter. • Supersymmetry provides a model for the Grand Unification of forces  new Supersymmetric particles. • The lightest SUSY particle provides one of the best motivated dark matter candidates. Masters Defense Texas A&M University

  4. Cold Dark Matter • Cosmologists have observed that there is not enough “normal” matter in our universe to account for its features • Rotation of galaxies • Bullet galaxies • Cosmic Microwave Background anisotropies • Dark matter candidates must heavy, have no charge, be non-baryonic, and likely be “cold” (non-relativistic) for galaxy formation. • This excludes all known Standard Model particles. • Neutrinos fail the “cold” criterion. Masters Defense Texas A&M University

  5. Why SUSY? • Supersymmetry (SUSY) is a theory that postulates a symmetry between fermions and bosons. • The minimal version roughly doubles the particle count of the Standard Model. • In models with “R-parity”, the lightest SUSY particle is stable: this provides an excellent dark matter candidate, the . • SUSY allows for model building up to the GUT scale by reducing the Higgs mass divergence from quadratic to logarithmic. • SUSY solves the “hierarchy problem” by dynamically generating the Electro-weak symmetry breaking scale. • However: SUSY must be a broken symmetry (superpartners are heavier than their SM counterparts). Masters Defense Texas A&M University

  6. Minimal Supersymmetric Standard Model • The MSSM is the minimal possible supersymmetric extension of the Standard Model. • Does not explain the symmetry breaking, so masses are determined ad-hoc. • This leads to over 100 new parameters. Masters Defense Texas A&M University

  7. mSUGRA • Minimal Supergravity postulates that symmetry breaking is mediated by the gravity sector. • In addition, it assumes that at the unification scale all sfermions (super partners of fermions) have mass m0 and all gauginos (super partners of gauge bosons) have mass m1/2. • Only three other parameters are required to determine all particle masses and couplings. Masters Defense Texas A&M University

  8. g t Co-annihilation Region • There are three parameter space regions where the predicted mSUGRA dark matter abundances are consistent with observation. • With the additional observational constraint that we believe that the results of the g-2 collaboration will continue to show deviations from the Standard Model, only the co-annihilation region remains. • Co-annihilation, along with annihilation, controls the dark matter relic density. • This is governed by DM. time Co-annihilation diagram Masters Defense Texas A&M University

  9. Goal • If SUSY is correct, and we are in the co-annhilation region, we want to measure the parameters m0 and m1/2, or indirectly, we can measure DM and . • To do this, we need an accelerator with a large center of mass energy and high luminosity. Masters Defense Texas A&M University

  10. Large Hadron Collider • pp collider • After turn on, the LHC will be the high energy frontier with a center of mass energy = 14 TeV! • This is 7 times the current highest energy collider. Masters Defense Texas A&M University

  11. Compact Muon Solenoid • One of the two general detectors at the LHC will be CMS. • The detector surrounds a collision point and records the energy and momentum of the produced particles. • If we are lucky, we will see new physics! Masters Defense Texas A&M University

  12. 3t Final State Provides Unique Signal of Co-annihilation DM is small , so this t is low energy. escapes undetected. missing energy • Produce SUSY events in pp collisions at LHC. • Look at SUSY particle production and decay. • Look for 3 t : 2 high energy and 1 low energy. t p t Look at the mass of this pair high energy t p another high energy t or Masters Defense Texas A&M University

  13. ET Spectrum of Third t • DM tells us how much energy is available to produce the low energy t. Large DM large t energy lots of events pass threshold Small DM small t energy few events pass threshold Masters Defense Texas A&M University

  14. Counting vs. DM • At constant , the probability that the third t has energy> 20 GeV depends on DM. • For DM > 5 GeV, the number of counts increases nearly linearly. • For DM < 5 GeV, there is primarily background due to single top quarks produced in gluino and squark decay. Masters Defense Texas A&M University

  15. Counting vs. Gluino Mass • The number of counts depends on almost entirely through gluino production. • Low mass = high production cross-section • High mass = low production cross-section Masters Defense Texas A&M University

  16. tt Invariant Mass Mtt Background easy to subtract off Large DM: Many events Large mass Small DM: Few events Small mass Masters Defense Texas A&M University

  17. tt Invariant Mass vs. DM • The invariant mass distribution depends directly on DM. Masters Defense Texas A&M University

  18. tt Invariant Mass vs. Gluino Mass • The invariant mass distribution only depends on indirectly. • In mSUGRA, all gaugino masses are related through the renormalization group equations to the parameter m1/2. • Because the invariant mass has the opposite trend of counting, we can combine these methods to simultaneously measure DM and . Masters Defense Texas A&M University

  19. Gluino Mass vs. DM : Simulataneous Measurement • Counts and mass have inverse relationships. • Use this to indirectly measure both the gluino mass and DM. Masters Defense Texas A&M University

  20. Results • Our gluino mass measurement is indirect, but it may be the only one possible at low luminosities. • When direct measurements become available, a comparison would be an excellent check for mSUGRA. • Previous methods to determine assume not in the co-annihilation region. Masters Defense Texas A&M University

  21. Conclusions • For cosmological reasons, the co-annihilation region of supersymmetry is an important place to study. • Our methods may help us measure DM and well at the LHC. • Our indirect measurement of may be the only one available at low luminosity. • With optimization of cuts, we may be able to make a better measurement. • Submitted to Phys. Lett. B, arXiv:hep-ph/0608193 Masters Defense Texas A&M University

  22. END OF TALK Back-up Slides Masters Defense Texas A&M University

  23. Results: Fixed Gluino Mass • If a measurement of is available, we can use our methods to make a more precise measurement of DM. • We assume a 5% uncertainty on . • This dominates the uncertainty. Masters Defense Texas A&M University

  24. Cuts Provide Nearly Background Free Region • Assume: • 50% tau efficiency • 1% fake rate • Cuts: • 2t > 40 GeV • 1t > 20 GeV • Jet 1 > 100 GeV • MET > 100 GeV • Jet 1 + MET > 400 GeV • Mtt < 100 GeV Masters Defense Texas A&M University

  25. DMMeasurement • Systematic uncertainty based on 5% variation in gluino mass • We assume a 1% fake rate with 20% uncertainty • For all luminosities with significance > 3s, we are systematic dominated Masters Defense Texas A&M University

  26. DM Measurement (MM) • Like the counting method, we are always in a systematic dominated region. Masters Defense Texas A&M University

More Related