Constraints on SUSY parameters from present data

Transcription

1 Constraints on SUSY parameters from present data Howard Baer Florida State University ILC-Cosmology working group MSSM Models of SUSY breaking Constraints WMAP allowed regions Non-universality Beyond the MSSM H. Baer, ILC and Cosmology, Snowmass,

2 The Standard Model of Particle Physics Construction gauge symmetry: SU(3) C SU(2) L U(1) Y matter content: 3 generations quarks and leptons u d L u R, d R ; ν e Higgs sector spontaneous electroweak symmetry breaking: φ = φ+ φ 0 L, e R (1) (2) Yukawa interactions massive quarks and leptons 19 parameters good-to-excellent description of (almost) all accelerator data! H. Baer, ILC and Cosmology, Snowmass,

3 Data not described by the SM neutrino masses and mixing baryogenesis η (matter anti-matter asymmetry) cold dark matter dark energy Note astro/cosmological origin of all discrepancies! H. Baer, ILC and Cosmology, Snowmass,

4 Focus of this talk is on supersymmetry if we consider the main classes of new physics that are currently being contemplated, it is clear that (supersymmetry) is the most directly related to GUTs. SUSY offers a well defined model computable up to the GUT scale and is actually supported by the quantitative success of coupling unification in SUSY GUTs.For the other examples, all contact with GUTs is lost or at least is much more remote. the SUSY picture remains the standard way beyond the Standard Model G. Altarelli and F. Feruglio, hep-ph/ H. Baer, ILC and Cosmology, Snowmass,

5 Minimal Supersymmetric Standard Model: MSSM Rules for Lagrangian of renormalizable globally supersymmetric Lagrangian texts: Drees, Godbole, Roy (WS) ; HB and X. Tata (CUP, Spring 06) Gauge symmetry: SU(3) C SU(2) L U(1) Y Fields superfields fermions (left) chiral scalar superfields gauge fields gauge superfields two Higgs doublets are necessary Superpotential: R p conserving (RPC) or violating (RPV)? Explicit soft SUSY breaking terms: scalar/ino masses, A i, B MSSM with RPC: 124 (178) parameter model valid at M weak? MSSM with bi (tri)linear RPV: add 6 (45) more complex SP parameters H. Baer, ILC and Cosmology, Snowmass,

6 Models of SUSY breaking Spontaneous breaking of SUSY phen. inconsistent within MSSM Hidden sector models (HS) HS is arena for SUSY breaking; how to communicate SUSY breaking to visible sector (VS)? gravity mediation: supergravity (SUGRA) and local SUSY: minimal messenger sector: m 3/2 TeV: LSP=bino/higgsino/wino/gravitino? gauge mediation (GMSB): introduce messenger sector fields as intermediary between HS and VS: m 3/2 TeV: LSP=gravitino anomaly mediation (AMSB): m 3/2 > TeV: LSP=wino role of extra dimensions? compactification? sequestered sector and AMSB; gaugino mediation; GUTs; H. Baer, ILC and Cosmology, Snowmass,

7 Gravity-mediated SUSY breaking models m 3/2 M 2 s /M P l 10 3 GeV for M s GeV theory below Q = M GUT usually assumed to be MSSM Soft SUSY breaking boundary conditions usually stipulated at Q = M GUT lots of possibilities depending on SUSY breaking/ GUTs/ compactification (all unknown physics) minimal choice: single scalar mass m 0, gaugino mass m 1/2, trilinear term A 0, bilinear term B evolve couplings/soft terms to M weak via RG evolution EWSB radiatively due to large m t parameter space: m 0, m 1/2, A 0, tan β, sign(µ) this is simplest choice and a baseline model, but many other possibilities depending on high scale physics H. Baer, ILC and Cosmology, Snowmass,

8 non-universal scalar masses non-universal gaugino masses FC soft SUSY breaking terms large CP violating phases additional fields beyond MSSM below M GUT? H. Baer, ILC and Cosmology, Snowmass,

9 Sparticle mass spectra Mass spectra codes Isajet (HB, Paige, Protopopescu, Tata) SuSpect (Djouadi, Kneur, Moultaka) SoftSUSY (Allanach) Spheno (Porod) Comparison (Belanger, Kraml, Pukhov) m0 [GeV] m0 [GeV] WMAP ISAJET SOFTSUSY excl. by LEP excl. by LEP no REWSB m 1/2 [GeV] WMAP m0 [GeV] m0 [GeV] no REWSB no REWSB m 1/2 [GeV] 1500 SPHENO SUSPECT m 1/2 [GeV] m 1/2 [GeV] excl. by LEP excl. by LEP WMAP WMAP Website: H. Baer, ILC and Cosmology, Snowmass,

10 LEP2: Constraints on SUSY models m h > GeV for SM-like h m fw1 > GeV mẽl,r > 99 GeV for m l m ez1 > 10 GeV BF (b sγ) = (3.25 ± 0.54) 10 4 (BELLE, CLEO, ALEPH) SM theory: BF (b sγ) a µ = (g 2) µ /2 (Muon g 2 collaboration) a µ = (27.1 ± 9.4) (Davier et al. e + e ) a SUSY µ m2 µ µm i tan β M 4 SUSY BF (B s µ + µ ) < constrains at very large tan β > 50 Ω CDM h 2 = ± (WMAP) (CDF-new!) H. Baer, ILC and Cosmology, Snowmass,

11 Neutralino dark matter Why R-parity? natural in SO(10) SUSYGUTS if properly broken, or broken via compactification (Mohapatra, Martin, Kawamura, ) In thermal equilibrium in early universe As universe expands and cools, freeze out Number density obtained from Boltzmann eq n dn/dt = 3Hn σv rel (n 2 n 2 0) depends critically on thermally averaged annihilation cross section times velocity many thousands of annihilation/co-annihilation diagrams equally many computer codes Neutdriver (Jungman; not maintained) DarkSUSY: (Gondolo, Edsjo, Ullio, Bergstrom, Schelke, Baltz) H. Baer, ILC and Cosmology, Snowmass,

12 Micromegas (Belanger, Boudjema, Pukhov, Semenov) IsaRED: (HB, Balazs, Belyaev) SSARD: (Ellis, Falk and Olive) Drees/ Nojiri code Roszkowski code Arnowitt/ Nath code Lahanas/ Nanopoulos code Bottino/ Fornengo et al. code H. Baer, ILC and Cosmology, Snowmass,

13 Effect of constraints on msugra model msugra,tanβ=10,a0=0,µ>0,mtop=175gev δaposx10 :30,10,5, Ωh2< < Ωh2< < Ωh2< 0.5 m1/2 (GeV) 1400 stau LSP Ωh2< < Ωh2< < Ωh2< 0.5 m1/2 (GeV) 1400 BF(b sγ)x104:2, stau LSP 1600 δaposx1010:30,10,5,1 BF(b sγ)x10 :2, msugra,tanβ=55,a0=0,µ>0,mtop=175gev NO REWSB LEP m0 (GeV) NO REWSB LEP m0 (GeV) H. Baer, ILC and Cosmology, Snowmass,

14 Main msugra regions consistent with WMAP bulk region (low m 0, low m 1/2 ) stau co-annihilation region (m τ1 m ez1 ) HB/FP region (large m 0 where µ small) A-funnel (2m ez1 m A, m H ) h corridor (2m ez1 m h ) stop co-annihilation region (particular A 0 values m t 1 m ez1 ) H. Baer, ILC and Cosmology, Snowmass,

15 Constraints as χ2 on msugra model NO REWSB sqrt(χ2) NO REWSB sqrt(χ2) m1/2 (GeV) stau LSP msugra, tgβ=55, µ>0, A0=0, mtop=175 GeV + e e input for δaµ LEP2 excluded m1/2 (GeV) 1800 stau LSP 2000 msugra, tgβ=10, µ>0, A0=0, mtop=175 GeV + e e input for δaµ LEP2 excluded m0 (TeV) m0 (TeV) HB, Balazs; HB, Belyaev, Krupovnickas, Mustafayev H. Baer, ILC and Cosmology, Snowmass,

16 bulk region ILC-Cosmology group: 4 simulation points (m 0, m 1/2, A 0, tan β, sgn(µ), m t = 100 GeV, 250 GeV, 100 GeV, 10, +1, 178) HB/FP region (m 0, m 1/2, A 0, tan β, sgn(µ), m t = 3280 GeV, 300 GeV, 0, 10, +1, 175 ) τ co-ann. region (m 0, m 1/2, A 0, tan β, sgn(µ), m t = 210 GeV, 360 GeV, 0, 40, +1, 178 ) A funnel (m 0, m 1/2, A 0, tan β, sgn(µ), m t = 380 GeV, 420 GeV, 0, 53, +1, 178 ) Results: see talks by Battaglia, Alexander, Peskin H. Baer, ILC and Cosmology, Snowmass,

17 Sparticle reach of all colliders and relic density 1600 msugra with tanβ = 10, A 0 = 0, µ > 0 Ωh 2 < LEP2 excluded m 1/2 (GeV) LHC 600 LC LC 500 Tevatron m 0 (GeV) HB, Belyaev, Krupovnickas, Tata H. Baer, ILC and Cosmology, Snowmass,

18 Sparticle reach of all colliders and relic density 1600 msugra with tanβ = 45, A 0 = 0, µ < 0 Ωh 2 < LEP2 excluded m 1/2 (GeV) LHC 600 LC LC 500 Tevatron m 0 (GeV) HB, Belyaev, Krupovnickas, Tata H. Baer, ILC and Cosmology, Snowmass,

19 Direct and indirect detection of neutralino DM 1600 msugra, A 0 =0 tanβ=10, µ> msugra, A 0 =0, tanβ=50, µ< not LSP Z ~ 1 LHC DD µ 1200 not LSP Z ~ 1 DD m 1/2 (GeV) m 1/2 (GeV) LHC 600 LC LC LC LC500 µ 200 TEV LEP no REWSB 200 LEP no REWSB m 0 (GeV) Φ(p - )=3x10-7 GeV -1 cm -2 s -1 sr -1 Φ(γ)=10-10 cm -2 s -1 Φ sun (µ)=40 km -2 yr -1 (S/B) e+ =0.01 m h =114.4 GeV m 0 (GeV) Φ(p - ) 3e-7 GeV -1 cm -2 s -1 sr -1 (S/B) e+ =0.01 Φ(γ)=10-10 cm -2 s -1 Φ sun (µ)=40 km -2 yr -1 m h =114.4 GeV 0<Ωh 2 <0.129 σ(z ~ 1 p)=10-9 pb Φ earth (µ)=40 km -2 yr -1 σ(z ~ 1 p)=10-9 pb 0< Ωh 2 < HB, Belyaev, Krupovnickas, O Farrill H. Baer, ILC and Cosmology, Snowmass,

20 SUGRA models with non-universal scalars Normal scalar mass hierarchy (NMH): 1700 m 0 (1,2) = 100GeV, m 0 (3) = 1400GeV, m 1/2 = 550GeV, A 0 = 0, tanβ = 30, µ > 0, m t = 175GeV HB, Belyaev, Krupovnickas, Mustafayev 1500 b ~ R ~ tl τ ~ L BF (b sγ) prefers heavy 3rd gen. squarks H d u ~ L τ ~ R ~ tr (g 2) µ prefers light 2nd gen. sleptons 900 u ~ R, d~ R m 0 (1) m 0 (2) m 0 (3) (preserve FCNC bounds) m (GeV) e ~ L motivation: reconcile BF (b sγ) with (g 2) µ 100 e ~ R H u Q(GeV) H. Baer, ILC and Cosmology, Snowmass,

21 Normal scalar mass hierarchy: parameter space m0 (1) ' m0 (2) m0 (3) LHC: light sleptons, enhanced leptonic cascade decays ILC: first two gen. sleptons likely accessible; squarks/staus heavy msugra, tgβ=30, µ>0, A0=0, mtop=175 GeV,m01,2=100 GeV + e e input for δaµ LEP2 excluded stau LSP sqrt(χ2) 3 m1/2 (GeV) NO REWSB m03 (TeV) H. Baer, ILC and Cosmology, Snowmass,

22 SUGRA models with non-universal Higgs mass (NUHM1) m 2 H u = m 2 H d m 2 φ m 0: HB, Belyaev, Mustafayev, Profumo, Tata motivation: SO(10) SUSYGUTs where Ĥu,d φ(10) while matter ψ(16) m 2 φ m 0 higgsino DM for any m 0, m 1/2 m 2 φ < 0 can have A-funnel for any tan β m 0 =300GeV, m 1/2 =300GeV, tanβ=10, A 0 =0, µ>0, m t =178GeV Ωh WMAP m φ / m 0 m (TeV) µ m χ m A m φ / m 0 H. Baer, ILC and Cosmology, Snowmass,

23 NUHM2 (2-parameter case) m 2 H u m 2 H d m 0 : HB, Belyaev, Mustafayev, Profumo, Tata motivation: SU(5) SUSYGUTs where Ĥu φ(5), Ĥ d φ( 5) can re-parametrize m 2 H u, m 2 H d µ, m A (Ellis, Olive, Santoso) large S term in RGEs light ũ R, c R squarks, mẽl < mẽr NUHM2: m 0 =300GeV, m 1/2 =300GeV, tanβ=10, A 0 =0, m t =178GeV µ (GeV) 900 Ah GS HS τ ~ sqrt(χ 2 ) 400 msugra NUHM LEP m A (GeV) H. Baer, ILC and Cosmology, Snowmass,

24 Gaugino mass non-universality M 1 M 2 M 3 : HB, Krupovnickas, Mustafayev, Park, Profumo, Tata motivation: SUSYGUTs where gauge kinetic function transforms non-trivially M 2 M 1 at M GUT : mixed wino dark matter (MWDM) M 2 M 1 at M GUT : bino-wino co-annihilation (BWCA) H. Baer, ILC and Cosmology, Snowmass,

25 Gaugino mass non-universality: low M 3 case M 3 = 1 2 M 2 = 1 2 M 1 lower M 3 small µ so higgsino-enhanced annihilation rates lower Ω ez1 h 2 Belanger, Boudjema, Cottrant, Pukhov, Semenov H. Baer, ILC and Cosmology, Snowmass,

26 SUGRA models beyond MSSM: NMSSM Add extra singlet SF Ŝ motivation: introduce µ parameter via SUSY breaking 3 neutral scalar higgs, 2 pseudoscalars and 5 neutralinos M 2 [GeV] 800 Ωh 2 = WMAP 400 Ωh 2 = µ [GeV] Belanger, Boudjema, Hugonie, Pukhov, Semenov; Ellwanger, Gunion, Hugonie H. Baer, ILC and Cosmology, Snowmass,

27 Conclusions SUSY is standard way beyond the SM SUGRA models most naturally encompass DM: thermal WIMPS WMAP bound Ω ez1 h 2 = ± especially constraining bulk, τ coann., HB/FP, A-funnel, h-funnel, t 1 coann. Various regions distinct collider/dm signatures Non-universality normal mass hierarchy NUHM1, NUHM2 models gaugino mass non-universality: MWDM, BWCA, low M 3 Beyond MSSM? e.g. NMSSM If weak scale SUSY exists, ILC will be critical tool and provide a window to GUT/Planck scale physics H. Baer, ILC and Cosmology, Snowmass,