Qu as i-Chiral Exotics - hep.upenn.edu · Qu as i-Chiral Exotics (J. Kan g, PL , B . Ne lson, in p...

Quasi-Chiral Exotics

(J. Kang, PL, B. Nelson, in progress)

• Exotic fermions (anomaly-cancellation)

• Examples in 27-plet of E6

– DL + DR (SU(2) singlets, chiral wrt U(1)!)

–

!E0

E"

"

L

+

!E0

E"

"

R

(SU(2) doublets, chiral wrt U(1)!)

• Pair produce D + D by QCD processes (smaller rate for exotic leptons)

• Lightest may decay by mixing; by diquark or leptoquark coupling;or be quasi-stable

22nd Henry Primako! Lecture Paul Langacker (3/1/2006)

Primakoff Effect

d3!

d"3=# $

o%&&

8'Z2

m$

3

($

3E

&

4

Q4

Fe.m.

Q2

sin2)$






–

!E0

E"

"

L

+

!E0

E"

"

R





The Standard Model and Strings - Can They Be Connected?

• The standard model

• Testing the standard model

• Problems

• Beyond the standard model

• Where are we going?

Chicago (12/1/2005) Paul Langacker (FNAL/Penn/IAS)

0 100 200 300M

!0

1

(GeV)

0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1

|N15|2

(

Sin

gli

no

in

!0

1)

NMSSMnMSSMUMSSM

|N16

|2 in UMSSM

• The standard model

• Testing the standard model

• Problems

• Beyond the standard model

• New TeV physics suggestedby string constructions

• Where are we going?







–

!E0

E"

"

L

+

!E0

E"

"

R





The New Standard Model

• Standard model, supplemented with neutrino mass (Dirac orMajorana):

SU(3)!SU(2)!U(1)!classical relativity

• Mathematically consistent field theory of strong, weak,electromagnetic interactions

• Gauge interactions correct to first approximation to 10!16 cm

• Complicated, free parameters, fine tunings "must be new physics

WIN 05 (June 11, 2005) Paul Langacker (Penn)






–

!E0

E"

"

L

+

!E0

E"

"

R





The Fundamental Forces

Strong Electromagnetic Weak Gravity

!

!

!

!

!0

pionn

n

p

p

! " ! " ! "# $ # $ # $!

!

!

!

G

gluonu

u

d

d%&%&%&'('('(!

!

!

!

"

photon

p

p

e!

e!

! " ! " ! "# $ # $ # $!

!

""

""

""

! #W !

IVB

#ee!

n

p

%&%&%&'('('(!

!

!

!

g

graviton

(spin 2)

V = g2!

e!m!r

re2r g2e!MW r

rGN

m1m2r

strength: g2!

4! "14 $ = e24! " 1

137g2E2

M2W

" 10!11

(E = 1 MeV)

GNm1m2"10!38

(m1=m2=1 GeV)

range: hm!c "

10!13 cm # 1 fm

$ hMW c " 10!16 cm $

Introductory slides Paul Langacker (Penn)






–

!E0

E"

"

L

+

!E0

E"

"

R





Unification of Forces

Strong Electromagnetic Weak Gravity

hadrons: p, n;pions: !±, !0;(QCD: quarks,gluons)

charged particles:e!, µ!, "!;p; !±

p, n, !; e, µ, " ;,neutrinos:#e, #µ, #"

all particles (alwaysattractive)

nuclear binding;energy in stars

atoms, crystals,molecules; light;chemical energy

decays: n "pe!#e; elementsynthesis

weight; binding ofsolar system, stars,galaxies

# E + B "(Maxwell)

# QCD "# Electroweak (SU(2)$U(1)) "

# Grand Unification (GUT)? "# Theory of Everything (superstring)? "







–

!E0

E"

"

L

+

!E0

E"

"

R





Gauge Theories

• Gauge symmetry requires existence of (apparently) massless spin-1(vector, gauge) bosons

• Interactions prescribed up to group, representations, gaugecoupling

• Analogous to QED (U(1)), but gauge self interactions for non-abelian groups

• Standard model: SU(3)!SU(2)!U(1)

• Application to strong (short range) " confinement

• Application to weak (short range) " spontaneous symmetrybreaking (Higgs or dynamical)

• Unique renormalizable field theory for spin-1







–

!E0

E"

"

L

+

!E0

E"

"

R





The Standard Model

• Gauge group SU(3)!SU(2)!U(1); gauge couplings gs, g, g!

!ud

"

L

!ud

"

L

!ud

"

L

!!e

e"

"

L

uR uR uR !eR(?)dR dR dR e"

R

( L = left-handed, R = right-handed)

• SU(3): u " u " u, d " d " d (gluons)

• SU(2): uL " dL, !eL " e"L (W ±); phases (W 0)

• U(1): phases (B)

• Heavy families (c, s, !µ, µ"), (t, b, !τ , "")







–

!E0

E"

"

L

+

!E0

E"

"

R





Quantum Chromodynamics (QCD)

Modern theory of the strong interactions

NYS APS (October 15, 2004) Paul Langacker (Penn)

9. Quantum chromodynamics 7

0.1 0.12 0.14

Average

Hadronic Jets

Polarized DIS

Deep Inelastic Scattering (DIS)

! decays

Z width

Fragmentation

Spectroscopy (Lattice)

ep event shapes

Photo-production

" decay

e+e

- rates

#s(M

Z)

Figure 9.1: Summary of the value of !s(MZ) from various processes. The valuesshown indicate the process and the measured value of !s extrapolated to µ = MZ .The error shown is the total error including theoretical uncertainties. The averagequoted in this report which comes from these measurements is also shown. See textfor discussion of errors.

theoretical estimates. If the nonperturbative terms are omitted from the fit, the extractedvalue of !s(m! ) decreases by ! 0.02.

For !s(m! ) = 0.35 the perturbative series for R! is R! ! 3.058(1+0.112+0.064+0.036).The size (estimated error) of the nonperturbative term is 20% (7%) of the size of theorder !3

s term. The perturbation series is not very well convergent; if the order !3s term

is omitted, the extracted value of !s(m! ) increases by 0.05. The order !4s term has been

estimated [47] and attempts made to resum the entire series [48,49]. These estimates canbe used to obtain an estimate of the errors due to these unknown terms [50,51]. Anotherapproach to estimating this !4

s term gives a contribution that is slightly larger than the!3

s term [52].R! can be extracted from the semi-leptonic branching ratio from the relation

R! = 1/(B(" " e##) # 1.97256); where B(" " e##) is measured directly or extractedfrom the lifetime, the muon mass, and the muon lifetime assuming universality of lepton

December 20, 2005 11:23

18 9. Quantum chromodynamics

0

0.1

0.2

0.3

1 10 102

µ GeV

!s(µ

)

Figure 9.2: Summary of the values of !s(µ) at the values of µ where they aremeasured. The lines show the central values and the ±1" limits of our average.The figure clearly shows the decrease in !s(µ) with increasing µ. The data are,in increasing order of µ, # width, $ decays, deep inelastic scattering, e+e! eventshapes at 22 GeV from the JADE data, shapes at TRISTAN at 58 GeV, Z width,and e+e! event shapes at 135 and 189 GeV.

The value of !s at any scale corresponding to our average can be obtainedfrom http://www-theory.lbl.gov/!ianh/alpha/alpha.html which uses Eq. (9.5) tointerpolate.

References:1. R.K. Ellis et al., “QCD and Collider Physics” (Cambridge 1996).2. For reviews see, for example, A.S. Kronfeld and P.B. Mackenzie, Ann. Rev. Nucl.

and Part. Sci. 43, 793 (1993);H. Wittig, Int. J. Mod. Phys. A12, 4477 (1997).

3. For example see, P. Gambino, International Conference on Lepton PhotonInteractions, Fermilab, USA, (2003); J. Butterworth International Conference onLepton Photon Interactions, Upsala, Sweden, (2005).

December 20, 2005 11:23






–

!E0

E"

"

L

+

!E0

E"

"

R





Quantum Electrodynamics

Experiment Value of !!1 Di!erence from !!1(ae)

Deviation from gyromagnetic 137.035 999 58 (52) [3.8 " 10!9] –

ratio, ae = (g ! 2)/2 for e!

ac Josephson e!ect 137.035 988 0 (51) [3.7 " 10!8] (0.116 ± 0.051) " 10!4

h/mn (mn is the neutron mass) 137.036 011 9 (51) [3.7 " 10!8] (!0.123 ± 0.051) " 10!4

from n beam

Hyperfine structure in 137.035 993 2 (83) [6.0 " 10!8] (0.064 ± 0.083) " 10!4

muonium, µ+e!

Cesium D1 line 137.035 992 4 (41) [3.0 " 10!8] (0.072 ± 0.041) " 10!4

Yoichiro Nambu Symposium (April 21, 2005) Paul Langacker (Penn)

Quantum Electrodynamics

Experiment Value of !!1 Di!erence from !!1(ae)

Deviation from gyromagnetic 137.035 999 58 (52) [3.8 " 10!9] –

ratio, ae = (g ! 2)/2 for e!

ac Josephson e!ect 137.035 988 0 (51) [3.7 " 10!8] (0.116 ± 0.051) " 10!4

h/mn (mn is the neutron mass) 137.036 011 9 (51) [3.7 " 10!8] (!0.123 ± 0.051) " 10!4

from n beam

Hyperfine structure in 137.035 993 2 (83) [6.0 " 10!8] (0.064 ± 0.083) " 10!4

muonium, µ+e!

Cesium D1 line 137.035 992 4 (41) [3.0 " 10!8] (0.072 ± 0.041) " 10!4







–

!E0

E"

"

L

+

!E0

E"

"

R





The Electroweak Theory

• QED and weak charged currentunified

• Weak neutral current (Z) predicted(!N!!X, atomic parity violation)

• Stringent tests of wnc, Z-pole andbeyond

• Fermion gauge and gauge selfinteractions







–

!E0

E"

"

L

+

!E0

E"

"

R





Measurement Fit |Omeas

!Ofit|/"

meas

0 1 2 3

0 1 2 3

#$had

(mZ)#$

(5)0.02758 ± 0.00035 0.02767

mZ [GeV]m

Z [GeV] 91.1875 ± 0.0021 91.1874

%Z [GeV]%

Z [GeV] 2.4952 ± 0.0023 2.4959

"had

[nb]"0

41.540 ± 0.037 41.478

Rl

Rl

20.767 ± 0.025 20.742

Afb

A0,l

0.01714 ± 0.00095 0.01643

Al(P

&)A

l(P

&) 0.1465 ± 0.0032 0.1480

Rb

Rb

0.21629 ± 0.00066 0.21579

Rc

Rc

0.1721 ± 0.0030 0.1723

Afb

A0,b

0.0992 ± 0.0016 0.1038

Afb

A0,c

0.0707 ± 0.0035 0.0742

Ab

Ab

0.923 ± 0.020 0.935

Ac

Ac

0.670 ± 0.027 0.668

Al(SLD)Al(SLD) 0.1513 ± 0.0021 0.1480

sin2'

effsin

2'

lept(Q

fb) 0.2324 ± 0.0012 0.2314

mW

[GeV]mW

[GeV] 80.410 ± 0.032 80.377

%W

[GeV]%W

[GeV] 2.123 ± 0.067 2.092

mt [GeV]mt [GeV] 172.7 ± 2.9 173.3






–

!E0

E"

"

L

+

!E0

E"

"

R





• SM correct and unique to zerothapprox. (gauge principle, group,representations)

• SM correct at loop level (renormgauge theory; mt, !s, MH)

• TeV physics severely constrained(unification vs compositeness)

• Consistent with light elementaryHiggs

• Precise gauge couplings (gaugeunification)


0

1

2

3

4

5

6

10030 300

mH [GeV]

!"

2

Excluded

!#had

=!#(5)

0.02758±0.00035

0.02749±0.00012

incl. low Q2 data

Theory uncertainty






–

!E0

E"

"

L

+

!E0

E"

"

R





Problems with the Standard Model

Lagrangian after symmetry breaking:

L = Lgauge + LHiggs +!

i

!i

"i !" " mi "

miH

#

#!i

"g

2#

2

$Jµ

W W !µ + Jµ†

W W +µ

%" eJµ

QAµ "g

2 cos $WJµ

ZZµ

Standard model: SU(2)$U(1) (extended to include # masses) +QCD + general relativity

Mathematically consistent, renormalizable theory

Correct to 10!16 cm

Physics at LHC (July 16, 2004) Paul Langacker (Penn)






–

!E0

E"

"

L

+

!E0

E"

"

R





However, too much arbitrariness and fine-tuning: O(27) parameters(+ 2 for Majorana !) and electric charges

• Gauge Problem

– complicated gauge group with 3 couplings

– charge quantization (|qe| = |qp|) unexplained– Possible solutions: strings; grand unification; magnetic

monopoles (partial); anomaly constraints (partial)

• Fermion problem

– Fermion masses, mixings, families unexplained– Neutrino masses, nature? Probe of Planck/GUT scale?– CP violation inadequate to explain baryon asymmetry– Possible solutions: strings; brane worlds; family symmetries;

compositeness; radiative hierarchies. New sources of CPviolation.







–

!E0

E"

"

L

+

!E0

E"

"

R





• Higgs/hierarchy problem

– Expect M2H = O(M2

W )– higher order corrections:

!M2H/M2

W ! 1034

Possible solutions: supersymmetry; dynamical symmetry breaking;large extra dimensions; Little Higgs; anthropically motivated fine-tuning (split supersymmetry) (landscape)

• Strong CP problem

– Can add !32"2g

2sF F to QCD (breaks, P, T, CP)

– dN " " < 10!9, but !"|weak ! 10!3

– Possible solutions: spontaneously broken global U(1) (Peccei-Quinn) " axion; unbroken global U(1) (massless u quark);spontaneously broken CP + other symmetries







–

!E0

E"

"

L

+

!E0

E"

"

R





• Graviton problem

– gravity not unified

– quantum gravity not renormalizable

– cosmological constant: !SSB = 8!GN!V " > 1050!obs(10124 for GUTs, strings)

Possible solutions:

– supergravity and Kaluza Klein unify– strings yield finite gravity.– !? Anthropically motivated fine-tuning (landscape)?

22nd Henry Primakoff Lecture Paul Langacker (3/1/2006)






–

!E0

E"

"

L

+

!E0

E"

"

R





Beyond the Standard Model

• The Whimper: A new layer at the TeV scale

• The Hybrid: low fundamental scale/large extra dimensions

• The Bang: unification at the Planck scale, MP = G!1/2N ! 1019

GeV







–

!E0

E"

"

L

+

!E0

E"

"

R





Compositeness

• Onion-like layers

• Composite fermions, scalars (dynamical sym. breaking)

• Not like to atom ! nucleus +e! ! p + n ! quark

• Other new TeV layer: Little Higgs

• At most one more layer accessible (Tevatron, LHC, ILC)

• Rare decays (e.g., K ! µe)

• Typically, few % e!ects at LEP/SLC, WNC (challenge for models)

• anomalous V V V , new particles, future WW ! WW , FCNC,EDM







–

!E0

E"

"

L

+

!E0

E"

"

R





Large extra dimensions (deconstruction, brane worlds)

• Can be motivated by strings, butnew dimensions much larger thanM!1

P ∼ 10!33 cm

• Fundamental scale MF ∼1 − 100 TeV # MP l =1/

√8πGN ∼ 2.4 × 1018 GeV

– Assume δ extra dimensionswith volume V! & M!!

F

M2P l = M2+!

F V! & M2F

(Introduces new hierarchy problem)







–

!E0

E"

"

L

+

!E0

E"

"

R





• Black holes, graviton emission atcolliders!

• Macroscopic gravity e!ects

• Astrophysics


Particle Physics Probes Of Extra Spacetime Dimensions 29

Figure 7: 95% confidence level upper limits on the strength ! (relative to Newtonian gravity)as a function of the range " of additional Yukawa interactions. The region excluded by previousexperiments (55,56,61) lies above the curves labeled Irvine, Moscow and Lamoreaux, respectively.The most recent results (60) correspond to the curves labeled Eot-Wash. The heavy dashed line isthe result from Ref. (60), the heavy solid line shows the most recent analysis that uses the totaldata sample.






–

!E0

E"

"

L

+

!E0

E"

"

R





Unification

• Unification of interactions

• Grand desert to unification (GUT) or Planck scale

• Elementary Higgs, supersymmetry (SUSY), GUTs, strings

• Possibility of probing to MP and very early universe







–

!E0

E"

"

L

+

!E0

E"

"

R





Supersymmetry

• Fermion ! boson symmetry

• Motivations

– stabilize weak scale " MSUSY < O(1 TeV)(but recent high scale ideas)

– supergravity (gauged supersymmetry): unification of gravity(non-renormalizable)

– coupling constants in supersymmetric grand unification

– decoupling of heavy particles (precision)







–

!E0

E"

"

L

+

!E0

E"

"

R





120 130 140 150 160 170 180 190

mt [GeV]

1000

500

200

100

50

20

10

MH [

Ge

V]

excluded

all data (90% CL)

!", #

had, R

l, R

q

asymmetries

low-energy

MW

mt

• Consequences

– additional charged and neutral Higgs particles

– M2H0 < cos2 2!M2

Z+ H.O.T. (O(m4t)) < (150

GeV)2, consistent with LEP

! cf., standard model: MH0 < 1000 GeV

• Simplest version: supersymmetric contribution toHiggs mass must be of O(100) GeV (not 1019)(µ problem)


• Consequences

– additional charged and neutralHiggs particles

– M2H0 < cos2 2!M2

Z+ H.O.T.(O(m4

t)) < (150 GeV)2,consistent with LEP

! cf., standard model: MH0 <1000 GeV

• Simplest version: supersymmetriccontribution to Higgs mass mustbe of O(100) GeV (not 1019)(µ problem)







–

!E0

E"

"

L

+

!E0

E"

"

R





• Superpartners

– q ! q, scalar quark

– ! ! !, scalar lepton

– W ! w, wino

– typical scale: several hundredGeV

– LSP: cold dark mattercandidate

– SUSY breaking " large mt

– May be large FCNC, EDM,!(gµ # 2)


0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

800

m [GeV]

lR

lL!l

"1

"2

#0

1

#0

2

#0

3

#0

4

#±1

#±2

uL, dRuR, dL

g

t1

t2

b1

b2

h0

H0, A0 H±






–

!E0

E"

"

L

+

!E0

E"

"

R





Grand Unification

• Unify strong SU(3) andelectroweak SU(2)!U(1)in simple group, broken at" 1016 GeV

• Gauge unification (only insupersymmetric version)


0 5 10 15 20log

10 µ (GeV)

010

20

30

40

50

60

!i-1

!1

-1

!2

-1

!3

-1

!1

-1

!2

-1

!3

-1

0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20log

10 µ (GeV)

020

40

60

80

100

!i-1

Standard Model

Supersymmetric Standard Model

MSUSY

= MZ






–

!E0

E"

"

L

+

!E0

E"

"

R





• Seesaw model for small m! (but

why are mixings large?)

• Quark-lepton (q ! l) unification(! charge quantization)

• q ! l mass relations (work only for

third family in simplest versions)

• Proton decay? (simplest versions

excluded)

• Doublet-triplet problem?

• String embedding? (breaking,

families may be entangled in extra

dimensions)


1636

mode exposure !Bm observed B.G. (ktï yr) (%) event

p " e+ + #

092 40 0 0.2 54

p " µ+ + #

092 32 0 0.2 43

p " e+ + $ 92 17 0 0.2 23

p " µ+ + $ 92 9 0 0.2 13

n " %__

+ $ 45 21 5 9 5.6p " e

+ + & 92 4.2 0 0.4 5.6

p " e+ + ' 92 2.9 0 0.5 3.8

p " e+ + ( 92 73 0 0.1 98

p " µ+ + ( 92 61 0 0.2 82

p " %__

+ K+

92 22K

+"%µ

+ (spectrum) 34 -- -- 4.2

prompt ( + µ+

8.6 0 0.7 11K

+"#

+#

0 6.0 0 0.6 7.9

n " %__

+ K0

92 2.0K

0"#

0#

0 6.9 14 19.2 3.0

K0"#

+#

- 5.5 20 11.2 0.8

p " e+ + K

092 10.7

K0"#

0#

0 9.2 1 1.1 8.7

K0"#

+#

-

2-ring 7.9 5 3.6 4.0 3-ring 1.3 0 0.1 1.7

p " µ+ + K

092 13.9

K0"#

0#

0 5.4 0 0.4 7.1

K0"#

+#

-

2-ring 7.0 3 3.2 4.9 3-ring 2.8 0 0.3 3.7

1031

1032

1033

1034

p " e+ #

0

e+ $

e+ '

e+ &

0

e+ K

0

µ+ #

0

µ+ $

µ+ '

µ+ &

0

µ+ K

0

%__

#+

%__

&+

%__

K+

n " e+ #

-

e+ &

-

µ+ #

-

µ+ &

-

%__

#0

%__

$%__

'%__

&0

%__

K0

lifetime limit (years)

KAMIMB3SK

Soudan2

Fig. 1. The obtained lifet ime limit of nucleons from SK–I (left figure) and their

comparisons with other experiments (right figure).

6. References

1. J. Ellis et al., Nucl. Phys. B202, 43 (1982)

2. Y.Fukuda et al., Phys. Rev. Let t . 81, 1562 (1998)

3. Y.Fukuda et al., Nucl. Instr. Meth. A501, 418 (2003)

4. H. Georgi and S. L. Glashow, Phys. Rev. Let t . 32, 438 (1974)

5. Y. Hayato et al., Phys. Rev. Let t . 83, 1529 (1999)

6. Jogesh C. Pat i and Abdus Salam, Phys. Rev. Let t . 31, 661 (1973)

7. For example, Jogesh C. Pat i, hep-ph/ 0005095.

8. N. Sakai and T. Yanagida, Nucl. Phys. B197, 533 (1982)

9. M. Shiozawa et al., Phys. Rev. Let t . 81, 3319 (1998)

10. M. Shiozawa, PhD thesis, University of Tokyo (1999)

11. S. Weinberg, Phys. Rev. D26, 287 (1982)






–

!E0

E"

"

L

+

!E0

E"

"

R





Superstrings

• Finite, “parameter-free” “theoryof everything” (TOE), includingquantum gravity

– 1-d string-like object

– Appears pointlike for resolution> M!1

P ! 10!33 cm

– Vibrational modes " particles

– Consistent in 10 space-time dimensions " 6 mustcompactify to scale M!1

P

– 4-dim supersymmetric gaugetheory below MP

– May also be solitons (branes),terminating open strings


• Gauge interactions from strings beginning/ending on stack ofparallel branes (one for each group factor) !moduli-dependent gaugecouplings and no simple unification unless SU(5) stack

• Chiral matter: strings at intersection of branes, e.g.,SU(N)"SU(M)! bifundamental (N, M)

!"#$!"#$

%&

%!

Intersecting Brane Worlds – A Path to the Standard Model? 5

a

b

Gauge bosons in adj.

Chiral matter in (N, M)

The open string spectrum on these intersecting branes contains the following fields [52]:

(i) N = 4 gauge bosons in adjoint representation of U(N) ! U(M).

(ii) Massless fermions in the chiral (N, M) representation.

(iii) In general massive scalar fields, again in the (N, M) representation.

The latter two fields originate from open strings stretching from one stack of Dp-

branes to the other one. Since the scalar fields are in general massive, such a

intersecting D-brane configurations generically breaks all space-time supersymmetries.This supersymmetry breaking manifests itself as the a massive/tachyonic scalar ground

state with mass:

M2ab =

1

2

!

I

!"Iab " max{!"I

ab} . (4)

("Iab is the angle between stacks a and b in some spatial plane I.) Only if the

intersection angles take very special values, some of the scalars become massless, and

some part of space-time supersymmetry gets restored. Specifically consider two special

flat supersymmetric D6-brane configurations, as shown in the following figure:

x x

4

5

6

7

8

9

"1

"2"3

Supersymmetry now gets restored for the following choice of angles:

• 2 D6-branes, with common world volume in the 123-directions, being parallel in

the 4-5, 6-7 and 8-9 planes:

1/2 BPS (N = 4 SUSY): "1 = "2 = "3 = 0 .

• 2 intersecting D6-branes, with common world volume in the 123-directions, and

which intersect in 4-5 and 6-7 planes, being parallel in 8-9 plane:

PHENO 2005 (May 4, 2005) Paul Langacker (Penn)

The E8!E8 Heterotic String

• E8!E8"G # SU(3)!SU(2)!U(1)by compactification, background gaugefields (Wilson lines)

• Usually G = SU(3)!SU(2)!U(1)n

rather than GUT

• For G = GUT, hard to obtain adjointsand high dimensional representations

• Existing models: additional gauge factors, Higgs, chiral matter

• Gauge unification, but often non-canonical Kac-Moody level,especially for U(1), and additional Higgs/exotics (Compensation?)

PHENO 2005 (May 4, 2005) Paul Langacker (Penn)






–

!E0

E"

"

L

+

!E0

E"

"

R





• Problems

– Which type? Dualities

– Which compactification manifold?

– Relation to supersymmetric standard model, GUT?

– Supersymmetry breaking? Scale? Cosmological constant?

– Many moduli (vacua). Landscape ideas - any predictability left?(TOE !TOA?)

• The great debate: is our physics environmental or selected?

– Small cosmological constant, weak scale appear needed for life

– Physics depends on location in multiverse? i.e., O(10500) vacuaof landscape continually sampled by pockets of eternally inflatingmultiverse!







–

!E0

E"

"

L

+

!E0

E"

"

R





Remnant Physics from the Top-Down

• Z! or other gauge

• Extended Higgs/neutralino (doublet, singlet)

• Quasi-Chiral Exotics

• Charge 1/2 (Confinement?, Stable relic?)

• Quasi-hidden (Strong coupling? SUSY breaking? Composite family?)

• Time varying couplings

• LED (TeV black holes, stringy resonances)

• LIV, VEP (e.g., maximum speeds, decays, (oscillations) of HE !, e, gravity

waves ("’s))







–

!E0

E"

"

L

+

!E0

E"

"

R





A TeV-Scale Z!

• Strings, grand unified theories, dynamical symmetry breaking, littleHiggs, large extra dimensions often involve extra Z!

• Typically MZ! > 600 ! 900 GeV(Tevatron, LEP 2, WNC), |!Z"Z!| <few " 10"3 (Z-pole)

• Discovery to MZ! # 5 ! 8 TeVat LHC, LC, (pp$e+e", µ+µ", qq)(depends on couplings, exotics, sparticles)

• Diagnostics to 1-2 TeV(asymmetries, y distributions,associated production, rare decays)


!0.01 !0.005 0 0.005 0.010

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

sin θ

X

MZ [GeV]

05

CDF excluded

Zχ

1oo






–

!E0

E"

"

L

+

!E0

E"

"

R





0 100 200 300M

!0

1

(GeV)

0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1

|N15|2

(

Sin

gli

no i

n !0

1)

NMSSMnMSSMUMSSM

|N16

|2 in UMSSM

Implications of a TeV-scale Z!

• Natural Solution to µ problem: supersymmetric contribution toHiggs mass tied to Z! mass

• Extended Higgs/neutralino sectors(typical in strings, even w.o. Z!)

– Complicatedspectra/decays/cascadesat colliders

– Enhanced possibilities forelectroweak baryogenesis

– Enhanced possibilities forcold dark matter







–

!E0

E"

"

L

+

!E0

E"

"

R










–

!E0

E"

"

L

+

!E0

E"

"

R










–

!E0

E"

"

L

+

!E0

E"

"

R





Future/present Experiments

• High energy colliders: the primary tool

– TEVATRON; Fermilab, 1.96 TeV pp, exploration

– Large Hadron Collider (LHC); CERN, 14 TeV pp, high luminosity,discovery (Discovery machine for supersymmetry, Rp violation, string

remnants (e.g., Z′, exotics, Higgs); or compositeness, dynamical symmetry

breaking, Higgless theories, Little Higgs, large extra dimensions, · · ·)

– International Linear Collider (ILC), in planning;500 GeV-1 TeV e+e−, cold technology, high precision studies(Precision parameters to map back to string scale, e.g., SUSY breaking

mechanism)

• CP violation (B decays, electric dipole moments), flavor changing neutralcurrents (e.g., µ→e!, µN→eN, B→"Ks), neutrino physics







–

!E0

E"

"

L

+

!E0

E"

"

R





Neutrinos as a Unique Probe: 10!33 ! 10+28 cm

• Particle Physics

– !N, µN, eN scattering: existence/ properties of quarks, QCD

– Weak decays (n " pe!!e, µ! " e!!µ!e): Fermi theory, parityviolation, mixing

– Neutral current, Z-pole, atomic parity: electroweak unification,field theory, mt; severe constraint on physics to TeV scale

– Neutrino mass: constraint on TeV physics, grand unification,superstrings, extra dimensions; seesaw: m! # m2

q/MGUT

Xalapa (August, 2004) Paul Langacker (Penn)






–

!E0

E"

"

L

+

!E0

E"

"

R





• Solar/atmosphericneutrino experiments

– Neutrinos have tinymasses (but largemixings)

– Standard Solar modelconfirmed

– First oscillation dipsobserved! (QM onlarge scale)


00.20.40.60.8

11.21.41.61.8

1 10 102 103 104 00.20.40.60.811.21.41.61.8

1 10 102 103 104

L/E (km/GeV)

Data

/Pre

dict

ion

(nul

l osc

.)






–

!E0

E"

"

L

+

!E0

E"

"

R





3 ! Patterns

– Solar: LMA (SNO,KamLAND)

– !m2! ! 8"10"5 eV2,

nonmaximal

– Atmospheric:|!m2

Atm| ! 2"10"3

eV2, near-maximal mixing

– Reactor: Ue3 small

Cl

Ga

!µ"!#

!e"!X

100

10–3

$m2 [e

V2 ]

10–12

10–9

10–6

10210010–210–4

tan2%

SuperKCHOOZ

Bugey

LSND

CHORUSNOMAD

CHORUS

KA

RM

EN

2

PaloVerde

!e"!#

NOMAD

!e"!µ

CDHSW

NOMAD

BNL E776

K2K

KamLAND

SNOSuper-K

Super-K+SNO+KamLAND

http://hitoshi.berkeley.edu/neutrino






–

!E0

E"

"

L

+

!E0

E"

"

R





12

3

3

12

normal inverted

!

!

!"#$

!L

h

NR

v = !""

mD = hv

Dirac

!

!

""##

##""

!L

!cR

$

!

""##

##""

!L

!L

Majorana


Neutrino Implications/questions

• Key constituent of the Universe

• Why are the masses so small?

– Planck/GUT scale? e.g., seesawor generalization, m! ! m2

D/MN

(may not be generic in strings)

• Are the neutrinos Dirac orMajorana?

– No SM gauge symmetry forbidsMajorana (but string, extended?)

– Neutrinoless double beta decay(!!0!) (inverted or degeneratespectra)







–

!E0

E"

"

L

+

!E0

E"

"

R





12

3

3

12

normal inverted

!

!

!"#$

!L

h

NR

v = !""

mD = hv

Dirac

!

!

""##

##""

!L

!cR

$

!

""##

##""

!L

!L

Majorana


degenerate


• What is the spectrum: number,mass scale/pattern, mixings

– Scale: ! decay (KATRIN), !!0!,large scale structure (SDSS)

– Mixings and CP: reactor, longbaseline oscillation experiments,Solar

– Pattern: long baseline, !!0!,supernova

– Number: LSND? MiniBooNE

• Leptogenesis?

• Relic neutrinos?

– Indirect: Nucleosynthesis, largescale structure. Direct? (Z-burst?)







–

!E0

E"

"

L

+

!E0

E"

"

R





NR NR

!L !L

mD mD

MN

– Typeset by FoilTEX – 1

The Minimal Seesaw Model?

• Very simple from bottom up: m! ! m2D/MN

• Recent study of Z3 heterotic orbifold (Giedt,

Kane, PL, Nelson)

• Systematically studied large class of vacua

– Is minimal seesaw common?

– If rare, guidance to model building?

– Clues to textures, etc.

• None had simultaneous Dirac and Majorana masses needed forminimal seesaw







–

!E0

E"

"

L

+

!E0

E"

"

R





• Property of class of vacua?

• Insist on rare seesaw-type vacua?

• Anthropic motivations for small neutrino masses? (nucleosynthesis,

galaxy formation, type II supernovae)

• Alternatives? (Small Dirac by high-dimensional operators? Extended seesaw?

Higgs triplet in higher level embedding !inverted hierarchy (B. Nelson, PL)?)







–

!E0

E"

"

L

+

!E0

E"

"

R





The Universe

• The concordance

– 5% matter (including darkbaryons): CMB, BBN, Lyman !

– 25% dark matter (galaxies,clusters, CMB, lensing)

– 70% dark energy (Acceleration(Supernovae), CMB (WMAP))







–

!E0

E"

"

L

+

!E0

E"

"

R





Perlmutter, Physics Today (2003)

Expansion History of the Universe

0.0

0.5

1.0

1.5

–20 –10 0

Billions Years from Today

10

0.05 today futurepast

Sca

le o

f the

Uni

vers

eR

elat

ive

to T

oday

's S

cale

After inflation,the expansion either...

collapsesexp

ands

forever

10.1

0.01

0.00

1

0.00

01relativebrightness

reds

hift

0

0.25

0.50.75

1

1.5

2.52

3

...or

alw

ays

dece

lera

ted

fir

st decelerated, th

en accelerated

• What is the dark matter?

– Lightest neutralino insupersymmetry (if R parityconserved)? Axion?

– Direct searches: LHC, ILC;cold dark matter searches; highenergy annihilation !’s

– Gravitation lensing (SNAP),CMB (Planck)

• What is the dark energy?

– Vacuum energy (cosmological constant);time varying field (quintessence)?

– High precision supernova survey (SNAP);CMB (Planck)







–

!E0

E"

"

L

+

!E0

E"

"

R





• What is the dark matter?

– Lightest neutralino insupersymmetry (if R parityconserved)? Axion?

– Direct searches: LHC, ILC;cold dark matter searches; highenergy annihilation !’s

– Axion searches (resonantcavities)

– Galaxy surveys (SDSS)

– Gravitation lensing (SNAP),CMB (Planck)


!"#$%#&''%()*+,-./

012''!'*-3425%(-6

./%75216&849*:%32%3;*%5<-8*25=

0>#?%7)*=%-26@45*:

0>#?%7)*=%.!A2B*1C*D845!"

0>#?%7?4=

E:*8B*4''%.FFG

>H#H%IJJK

L IF LF IFF LFFIF

!MG

IF!M.

IF!MI

IF!MF

IF!GJ

IF!GN






–

!E0

E"

"

L

+

!E0

E"

"

R





broken phase

becomes our world

unbroken phase

vWall

= 0φ

>> H

0CP CP_~ΓB + L

Sph

ΓB + L

Sph

q_q

qq

_

q_q

qq

_

• Why is there matter and notantimatter?

– nB/n! ! 10!10, nB ! 0

– Electroweak baryogenesis(extensions of MSSM)? Leptogenesis?Decay of heavy fields? CPTviolation?







–

!E0

E"

"

L

+

!E0

E"

"

R





• Why is there matter and notantimatter?

– nB/n! ! 10!10, nB ! 0– Electroweak baryogenesis?

Leptogenesis? Decay of heavyfields? CPT violation?

• The very beginning (inflation)

– Relation to particle physics, strings, !?

– CMB (Planck); gravity waves (LISA)







–

!E0

E"

"

L

+

!E0

E"

"

R





Second extreme example: time varying couplings and parameters

(Murphy et al, astro-ph/0209488)

TASI (June 5, 2003) Paul Langacker (Penn)

Far-Out Stu!

• LIV, VEP (e.g., maximum speeds, decays, (oscillations) of HE !, e, gravity

waves ("’s))

• LED, TeV black holes

• Time varying couplings







–

!E0

E"

"

L

+

!E0

E"

"

R





Conclusions

• The standard model is the correct description of fermions/gaugebosons down to ! 10!16 cm ! 1

1 TeV

• Standard model is complicated " must be new physics

• Precision tests severely constrain new TeV-scale physics

• Promising theoretical ideas at Planck scale

• Promising experimental program at colliders, accelerators, lowenergy, cosmology

• Challenge to make contact between theory and experiment

• Semi-realistic string constructions suggest extended gauge, Higgs,neutralino, fermion sectors


Date post:	26-May-2018
Category:	Documents
Upload:	vodien
View:	212 times
Download:	0 times

Qu as i-Chiral Exotics - hep.upenn.edu · Qu as i-Chiral Exotics (J. Kan g, PL , B . Ne lson, in p...

Documents