* Your assessment is very important for improving the workof artificial intelligence, which forms the content of this project
Download Slide 1
ALICE experiment wikipedia , lookup
String theory wikipedia , lookup
Strangeness production wikipedia , lookup
Bell's theorem wikipedia , lookup
Electron scattering wikipedia , lookup
Old quantum theory wikipedia , lookup
Symmetry in quantum mechanics wikipedia , lookup
Relational approach to quantum physics wikipedia , lookup
Quantum electrodynamics wikipedia , lookup
Identical particles wikipedia , lookup
Introduction to quantum mechanics wikipedia , lookup
Quantum field theory wikipedia , lookup
Relativistic quantum mechanics wikipedia , lookup
Higgs boson wikipedia , lookup
Canonical quantization wikipedia , lookup
Quantum gravity wikipedia , lookup
An Exceptionally Simple Theory of Everything wikipedia , lookup
Renormalization group wikipedia , lookup
AdS/CFT correspondence wikipedia , lookup
Compact Muon Solenoid wikipedia , lookup
ATLAS experiment wikipedia , lookup
Weakly-interacting massive particles wikipedia , lookup
Yang–Mills theory wikipedia , lookup
Search for the Higgs boson wikipedia , lookup
Renormalization wikipedia , lookup
Topological quantum field theory wikipedia , lookup
Large Hadron Collider wikipedia , lookup
Quantum chromodynamics wikipedia , lookup
History of quantum field theory wikipedia , lookup
Scalar field theory wikipedia , lookup
Higgs mechanism wikipedia , lookup
Technicolor (physics) wikipedia , lookup
Future Circular Collider wikipedia , lookup
Theory of everything wikipedia , lookup
Mathematical formulation of the Standard Model wikipedia , lookup
Grand Unified Theory wikipedia , lookup
Elementary particle wikipedia , lookup
Minimal Supersymmetric Standard Model wikipedia , lookup
• SUPERSYMMETRY: – WHAT? WHY? WHEN? WHERE? Gordy Kane, University of Michigan Beijing, May 2014 • Introduction – the Standard Model(s) of particle physics and cosmology • What is supersymmetry (the supersymmetric Standard Model)? • Why do so many physicists think nature is supersymmetric? (over 20,000 papers) • When and where should the new particles predicted by supersymmetry (“superpartners”) be discovered? • Perspectives – briefly describe modern view of supersymmetry as implied by M/string theory rather than as an ad hoc electroweak scale theory – final remarks STANDARD MODEL OF PARTICLE PHYSICS Strong, Electromagnetic, Weak interactions + classical gravity o All we see is made up of electrons (e), up quarks (u), down quarks (d)! [quarks are particles like electrons, but with different electric charge and mass, and having an additional, strong, interaction] o Gauge theory, form of force determined -- Quarks interact via gluons, bind to make protons (p), neutrons (n) – leakage of the strong force outside p,n binds p,n to form nuclei [gluons like photons, but in addition they have the strong interaction] o Electrons bind to nuclei via photons to make atoms – leakage of the electromagnetic force outside atoms binds atoms to form molecules o Not just metaphors, full quantitative relativistic quantum field theory o Essentially all e,u,d were produced in the Big Bang o Higgs bosons THERE ARE MORE PARTICLES MATTER: -- charged “leptons” µ, τ – like e but heavier -- quarks s,c,b,t – like u,d but heavier -- neutrinos (ν) – one each for e,µ,τ – extremely light, no charge Form 3 “families” u,d,νe, e s,c,νµ,µ b,t,ντ,τ NO IDEA WHY – all but e,u,d short-lived or do not bind – SM fully accommodates them and describes their behavior – not explained by supersymmetry DARK MATTER – not part of SM • Always before found smaller constituents • No more – we think these are the true constituents • Why? o Suggested by experiment – have looked 100,000 times deeper than naïve expectation if there were structure o For bound states, like atoms or the periodic table, usually many such states, no end – here strong evidence just 3 families o Have for first time a consistent theory that treats e,q as basic – theory describes and relates many phenomena so if change it whole structure collapses o If e,q basic can unify description of forces Description of e,q may change – e.g. may think of them as strings instead of point particles, but still electrons and quarks HUGE PROGRESS IN UNDERSTANDING FORCES o In SM, existence of particles implies forces (in q.th.) electron photon with correct interactions we understand light! o All forces have same form o Forces seem to have different strengths – can ask how they behave if extrapolate them to high energies (short distances) – strengths get similar in SM (become same in supersymmetric Standard Model) electrical magnetic weak strong electromagnetic electroweak “grand unified”? gravity string theory? HIGGS PHYSICS – last piece of SM • Accommodating parity violation in the Standard Model implies electrons and quarks are massless • That’s because electrons and quarks inhabit an “electroweak” space – in that space, left-handed (L) electrons and quarks behave as if they had “EWspin” ½, and right-handed (R) ones as if they had “EWspin” 0 • Not explained in SM, that’s just how it is (this is one of the things we would like to explain) • Then if e,q have mass, can go to their rest frame, rotate ordinary spin so L ↔ R, but then they have the wrong EW spin, so inconsistent – only two ways out o e, q massless o Add Higgs field with EWspin ½, and claim that energy of universe is lower when that higgs field has non-zero value than when zero – allows RH electron to behave as if had EWspin ½ o Jargon – Higgs field has non-zero “vacuum expectation value”, breaks the EW symmetry! Interactions with Higgs bosons give mass to quarks, leptons, W, Z, maybe some dark matter. Mass of atom 1/(Melectron) so atoms become infinite in size if no Higgs mechanism Higgs field Higgs bosons are quanta of Higgs field Higgs mechanism is interaction of Higgs field with quarks, leptons, gauge bosons Over 99% of proton, neutron masses due to KE of motion of quarks and gluons in proton, neutron, not to Higgs interaction STANDARD MODEL OF COSMOLOGY • The universe begins tiny, contains some (unstable) energy density, and 3 space dimensions inflate • After very short time energy density converts into “radiation”, i.e. (massless) particles Big Bang • Universe cools and expands – today ~ 4% neutrons and protons (ordinary matter), ~ 25% dark matter, ~ 70% dark energy • Description works from world around us to the edge of the observable universe, back to 10-35 sec (or even earlier) after universe began A little over a century ago it was not agreed that atoms exist, and we had essentially no knowledge of weak and strong forces, nor of the fundamental particles, nor did we know the universe and the earth had histories! • The Standard Model(s) of particle physics and cosmology are wonderful, amazing – based on many remarkable experiments, and powerful innovative theory – achieve historical goals of physics, in a full theory • Describe and explain many phenomena from a few basic particles, forces, and rules – no contradictions in their domain – SM consistent relativistic quantum field theory • Many predictions correct, tests • So why are we confident they will be extended? Because the SMs do not seem compelling, inevitable AND THERE IS MUCH THE STANDARD MODEL(S) CANNOT EXPLAIN o o o o o o o o o o o Neither cosmology nor the SM can tell us what the dark matter is Neither cosmology nor the SM can explain the matter asymmetry Neither cosmology nor the SM can tell us what the dark energy is Neither cosmology nor the SM can tell us the physical nature of the inflaton field The SM cannot tell us why there are 3 families of leptons and quarks The SM cannot give us insight into how to unify gravity and the other forces The SM cannot explain the origin of the Higgs physics The SM cannot allow calculation of the electron or muon or quark masses The SM cannot describe neutrino masses without adding a new mass scale The SM has a quantum hierarchy problem, very serious The SM cannot explain parity violation Remarkably, in past 2-3 decades, have learned that if we hope to understand these things the direction we need to go is to embed our 4D world in additional space-time dimensions Two approaches show great promise for explaining what cosmology and the Standard Model(s) cannot: Supersymmetry – for every space-time dimension add a fermionic quantum dimension – focus here today since this should be the next big discovery String theory – add 6(7) space dimensions like ours, except that ours inflated, others didn’t– only known way to have consistent quantum theory of gravity – all 10 D have a quantum dimension too Imagine small particle – go around several times, returning wave function to initial place – particles are bosons or fermions n even → boson n odd → fermion [bosons are particles with integer spin, fermions with half integer] This is tied to being in 3D – imagine a “superspace” dimension (of zero length) for each of our space-time dimensions Then can go into extra dimension and untwist fermion to get boson (or vice versa) – spin changes by ½ unit ↔ ↔ So every fermion gets a superpartner boson, and vice versa Suggests the idea of supersymmetry (~1973): THE LAWS OF NATURE DON’T CHANGE IF B ↔ F IN THE EQUATIONS DESCRIBING THE LAWS Originally very surprising – matter particles (e,u,d…) were fermions, force particles (γ,g,W,Z) were bosons – in quantum theory they were treated very differently – the idea was studied just to see if it could work Only idea in history of science that emerged purely from theoretical study rather than from trying to understand data, puzzles, observations – studied because it was a beautiful idea TURNED OUT IT MIGHT EXPLAIN MAJOR PROBLEMS (SOME OF) WHAT SUPERSYMMETRY MIGHT DO FOR UNDERSTANDING THE NATURAL WORLD: o 1979 Stabilize the quantum hierarchy (like antiparticles for quantum electrodynamics) o In quantum theory every particle spends time being all other particles virtually …. Explain the quantum hierarchy size (from electroweak scale to unification or Planck scale) ??? – NO – supersymmetry a broken symmetry, analogous to EW symmetry – hierarchy explained if could prove masses of superpartners close to those of SM particles THEN CAN DERIVE MUCH: o 1982 Explain Higgs mechanism o 1983 Explain why the forces look different to us in strength and properties, but become the same at high energies o 1983 Provide a dark matter candidate (the lightest superpartner) o 1991 Allow an explanation of the matter asymmetry of the universe o 1992 Explain why all LEP data is consistent with the Standard Model(s) even though we expect new physics ALL SIMULTANEOUSLY In addition there are theoretical motivations: • If supersymmetry is a local symmetry it implies General Relativity – if Einstein had not invented General Relativity it would have been (i.e. it was) written in 1975 by studying supersymmetry -- supersymmetry transformation affects spin – spin part of angular momentum – generators of angular momentum transformations part of Poincare group – connects to gravity equations • String theory probably requires supersymmetry if it is relevant to understanding nature IF SUPERSYMMETRY RELEVANT, SUPERPARTNERS MUST BE DISCOVERED AT COLLIDERS, SUCH AS TEVATRON, LHC Selectron photino gluino stop squark sneutrino etc They differ by spin ±1/2 and mass from their SM partners None of the existing particles can be superpartners of other existing ones – no two have same quantum numbers and differ by half unit spin – and must have consistent theory without anomalies Supersymmetry is a full mathematical theory Can summarize the perturbative SM by a set of vertices for Feynman diagrams: let fL =e,µ,τ,d,s,b,u,c,t l±=e±,µ±,τ± UR =u,c,t DR =d,s,b ν=νe,νµ,ντ Then all the phenomena in nature that we see involving fermions are described by gravity plus the four vertices: To make the theory supersymmetric, add the vertices with particles turned into superpartners in pairs, all ways Everything is known about the supersymmetric SM except the masses of the particles – only string theory can predict masses from first principles The lightest superpartner (LSP) is very important phenomenologically o Superpartners produced in pairs at colliders o LSPs at end of superpartner decay chains o Can be partner of photon, Z boson, Higgs boson, neutrino, gravitino (could calculate this if superpartner masses known) o Interacts at most weakly, electromagnetically o Normally stable or long-lived -- every event has 2 LSPs, both escape detector o Missing energy a basic signature of superpartners LSP may also be the dark matter of the universe! • Big Bang, universe cools – after a while only γ , e, u, d, , LSP remain • Calculate relic density of LSPs – some annihilate, e.g. • Need to know superpartner properties and cosmologicl history to work out numbers – for reasonable choices, answer about right SOME QUESTIONS √ addressed √√ answered What is matter? What is light? What interactions give our world? Gravity Stabilize quantum hierarchy? Explain hierarchy? Unify force strengths? Higgs physics? What is dark matter? Baryon asymmetry? More than one family? 3? Values of quark, lepton masses? Origin of CP violation? What is the inflaton? Dark energy? Cosmological Constant Problem? What is an electron? Electric charge? Space-time? Why quantum theory? Origin of universe? Standard Model(s) Supersymmetric SM(s), light superpartners √ √√ √ M/String Phenomenology √ √ √√ √√ √ √√ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ WHAT DATA COULD SOON GIVE EVIDENCE FOR SUPERPARTNERS? • DIRECT observation of superpartners at LHC • Indirect, expected from supersymmetry – – o – – Laboratory dark matter detectors Electric dipole moments of e,n (Muon anomalous magnetic moment) Lepton flavor violation (µ→eγ…) Bs→µµ at LHC But indirect observation could be explained other ways Units, energies, luminosities: • E=mc2 so provide collisions of particles • Cross sections in femptobarns (fb) – determined by nature • Luminosity of collider integrated over time, fb-1 – limited by Maxwell’s equations, cost • Number of events = cross section x luminosity • Energies -- BEPC 4 GeV (G=giga=109eV) -- CERN Large Hadron collider, total energy E=7,8 TeV, (T=tera=103GeV) o So far LHC about 20 fb-1 each detector at 7 TeV, being upgraded, start again at 13-14 TeV o Goal about 300 fb-1in 2-3 years, per detector LHC • Two large detectors, ATLAS, CMS • Detectors amazing Signatures of superpartners e.g. Same-Sign (SS) dileptons • g is the superpartner of the gluon g • g a massless spin 1 boson, like photon, so 2 polarization states – so g has 2 polarization states Majorana fermion • So g is its own antiparticle, can decay equally as gluinobar or gluino, so produced pair of gluinos will give gluino gluinobar, gluinobar gluino, gluino gluino, gluinobar gluinobar • If g l± + then • Half of events have SS dileptons! None in SM! Collider signatures of superpartners: e.g. Current status – no superpartner discoveries! Interpretation? Very Model dependent • Simplest models for masses limits, gluinos and squarks heavier than about 1.4 TeV • Best motivated models gluinos heavier than about 0.9 TeV Implications? • If want almost perfect solution of hierarchy problem, would have guessed superpartner masses 100-200 GeV, like top quark and W masses (“naturalness”) • BUT (A) Higgs boson found at LHC -- higgs boson well motivated by supersymmetry – effectively a superpartner – supersymmetry Lagrangian allows derivation of higgs boson -- with superpartner scalars of order 50 TeV, expect SMlike higgs boson, mass of 125 GeV -- so discovery of higgs boson suggestive of supersymmetry if scalars heavy (B) Best motivated models from theories with “ultraviolet completions” suggest gluinos 1 TeV, but squarks tens of TeV(!), so should not have seen squarks yet, and gluinos need luck to see so far – should see gluinos in 2015 at LHC Look briefly at what M/string theories suggest for superpartners If M/string theories are quantum theories of gravity, for mathematical consistency they must have 11/10 dimensions (difference technical, ignore here) So suppose M/string theory is a candidate framework for nature -- then it must contain effectively 4D universe(s) among its solutions, ones that are indistinguishable from ours. In such solutions the extra dimensions are “compactified” to tiny scales comparable with the Planck size “String phenomenology” studies such solutions, relates their properties to data, and aims to answer many of the outstanding questions of particle physics beyond the SM New approach(es) to supersymmetry theory: • Compactify M-Theory on G2 manifold [Acharya, Kane, Bobkov, Kumar….] • 7 small curled up dimensions, all also fermionic • Full soft-breaking Lagrangian calculable • Predicted summer 2011 higgs mass 125 GeV, higgs SM-like • Gravitino mass about 50 TeV – natural scale for supersymmetry • Scalars heavy like gravitino, but gauginos generically suppressed to TeV scale! – Meson F-term dominates moduli F term but SM gauge kinetic function does not depend on meson F term! PAPERS ABOUT M-THEORY COMPACTIFICATIONS ON G2 MANIFOLDS (11 D – 7 small D = our 4D) Earlier work on compactified M theory(stringy, mathematical) : Witten 1995 • Papadopoulos, Townsend th/9506150, 7D manifold with G2 holonomy preserves N=1 supersymmetry • Acharya, hep-th/9812205, non-abelian gauge fields localized on singular 3 cycles • Acharya, hep-th/0011289 Particles! • Atiyah and Witten, hep-th/0107177 • Atiyah, Maldacena, Vafa, hep-th/0011256 • Acharya and Witten, hep-th/0109152, chiral fermions supported at points with conical singularities • Witten, hep-ph/0201018 – shows embedding MSSM probably ok • Beasley and Witten, hep-th/0203061, Kahler form • Friedmann and Witten, th/0211269 • Lukas, Morris hep-th/0305078, gauge kinetic function • Acharya and Gukov, hep-th/0409101 – review – good summary of known results about singularities, holonomy and supersymmetry, etc – all G2 moduli geometric – gravity mediated because two 3-cycles 35 won’t interact directly in 7D manifold ASSUMPTIONS – note none closely related to results – string phenomenology • Compactify M-theory on G2 manifold (in fluxless sector) • No principle yet to set gauge group and matter at compactification scale – choose MSSM • Assume CC problem orthogonal, and that can tune CC to be small • Assume no mathematical obstacles to ok G2 manifold even though not yet known in detail – some predictions not sensitive to details of manifold • Keep approach fully generic, don’t fix any parameters or parameter space regions, don’t introduce any parameters • Assume can use generic Kahler potential (Beasley, Witten 2002). • Assume generic gauge kinetic function (Lukas, Morris 2003). Need two details about compactified string theories: GRAVITINO -- in theories with supersymmetry the graviton has a superpartner, gravitino – when supersymmetry broken, gravitino mass (M3/2 ) splitting from the massless graviton is determined by the form of supersymmetry breaking – gravitino mass sets the mass scale for the theory, for all superpartners, for some dark matter Also: MODULI -- to describe sizes and shapes and metrics of small manifolds the theory provides a number of fields, called “moduli” fields -- supersymmetry breaking generates a potential for all moduli -- moduli fields have definite values in the ground state (vacuum) – jargon is “stabilized” – then measurable quantities such as masses, coupling strengths, etc, are determined in that ground state -- moduli fields like all fields have quanta (also called moduli), with masses fixed by fluctuations around minimum of moduli potential Our M-theory papers --Review arXiv:1204.2795 , Acharya, Kane, Kumar [Acharya, Kane, Vaman, Piyush Kumar, Bobkov, Kuflik, Shao, Lu, Watson, Zheng] o M-Theory Solution to Hierarchy Problem th/0606262, PhysRevLett 97(2006) Stabilized Moduli, TeV scale, squark masses = gravitino mass, heavy; gaugino masses suppressed 0701034 o Spectrum, scalars heavy, wino-like LSP, large trilinears (no R-symmetry) 0801.0478 o Study moduli, Nonthermal cosmological history– generically moduli 30 TeV so gravitino 30 TeV, squarks gravitino so squarks 30 TeV 0804.0863 o CP Phases in M-theory (weak CPV OK) and EDMs 0905.2986 o Lightest moduli masses gravitino mass 1006.3272 (Douglas Denef 2004; Gomez-Reino, Scrucca 2006) o o o o o o Axions stabilized, strong CP OK, string axions OK 1004.5138 Gluino, Multi-top searches at LHC (also Suruliz, Wang) 0901.336 No flavor problems, (also Velasco-Sevilla Kersten, Kadota) Theory, phenomenology of µ in M-theory 1102.0566 via Witten Baryogenesis, ratio of DM to baryons (also Watson, Yu) 1108.5178 String-motivated approach to little hierarchy problem, (also Feldman) 1105.3765 Higgs Mass Prediction 1112.1059 (Kumar, Lu, Zheng) o R-parity conservation, EDMs, top yukawa, Neff , future colliders? To take Higgs results fully seriously good to know other major physics questions addressed OK in same theory 39 Think of effective theories for Higgs sector, LHC, superpartners, CPV both strong and weak, EDMs, rare b decays, R-parity violation, axions, cosmological history, dark matter, etc In normal effective theory all operators have independent coefficients – in compactified M theory all coefficients are determined, all are related to one another, and calculable! 1112.1059, Kane, Kumar, Lu, Zheng, August 2011 M3/2=100 M3/2=50 M3/2=25 Points are REWSB, no free parameters, gravatino= 50 TeV, µ=1 TeV, This shows effect of doubling or halving gravitino mass, Mh 1.5 GeV 41 100 TeV Final remarks: Naturalness? Fine-tuning? Little hierarchy? Of course compactified string theory is natural in some sense. Opposite of naturalness is having a theory. ---------- Mpl 1018 GeV susy (chiral fermion, gaugino M/String theory: condensation1014GeV) Radiative EWSB ---------- M3/2 30-60 TeV TeV String theory gaugino suppression ------------Mgluino ------------Mchargino, neutralino 44 Why does supersymmetry provide explanations, predictions? • Dirac: Special Relativity + quantum theory antiparticles + explained spin (and QED renormalizable) • Fermions + bosons superpartners + (possible) explanations • Gravity + relativistic quantum field theory M/string theory extra dimensions + (possible) explanations Remember: The Standard Models of particle physics and cosmology provide a very good description of all we see Supersymmetry relates matter particles, force particles – might provide unification of understanding of forces, explanation of Higgs physics, dark matter, matter asymmetry…. Supersymmetry also provides essential window to connect phenomena to underlying theory (such as string theory) at fundamental scale If supersymmetry indeed explains what it might explain, then some superpartners must be discovered at colliders Theories with ultraviolet completions suggest natural scale of supersymmetry is gravitino mass 50 TeV – gauginos generically suppressed to TeV Dirac ~ 1929, led by “beautiful” theory to unify relativity and quantum theory antiparticles, spin … -- 1932 positron -- 1956 antiproton (~ 27 years longer since needed new accelerator) Dirac, late 1970s “[supersymmetry] is indeed a beautiful theory, but if it were a true symmetry of nature, those new fermions and bosons would have been found long ago” True – but we have learned broken symmetries are beautiful too – breaking of EW symmetry and supersymmetry related Supersymmetry idea discovered early 1970s – prematurely – understood as effective theory early 1980s – indirect evidence strong by early 1990s – hopefully direct evidence soon at LHC