The Impact of the LHC on Cosmology - DAS/INPE · than the CDM density. Neutrinos We know too much!...

The Impact of the LHC on Cosmology

Monday, December 17, 12

Standard model (SM) vs Beyond the SM (BSM) Dark Matter ⟺ BSM physics Intense searches - Accelerator, Direct, Indirect Supersymmetry searches Impact on Dark Matter

Higgs discovery Impact on Dark Matter

Outlook


The Standard Model

u c t

d s b

νe νµ ντ

e µ τ

γ

W

Z

g

H

Qua

rks

Lept

ons

Gauge Bosons

+ gravity


Dark Matter in the SM?Baryons

Cluster, produce heavy elements, produce radiation (they’re not really dark!), limited by BBN,

WMAP tells us that Ωbh2 = 0.0225 ± 0.0006, far less than the CDM density.


WMAP

Position of 1st peak ⇒ Ω = 1

Ωmh2 = 0.1345 ± 0.0056

Ωbh2 = 0.0225 ± 0.0006

Ωcdmh2 = 0.1120 ± 0.0056or

Ωcdm h2 = 0.1008 - 0.1232 (2 σ)


Dark Matter in the SM?Baryons

Cluster, produce heavy elements, produce radiation (they’re dark really dark!), limited by BBN,

WMAP tells us that Ωbh2 = 0.0225 ± 0.0006, far less than the CDM density.

NeutrinosWe know too much! (0.0005 < Ωνh2 < 0.0076)


Dark Matter beyond the SMPrefer theory motivated by consideration other than DM

Supersymmetry

to be discussed

Axions

strong CP problem


Why Supersymmetry?

Gauge Hierarchy Problem

Gauge Coupling Unification

Dark Matter

Stability of the SM vacuum

Improvement in low energy phenomenology


MSSM and R-Parity Stable DM candidate

1) Neutralinos

2) Sneutrino Excluded (unless add L-violating terms)

3) Other: Axinos, Gravitinos, etc

�i = ↵ieB + �i

fW + �ifH1 + �i

fH2

SUSY Dark MatterSUSY Dark Matter


Which Supersymmetric Model?

Gaugino mass Unification : m1/2

A-term Unification : A0

Scalar mass unification : m0

MSSM with R-Parity (still more than 100 parameters)

CMSSMadd

parameter for ratio of Higgs vevs: tan β


m1/2 - m0 planes

CMSSM Ellis, Olive, Santoso, Spanos

100 1000 2000 30000

1000

1500

100 1000 2000 30000

1000

1500

mh = 114 GeV

m0 (

GeV

)

m1/2 (GeV)

tan ` = 55 , µ > 0

100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 10000

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

800

100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 10000

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

800

m0 (

GeV

)

m1/2 (GeV)

tan ` = 10 , µ > 0

mh = 114 GeV

mr±��= 104 GeV


0

2000

4000

6000

8000

10000

12000

14000

16000

109 112 115 118 121 124 127 130

Cou

nt

mh (GeV)

The Higgs mass in the CMSSM

Ellis, Nanopoulos, Olive, Santoso

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120 121 122 123 124 125 126 127 128

All points after cuts

Points satisfying g-2

Cou

nt

mh (GeV)


Δχ2 map of m0 - m1/2 plane

CMSSM

2 r6

0

5

10

15

20

25

]2 [GeV/c0m0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500

]2 [G

eV/c

1/2

m

0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

Buchmueller, Cavanaugh, De Roeck, Ellis, Flacher, Heinemeyer, Isidori, Olive, Ronga, Weiglein

Mastercode


Neutralino mass and Relic Density from MCMC analysis

Buchmueller, Cavanaugh, De Roeck, Ellis, Flacher, Heinemeyer, Isidori, Olive, Ronga, Weiglein

Mastercode

]2 [GeV/c01

r¾m

0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700

2 r6

0123456789

2h1-310 -210 -110 1 10 210

2 r6

0123456789


Buchmueller, Cavanaugh, De Roeck, Ellis, Flacher, Heinemeyer, Isidori, Olive, Paradisi, Ronga, Weiglein

Elastic cross section from MCMC analysis

]2 [cmSIpm

-4810 -4710 -4610 -4510 -4410 -4310 -4210 -4110 -4010

2 r6

0123456789

]2 [GeV/c1

0r¾

m210 310

]2 [c

mSI p

m-4810

-4710

-4610

-4510

-4410

-4310

-4210

-4110

-4010


Elastic cross section from MCMC analysis

10

r¾m

210 310

SI pm

-4810

-4710

-4610

-4510

-4410

-4310

-4210

-4110

-4010

Buchmueller, Cavanaugh, Colling, De Roeck, Dolan, Ellis, Flacher, Heinemeyer, Isidori, Olive, Rogerson, Ronga, Weiglein

]2[GeV/c1

0!"m210 310

]-2

[cm

SI p#

-4810

-4710

-4610

-4510

-4410

-4310

-4210

-4110

-4010

pre LHC

1/fbLHC

2011: XENON 100 days; LHC 1/fb


Most recent result from XENON100

Aprile

]2WIMP Mass [GeV/c6 7 8 910 20 30 40 100 200 300 1000

]2W

IMP-

Nuc

leon

Cro

ss S

ectio

n [c

m

-4710

-4610

-4510

-4410

-4310

-4210

-4110

-4010

-3910

]2WIMP Mass [GeV/c6 7 8 910 20 30 40 100 200 300 1000

]2W

IMP-

Nuc

leon

Cro

ss S

ectio

n [c

m

-4710

-4610

-4510

-4410

-4310

-4210

-4110

-4010

-3910

DAMA/I

DAMA/Na

CoGeNT

CDMS

EDELWEISS

XENON100 (2010)

XENON100 (2011)

XENON100 (2012)

Xenon 1 ton-year

ZEPLIN III

Buchmueller et al.


Effect of Results from LHC

jets + missing ET with/without leptons

Heavy Higgs to ττ

B to μμ

~5fb-1 @ 7 TeV

[GeV]0m500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500

[GeV

]1/

2m

300

350

400

450

500

550

600

650

700

750

800

(1000 GeV)

q~

(1400 GeV)

q ~

(1800 GeV)

q ~

(1000 GeV)g~

(1200 GeV)g~

(1400 GeV)g~

(1600 GeV)g~

>0µ= 0, 0

= 10, A`MSUGRA/CMSSM: tan

=8 TeVs, -1 L dt = 5.8 fb00-lepton combined

ATLAS

)theorySUSYm1 ±Observed limit (

)expm1 ±Expected limit (

, 7 TeV)-1Observed limit (4.7 fb

Non-convergent RGE

No EW-SB

Preliminary

~6fb-1 @ 8 TeV


m1/2 - m0 planes incl. LHC

CMSSM

100 1000 2000 30000

1000

1500

100 1000 2000 30000

1500

mh = 114 GeV

m0 (

GeV

)

m1/2 (GeV)

tan ` = 55 , µ > 0

100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 10000

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

800

100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 10000

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

800

m0 (

GeV

)

m1/2 (GeV)

tan ` = 10 , µ > 0

mh = 114 GeVmr±��= 104 GeV

Atlas 0l 95%CL

CMS _T 95%CLAtlas 1l 95%CL

mh 95% CL

CMS MET 95%CL

100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 10000

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

800

100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 10000

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

800

m0 (

GeV

)

m1/2 (GeV)

tan ` = 10 , µ > 0mh = 114 GeV

Atlas 0l 95%CL

mh 95% CL

CMS MHT 95%CL

Atlas 2011 95%CL (PCL)

Atlas 2011 95%CL (CLs)

100 1000 2000 30000

1000

1500

100 1000 2000 30000

1500

mh = 114 GeV

m0 (

GeV

)

m1/2 (GeV)

tan ` = 55 , µ > 0

100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 10000

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

800

100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 10000

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

800

m0 (

GeV

)

m1/2 (GeV)

tan ` = 10 , µ > 0mh = 114 GeV

LHC post EPS

100 1000 2000 30000

1000

1500

100 1000 2000 30000

1500

mh = 114 GeV

m0 (

GeV

)

m1/2 (GeV)

tan ` = 55 , µ > 0

LHC post EPS

100 1000 2000 30000

1000

1500

100 1000 2000 30000

1500

m0 (

GeV

)

m1/2 (GeV)

tan ` = 55 , µ > 0

LHC

mh = 119 GeV

100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 10000

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

800

100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 10000

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

800

m0 (

GeV

)

m1/2 (GeV)

tan ` = 10 , µ > 0

mh = 119 GeV

LHC

100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 10000

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

800

100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 10000

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

800

m0 (

GeV

)

m1/2 (GeV)

tan = 10 , ƫ > 0

mh = 114 GeV

LHC

117.5 GeV

119 GeV

100 1000 2000 30000

1000

1500

100 1000 2000 30000

1500

m0 (

GeV

)

m1/2 (GeV)

tan ` = 55 , ƫ > 0

LHC

mh = 119 GeV


The Higgs SearchThe LHC @ ~5/fb

(GeV)!!m110 120 130 140 150S

/(S+B

) Wei

ghte

d E

vent

s / 1

.5 G

eV

0

500

1000

1500

DataS+B FitB Fit Component

"1±"2±

-1 = 8 TeV, L = 5.3 fbs-1 = 7 TeV, L = 5.1 fbsCMS

(GeV)!!m120 130

Eve

nts

/ 1.5

GeV

1000

1500Unweighted

Even

ts /

2 G

eV

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

3000

3500 ATLAS

aaAH

DataSig+Bkg FitBkg (4th order polynomial)

-1Ldt=4.8fb0=7 TeV, s-1Ldt=5.9fb0=8 TeV, s

(a)

=126.5 GeV)H

(m

Even

ts -

Bkg

-200-100

0100200

(b)

wei

ghts

/ 2

GeV

Y

20

40

60

80

100Data S/B WeightedSig+Bkg FitBkg (4th order polynomial)

=126.5 GeV)H

(m

(c)

[GeV]aam100 110 120 130 140 150 160

w

eigh

ts -

Bkg

Y -8-4048

(d)



(GeV)Hm110 115 120 125 130 135 140 145

Loca

l p-v

alue

-1210

-1010

-810

-610

-410

-210

1σ1σ2

σ3

σ4

σ5

σ6

σ7

Combined obs.Exp. for SM H

γγ →H ZZ→H WW→H ττ →H

bb→H

Combined obs.Exp. for SM H

γγ →H ZZ→H WW→H ττ →H

bb→H

CMS -1 = 8 TeV, L = 5.3 fbs -1 = 7 TeV, L = 5.1 fbs

[GeV]Hm110 115 120 125 130 135 140 145 150

0Lo

cal p

-910-810-710-610-510-410-310-210-1101

Expected Combined

Observed Combinedaa AExpected H

aa AObserved H

llllA ZZ* AExpected H

llllA ZZ* AObserved H

ili lA WW* AExpected H

ili lA WW* AObserved H

bbAExpected H

bbAObserved H oo AExpected H

oo AObserved H

ATLAS 2011 + 2012 Data = 7 TeVs, -1 L dt ~ 4.6-4.8 fb0 = 8 TeVs, -1 L dt ~ 5.8-5.9 fb0

m0 m1 m2 m3

m4

m5

m6



)µSignal strength (

-1 0 1

Combined

4lA (*) ZZAH

aa AH

ili lA (*) WWAH

oo AH

bbAW,Z H

-1Ldt = 4.6 - 4.8 fb0 = 7 TeV: s-1Ldt = 5.8 - 5.9 fb0 = 8 TeV: s

-1Ldt = 4.8 fb0 = 7 TeV: s-1Ldt = 5.8 fb0 = 8 TeV: s



-1Ldt = 4.7 fb0 = 7 TeV: s

-1Ldt = 4.6-4.7 fb0 = 7 TeV: s

= 126.0 GeVHm

0.3± = 1.4 µ

ATLAS 2011 - 2012

SMσ/σBest fit -1 0 1 2 3

bb→H

ττ →H

WW→H

ZZ→H

γγ →H

CMS -1 = 8 TeV, L = 5.3 fbs -1 = 7 TeV, L = 5.1 fbs

= 125.5 GeVH m


Limits at ~5 fb-1

Buchmueller, Cavanaugh, Citron, De Roeck, Dolan, Ellis, Flacher, Heinemeyer, Isidori, Marrouche, Martinez Santos, Nakach, Olive, Rogerson, Ronga, de Vries, Weiglein

Δχ2 map of m0 - m1/2 plane

]2[GeV/c0m0 1000 2000 3000

]2[GeV/c

1/2

m

0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

3000

4000


Comparison of best fit points pre and post LHC

p-value of SM = 9% (32.7/23) - but note: does not include dark matter


3

Model Data set Minimum Prob- m0 m1/2 A0 tan!

"2/d.o.f. ability (GeV) (GeV) (GeV)

CMSSM pre-LHC 21.5/20 37 % 90 360 -400 15

LHC1/fb 31.0/23 12% 1120 1870 1220 46

ATLAS5/fb (low) 32.8/23 8.5% 300 910 1320 16

ATLAS5/fb (high) 33.0/23 8.0% 1070 1890 1020 45

NUHM1 pre-LHC 20.8/18 29 % 110 340 520 13

LHC1/fb 28.9/22 15% 270 920 1730 27

ATLAS5/fb (low) 31.3/22 9.1% 240 970 1860 16

ATLAS5/fb (high) 31.8/22 8.1% 1010 2810 2080 39

Table 2. The best-fit points found in global CMSSM and NUHM1 fits using the ATLAS 5/fb jets + /ET

constraint [?], the combination of the ATLAS [?], CDF [?], CMS [?] and LHCb [?] BR(Bs ! µ+µ!) [?]constraints and the updated values of MW and mt, compared with those found previously in global fitsbased on the LHC1/fb data set. In both cases, we include a measurement of Mh = 125 ± 1.0 ± 1.5 GeVand the new XENON100 constraint [?]. In the case of the CMSSM, we list the parameters of the best-fitpoints in both the low- and high-mass ‘islands’ in Fig. ??, and we quote results for a high-mass NUHM1point as well as the low-mass best-fit point in this model. We note that the overall likelihood function isquite flat in bot the CMSSM and the NUHM1, so that the precise locations of the best-fit points are notvery significant, and we do not quote uncertainties. For completeness, we note that in the best NUHM1fit m2

H " m2Hu

= m2Hd

= #6.5$ 106 GeV2, compared with #5.5$ 106 GeV2 previously.


Elastic cross sections


]2[GeV/c1

0Ƶ~m

210 310

]2

[cm

SI pƱ

-4810

-4710

-4610

-4510

-4410

-4310

-4210

-4110

-4010


Higgs masses vs elastic cross sections

10 100 1000

msi (

pb)

mr (GeV)

tan ` = 40, ƫ > 0

A0 = 0, stau-co

A0 = 2.5 m0 , stau-co

[){ )

[

{

100 1000 15000

1000

2000

114

114

114

114

114

114

114

118

118

118

118

118

118

118

119

119

119

119

119

119

120

120

120

120

120

122

122

122

122

124

124125

100 1000 15000

1000

2000

m0 (

GeV

)

m1/2 (GeV)

tan ` = 40, A0 = 2.5 m0, µ > 0

1.31.5

1.65

126 GeV

mh = 125 GeV

124 GeV

122.5 GeV

119 GeV


May require more general modelswhich are concordant with LHC MET; Higgs; and Bs →μ+μ-; and Dark Matter

100 1000 20000

1000

2000

3000

09

114

114

114

114114

119

119

119

119

119

119

119

119

119

122

122

122

122122

122

122

124

124

124

124

125

125

125

126

126

100 1000 20000

1000

2000

3000

m0 (

GeV

)

m1/2 (GeV)

tan = 10, = 500 GeV, A0 = 2.5 m0

mh = 124 GeV

125 GeV

122.5 GeV

119 GeV

100 1000 20000

1000

2000

3000

0909

3.209

09

09 09

94.16 09

4.8e

09

4.8e 09

09

4.809

114

114

119

119

119

119

119

119

119119

119

119

119

122

22

122

122

122

122

122

122

122122

122

122

2

122

122

122122

122

124

124

124

124

124

124

124

124

124

124

124

124

124

124

124 124124

124

125

125

125

125125 12

5

125

125

125

125

125

125

125

126

126

126

126

126

126

126

100 1000 20000

1000

2000

3000

m0 (

GeV

)

m1/2 (GeV)

tan = 40, = 500 GeV, A0 = 2.0 m0

mh = 126 GeV

127 GeV

119 GeV

125 GeV

1.3

1.5

1.65

Ellis, Luo, Olive, Sandick


Summary

Frequentist method (no priors) show(ed) strong preference for relatively light neutralinos, low tan β, and co-annihilation region

LHC has already made significant inroads; Most importantly is the apparent discovery of the Higgs boson which has strong implications for supersymmetric models and dark matter. Dark matter is heavier and cross sections are smaller!

Other LHC searchs such as Bs →μ+μ- also deliver strong constraints.

XENON100 also making inroads (cf. value of ΣπN )


The Impact of the LHC on Cosmology - DAS/INPE · than the CDM density. Neutrinos We know too much!...

Documents

Transcript of The Impact of the LHC on Cosmology - DAS/INPE · than the CDM density. Neutrinos We know too much!...