Theoretical Developments Beyond the Standard Model by Ben Allanach (DAMTP, Cambridge University) Talk outline Bestiary of some relevant models SUSY dark matter Spins and alternatives B.C. Allanach p.1/18
Hadronic SUSY Measurements b b l + l g b2 χ 0 2 l χ 0 1 Events/0.5 GeV/100 fb -1 400 300 200 100 205.7 / 197 P1 2209. P2 108.7 P3 1.291 m 2 ll = (m2 χ 0 m 2 l )(m 2 l m 2 2 χ 0 1) m 2 l 0 0 50 100 150 M ll (GeV) Q: Can we measure enough of these to pin SUSY down B.C. Allanach p.2/18
Shapes Shape of invariant mass distribution obviously difficult due to detector effects. There are now analytical expressions: Miller, Osland, Raklev, hep-ph/0510356 Some anti-sm cuts distort analytical shape Shape largely survives modelled detector effects Feet are dangerous -1 Events/10 GeV/50 fb 250 200 150 m l(low) -1 Events/10 GeV/50 fb 250 200 150 m l(high) -1 Events/10 GeV/50 fb 160 140 120 100 80 m ll 100 100 60 50 50 40 20 0 0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450 500 m [GeV] l 0 0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450 500 m [GeV] l 0 0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450 500 m [GeV] ll B.C. Allanach p.3/18
R-Parity Violation There are now some R-parity violating msugra benchmarks a τ/ ν LSP 2 or 4-body decays. Lots of τs One benchmark with cm decay length One benchmark with jets http://hepforge.cedar.ac.uk/ allanach/rpv/ All benchmarks pass current experimental constraints. a BCA, Bernhardt, Dreiner, Kom, Richardson, coming very soon B.C. Allanach p.4/18
SUSY Dark Matter astro-ph/0608407 χ 0 1 p σ χ 0 1 p B.C. Allanach p.5/18
Constraints on SUSY Models msugra well-studied in literature a : eg Ellis, Olive et al PLB565 (2003) 176; Baltz, Gondolo, JHEP 0410 (2004) 052 m 0 (GeV) 800 700 m h = 114 GeV 600 500 m χ ± = 104 GeV 400 300 200 100 0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000 m 1/2 (GeV) tan β = 10, µ > 0 m 0 (TeV) 4 3.5 3 2.5 2 1.5 1 0.5 0 0 0.20.40.60.8 1 1.21.41.61.8 2 M 1/2 (TeV) P/P(max) a BCA, Lester hep-ph/0507283, hep-ph/0601089 B.C. Allanach p.6/18
Dark Matter Caveats Implicitly assumed that LSP constitutes all of dark matter Assumed radiation domination in post-inflation era. No clear evidence between freeze-out+bbn that this is the case (t e changes). Examples of non-standard cosmology that would change the prediction: Extra degrees of freedom Low reheating temperature Extra dimensional models Anisotropic cosmologies Non-thermal production of neutralinos (late decays?) B.C. Allanach p.7/18
Collider SUSY Dark Matter Production Strong sparticle production and decay to dark matter particles. 7 TeV p p 7 TeV,g,g Interaction ~ ~ χ 0 1 χ 0 1 Q: Can we measure enough to predict σ? B.C. Allanach p.8/18
Collider SUSY Dark Matter Production Strong sparticle production and decay to dark matter particles. 7 TeV p p 7 TeV,g,g Interaction ~ ~ χ 0 1 Any dark matter candidate that couples to hadrons can be produced at the LHC χ 0 1 B.C. Allanach p.8/18
Collider SUSY Dark Matter Production Strong sparticle production and decay to dark matter particles. 7 TeV p p 7 TeV,g,g Interaction ~ ~ χ 0 1 Don t know lifetime - need confirmation from direct detection χ 0 1 B.C. Allanach p.8/18
Cosmological Constant Cosmological constant Λ (10 3 ev ) 4 provides a much worse hierarchy than Higgs fine tuning. Perhaps same thing that solves cosmological constant fine-tuning solves Higgs fine-tuning - a logical possibility eg string landscape. Some of Suggestion is to have all scalars except Higgs at say M GUT 10 16 GeV but light gauginos to: Preserve gauge unification Have IMP candidate Solve SUSY flavour problem, proton decay etc Q: Throw away SUSY altogether? Arkani-Hamed, Dimopoulos, hep-ph/0405159 B.C. Allanach p.9/18
Split SUSY Gluinos are uasi-stable and form R hadrons: neutral or charged. Γ 1 g χ 0 m 4 1 Look like a slow heavy muon that loses some of its energy in interactions with the detector. Charginos/neutralinos decay through mixing effects. Kilian et al, hep-ph/0408088, Kraan hep-ex/0404001 B.C. Allanach p.10/18
UED 5D model compactified on 1 TeV S 1 /Z 2 : everything in bulk Get KK copies of SM separated by TeV: KK parity ( 1) n. m 2 n = (n/r) 2 + m 2 SM Probably only the first level will be measurable at LHC, and they cascade decay down to the LKP copy of the photon (a dark matter candidate!) Earned UED the title bosonic supersymmetry, worried that it could be confused with SUSY model through cascade decays through the various KK modes. Cheng et al, hep-ph/0205314 B.C. Allanach p.11/18
Spins at LHC Crucial check of SUSY is spin (cf UED). Consider L l l: m m l /m l (max) = sin θ/2 dp (l + /l ) dm = 4m 3, dp (l /l + ) dm = 4m(1 m 2 whereas pure PS is always 2m. Seems hopeless, since we cannot tag uarks vs anti-uarks (average is PS). pp collider leads to spin-generated lepton charge asymmetry A + = m jl + m jl m jl ++m jl Barr, hep-ph/0405052 Smillie, ebber, hep-ph/0507170 B.C. Allanach p.12/18
Spins at LHC Crucial check of SUSY is spin (cf UED). Consider L l l: m m l /m l (max) = sin θ/2 dp (l + /l ) dm = 4m 3, dp (l /l + ) dm = 4m(1 m 2 whereas pure PS is always 2m. Seems hopeless, since we cannot tag uarks vs anti-uarks (average is PS). pp collider leads to spin-generated lepton charge asymmetry Gluino spin+di-leptons Alves, Éboli, Plehn, hep-ph/0605067 g b 1 χ 0 2 l χ 0 1 tag charge of b s B.C. Allanach p.12/18
Spins at LHC Crucial check of SUSY is spin (cf UED). Consider L l l: m m l /m l (max) = sin θ/2 dp (l + /l ) dm = 4m 3, dp (l /l + ) dm = 4m(1 m 2 whereas pure PS is always 2m. Seems hopeless, since we cannot tag uarks vs anti-uarks (average is PS). pp collider leads to spin-generated lepton charge asymmetry More general spins Athanasiou, Lester, Smillie, ebber, hep-ph/0605286; ibid hep-ph/0606212 A 0.4 0.3 0.2 0.1 0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0 SFSF FVFV FSFS, FSFV FVFS SFVF 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 B.C. Allanach p.12/18
Higgsless Models Unitarity violation through longitudinal weak boson scattering: Z Z Z Z Z Z M = (g 4 g3 2 )[(c2 6c 3)E 4 + (c 2 3c 2)MZ 2 (c 2 9c 4)M s E2 ] + g3 2 MZ 4 (1 c) 2M 2 E 2 + Higgs normally gets rid of E 2,4 terms. B.C. Allanach p.13/18
Unitarity is lost at Λ 4πM /g 1.8 TeV. Precision E constraints usually rule out strongly interacting physics at this scale. However, can increase this scale by adding extra bosons if g 4 = g3 2 + i g 2 i 3 Z Z Z Z 2(g 4 g3)(m 2 2 + MZ) 2 + g3m 2 Z/M 4 2 = g i 2 2 [3M i (MZ 2 M 2 ) 2 /M i 2 ] i 3 B.C. Allanach p.14/18
Unitarity Cancellation In KK theories summing up infinite number of modes yields the relations exactly because of 5D gauge symmetry. However, strong coupling scale provides another cut off but can be increase Λ a factor of 10 and pass the E constraints. Birkedal et al hep-ph/04122 B.C. Allanach p.15/18
Little Higgs Global SU(5) SO(5) non linear sigma model broken by 24. Gauged subgroup (SU(2) U(1)) 2 SU(2) L U(1) Y. The pions are: 1 0 3 0 H 2 1/2 3 ±1 1 0, 3 0 eaten when gauge group broken. Gauge generators embedded such that if we globalise an initial SU(2) U(1) by g 0, H would be an exact Goldstone boson, i.e. massless. Mass terms generated at one-loop are only log divergent: hierarchy only a problem if Λ > 10 s of TeV. Q: SUSY? B.C. Allanach p.16/18
T-Parity Original model had problems with T parameter. T Parity swaps the two SU(2) U(1) groups and protects, Z (T = 1) from tree-level interactions with, Z (T = +1). Also, protects the triplet (T = 1) from getting a VEV, since H is T = +1. Add additional vector-like representations of singlet double fermions for each E doublet to cancel uartic and one-loop uadratic divergences. T parity relieves the tuning associated with original little Higgs models in order to be compatible with T -parameter. Lightest T -odd particle can be hypercharge boson prime: forms dark matter candidate. Theory Overview: Cheng SUSY/Exotics and Low, hep-ph/0405243; Hubisz et al, hep-ph/0506042 B.C. Allanach p.17/18
Final Slide An additional parity (R, T or KK) in order to keep lightest parity-odd partner stable Associated dark matter candidate As long as it s lighter than a few TeV and couples to hadrons, we ll be producing it at the LHC: this would be a fantastic collider window into cosmology! B.C. Allanach p.18/18