[x]
Stay in touch with the scientific world!
The Higgs Mass ? 120 GeV, SUSY Says
By Tommaso Dorigo | August 24th 2009 03:25 PM | 25 comments | Print | E-mail | Track Comments
Tweet
More Articles
All Articles

I am an experimental particle physicist working with the CMS experiment at CERN. In my spare time I play chess, abuse the piano, and aim my dobson...

View Tommaso's Profile
Today, although fully submerged by an anomalous wave of errands which had been patiently waiting for my return at work, I heroically managed to dig out of the ArXiv a paper worth a close look.

The study, titled "Likelihood Functions for Supersymmetric Observables in Frequentist Analyses of the CMSSM and NUHM1" and authored by renowned supersymmetry experts like John Ellis and Sven Heinemeyer, and experimentalists like my CMS colleagues Albert De Roeck and Henning Flacher, had me thinking that Supersymmetry does have an answer for everything, apparently. That, at least, is what one gets from even a careless look at a few of the figures in the paper. But let me get back a few steps and explain what I am talking about, before I am left alone here.

SUSY, a proper daughter of mother Nature

Supersymmetry is an appealing extension of the Standard Model of particle physics, which is both beautiful and naughty. In order to fix a problem of the Standard Model -the unbearable lightness of the Higgs boson- Supersymmetry tries to sell us the existence of dozen new particles yet unseen, fourscore new parameters and then a few, and one additional symmetry principle: for every fermion there is a boson, and for every boson there is a fermion. A beautiful, but broken, new symmetry of mother Nature (another well-known bitch). Broken, because the supersymmetric bodies are all much heavier than their standard counterparts: lest we would have already seen them!

To tell the truth, Susy (that is the nickname by which she goes among those who have entertained themselves with her at least once) is not just easy at claiming new bodies: it also openly displays a pair of additional nice features that make her appealing. On one side, it provides precise high-energy convergence to a common value for the coupling strength of the fundamental interactions. And on the other, it contains a perfect candidate for the unaccounted mass of the Universe among the score of new particles it hypothesizes: the neutralino. Make no mistake: Susy is unification-ready, and just what you need for a big Bang.

The neutralino is the lightest supersymmetric particle. It cannot decay to anything lighter, and so is bound to live forever. It is electrically neutral, so light cannot see it; it is not made of coloured stuff, so ordinary matter hardly stops it; and it is just expected to have the right mass to make the matter balance of our Universe compatible with its evolution after the big bang.

Two words on the study

After the above introduction, it is time to get serious again and discuss the paper. I do not wish to summarize it for you here -it is 34 pages long, and I would be unable to do it in a reasonable amount of time; plus, there is no real reason to do it since the paper is quite readable and you should definitely donwload it from here. All I can do here is to just concentrate on a few of its many interesting results.

To verify the compatibility of Susy with the present experimental status of particle physics and astrophysics, the study considers all electroweak precision data (measurements at the Z peak by LEP and SLC, Tevatron results on the top and W boson masses, neutrino scattering experiments, and then a few), together with the precise measurement of the muon gyromagnetic ratio (a quantity which has a highly predictive power for new physics, since its value would be sizably affected by the existence of new particles circulating inside virtual loops in the scattering diagrams affecting the muon anomaly), B physics observables (which for the same reason have something to say about the existence of those fancy massive new particles), and cosmological constraints. In this sense, it is a really complete account of the inputs we may have at hand to determine whether Susy is just a dream or the girl next door.

Because supersymmetry is not a single theory, but rather a framework of different theories which may display the widest variety of phenomenology depending on the value of a few critical parameters, the study only considers a subset of specific models, ones going by the name of CMSSM and NUHM1. these are particular varieties of the minimal supersymmetric extension of the Standard Model (MSSM), and to explain their details I would need to write more than I am willing to about them here. Suffices to say here that these theories are enough well-defined that they can make definite predictions for some quantities we have a chance of measuring before our retirement.

The authors offer us the results of a fit to all the measured quantities considered in the study, which has the benefit of taking a frequentist approach for the statistical analysis: this frees them from the need of assuming any knowledge of the a priori distribution of some of the parameters, and makes the results insensitive to such assumptions.

The fit is a quite smart one, which investigates with care the full parameter space; all model parameters are varied simultaneously in the sampling of the multidimensional space. The paper explains several technical details that I cannot report here; these give the impression that the work has been done with care, and one has the feeling that the results and their uncertainties may be trusted to be a faithful representation of the current status of our indirect knowledge on Supersymmetry from the available experimental inputs.

An interesting result of the fit is the branching fraction of the Bs meson (a particle made by a strange quark and a anti-bottom one) to muon pairs: within the best solution of the CMSSM this quantity is close to the Standard Model prediction -which is bad, since experimentally we have quite a lot of work ahead before we can measure it if it is so small; on the other hand, it may easily be much larger for the NUHM1, which exposes that theory to a direct proof (or bust) in
a not-so-distant future. In the figure below you see the likelihood functions as a function of Bs branching fraction; the black line shows the Standard Model prediction. You can see that in the NUHM1 model (right) the likelihood has a much flatter minimum extending to several tens in 10^-8.

Maybe the most striking result of the study is the observation that

within the NUHM1 a value of the lightest neutral Higgs boson arises naturally above the lower limit set by the LEP II experiments: in other words, while the Standard Model (and quite a few points of the SUSY parameter space) is hard-pressed to explain why the Higgs boson is heavier than 114.4 GeV, when electroweak data would instead point to smaller values (the latest fits in the LEP electroweak working group page point to $m_h%20=%2087%5E%7B+35%7D_%7B-26%7D%20GeV$, so about one standard deviation below the strict bound set at LEP), the NUHM1 actually favors a Higgs mass above that bound.

As far as the lightest Higgs boson is concerned, within the CMSSM the best fit produces an estimate of $m_h%20=%20114.2%20GeV$, with a fit probability of 36%. This value is smaller than the 95% CL bound set by LEP II, but close enough to it that it is still reasonably possible. For the NUHM1, the minimum occurs for $m_h%20=%20120.7%20GeV$, with a similar probability of the CMSSM fit.

You can see the results in the figure below, which shows the likelihood functions and their minima as a function of the Higgs mass for the CMSSM (left) and NUHM1 model (right). The curves which are most interesting to me are the dashed ones: they exclude from the fit the knowledge of the lower bound on MH set by the LEP II experiments, and thus show that the NUHM1 model does prefer a mass above the crucial 114.4 GeV divide.

Also worth mentioning here is that for the mass of the lightest neutralino, the best fit value turns out to have a sharp minimum at about 120 GeV in both considered models: this is not a surprise, but it is again interesting from an experimental standpoint, since such mass values may be accessible in the near future.

The paper contains several plots like the ones shown above, describing the likely values of many of the important parameters of the theories considered. If you are at all interested in knowing what is the most likely mass value of your favorite -ino particle, your curiosity will be satiated.

As for me, I find it remarkable that Supersymmetry (or at least a few points of its hundred-dimensional parameter space) keeps standing head and shoulder above the surge of experimental results coming out of the Tevatron, which stubbornly insists finding everything in agreement with the Standard Model and no trace of sparticles around. In principle, in three months time the start-up of LHC might allow us to discover Supersymmetry in the matter of a few weeks, or even days of running. Well, make it a few months. Reality, I am told, is usually different. Life is tough, Nature is a bitch, and Susy is presently hiding in the dark. Stay tuned.

## Comments

Did you take Lee Smolin as your role model in turning the coat? Let me remind you of some reasons why you dislike and don't believe SUSY:

http://dorigo.wordpress.com/2008/03/05/susy-more-unlikely-by-the-new-cdm...

http://dorigo.wordpress.com/2006/06/07/292/

Will we also read a blog entry in early 2010 that you have never disliked SUSY and never predicted it wasn't there?

These considerations by Ellis et al. are about some one-sigma preferences and not very strong. But I do bet that it is more likely than not that some of this new marvelous SUSY stuff will be found between 114 and 130 GeV.
Don't think it is natural that, according to your own words, that "[Supersymmetry] stubbornly insists finding everything in agreement with the Standard Model and no trace of sparticles around.", "Because supersymmetry is not a single theory, but rather a framework of different theories which may display the widest variety of phenomenology depending on the value of few critical parameters", so it is not surprising at all that one may fit Supersymmetric models, whatsoever parameters are found, to the Standard Model?
Hi Daniel,

the subject of the first sentence you quote is the Tevatron, not Supersymmetry. Anyway, the Higgs sector structure of SUSY is quite different from that of the SM, with five higgs bosons, the lightest of which starts off with a mass exactly equal to that of the Z boson. It is only through theoretical magic that one can dislodge it from there and make it heavier than the 114.4 GeV limit of LEP II; still, no SUSY theory can account for a Higgs heavier than 135 GeV or so. This, despite the many parameters and models. If we found a Higgs at 160 GeV we would have to kiss SUSY bye bye, regardless of other "evidence" and theoretical preferences.

Cheers,
T.
Oh, I see. I really thought that "which" refered to Supersymmetry, not Tevatron. Well, now the intention of the whole text changed for me!

I think that if you look long enough on arxiv.org, you I think will find a neutral higgs above 135GeV in susy
.
Hi Tommaso,
to put it mildly, your sentence is very naive. Indeed, 135 GeV is (roughly) the upper bound in the MSSM with the stop quark masses around 1 TeV. Take a "split" scenario with heavier (multi-TeV) stops and you get easily above 135 TeV. Just add an extra singlet to the MSSM and you get the NMSSM, where a 160-GeV Higgs can be accommodated (and other interesting stuff happens). It will take more than that to kiss SUSY bye bye...
Cheers Ptrslv72

Ptrslv72 (not verified) | 08/25/09 | 12:00 PM
Hi Tommaso,

let me add some straw to the fire (and be a smart ass, sorry)...
If you found a Higgs at 160 GeV *with SM couplings, i.e., large branching ratios into WW*, then you can kiss the MSSM, as well as some people, bye bye. That is probably what you meant by "we".

As far as the theoretical magic which pushes the mass above 114.4GeV, well...
We don't know how to compute most theories exactly (not just in particle physics) and resort to expansions around some known solution. In particle physics we simplify the world and let our fields be free (some kind of heaven for particles before hell broke open or after it vanishes into the ashes).
So what gives us this extra mass is all the stuff which interacts with the SUSY Higgs bosons, especially that with strong interactions like the top and its superpartners, the stops. These interactions change the original free fields, in particular their masses.
Whats somehow magic for me is that these interactions can also change the Higgs field so that it develops a vacuum expectation value at the electroweak scale.

Cheers,
Federico

Federico (not verified) | 08/26/09 | 23:22 PM
Hi Federico,

you must be new to this site... otherwise you'd know that I like to trivialize things, to make them digestible, even if this entails some oversimplification. Thank you for your explanation on how the Susy higgs moves away from Mz anyway, but you are far from putting straws to the fire :)

Cheers,
T.
Dear Tommaso,

Take for instance;
http://xxx.lanl.gov/abs/0908.0780
and its references:
http://xxx.lanl.gov/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/0812/0812.1994v2.pdf
http://xxx.lanl.gov/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/0812/0812.1991v2.pdf
http://xxx.lanl.gov/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/0709/0709.4269v6.pdf
Regards

Anonymous (not verified) | 08/25/09 | 12:01 PM
Sorry Tommaso, something got screwed up in the message above. It should have read:

to put it mildly, your sentence "no SUSY theory can account for a Higgs heavier than 135 GeV or so" is very naive...

Ptrslv72 (not verified) | 08/25/09 | 12:02 PM
Sure Ptrslv, I know - but split SUSY is something I do not even want to start considering; it is a different thing for me. Anyway, the point has been made several times, that even if we do not see any SUSY at LHC we won't have killed it. However, am I being naive if I think that it will considerably decrease its popularity in that case ? For one thing, all these global fit addicts will have to change area of expertise...
Cheers,
T.
Who would deny that SUSY's popularity will decrease if we don't find it at the LHC? My comment was about the 135-GeV bound on the lightest Higgs mass, that you seemed to take waaay more seriously than you should have. Contrary to what we like to think to simplify our calculations, the range of possible SUSY theories is quite broad and is not confined to the plain-vanilla MSSM with 1-TeV squarks (not to mention the even-more-constrained CMSSM).

Ptrslv72 (not verified) | 08/25/09 | 12:39 PM
Ok, point taken, but you certainly know that the focus of 99% of SUSY phenomenologists and other stringy enthusiasts today is on the low-mass SUSY models which can indeed be at reach.

Cheers,
T.
What else did you expect? That they justified their grants with things completely out of reach? But well, they can.
the NMSSM (Next-to-Minimal SSM) can be equally within reach and at the same time allow for a lightest Higgs heavier than the one of the MSSM. And this is just the first example that came to my mind...

Ptrslv72 (not verified) | 08/25/09 | 13:18 PM
There are also SUSY models with extended gauge sectors which can raise the Higgs mass, up to about 150 GeV in the Langacker et al U(1) versions and up to hundreds of GeV in the Batra et al SU(2) versions.

And the CMSSM is by no means a complete covering of even the vanilla MSSM parameter space... though the prediction of a fairly light Higgs is pretty robust in the MSSM.

Anonymous (not verified) | 08/25/09 | 23:12 PM
Ok, so the situation is even worse than the one I pictured... We will never get rid of this fantastic, wrong theory!
In any case, I stand by my way of telling the tale, which is slightly inaccurate or incomplete but captures the essence of what most SUSY addicts are putting their money on.

Cheers,
T.
OK, I've changed my mind about the value in delaying LHC results (until theorists can actually make decent predictions). Can they please turn it on ASAP and put everybody out of their misery.

If there is no Higgs with mass less than 130 GeV, when will the Tevatron be able to rule that out, at 95% CL? Before the LHC comes online?

Thomas Larsson (not verified) | 08/26/09 | 12:26 PM
Hardly so, Thomas. That is a tough region for the LHC, but it is not easy for the Tevatron either. It might take two or three more years to CDF and Dzero to do that.

Cheers,
T.
How long for LHC to achieve 95% when working at 7TeV CMS?
Daniel, that is the subject of my poster at KOBE... Post coming! In any case, no assessment has been made for 7 TeV cm., but the sensitivity roughly scales down such that we need twice more luminosity than at 10 TeV. Since CMS assessed that we need 1/fb at 14 TeV to get an exclusion of 140 to 230 GeV for the Higgs if it is not there (but we discover it at 6-sigma if it is in the right region with that much data), I would eyeball that we need 4/fb to do the same at 7 TeV. But this is just adding the H->WW and H->ZZ channels, while more analyses would help reducing the required luminosity. For the low mass region, things are harder to assess right now.

Cheers,
T.
How long does it take to accumulate 7/fb at 7teV to get that exclusion at 130GeV?
The question is ill-posed, because LHC will not get that much data at 7 TeV (unless it decides to stick to that energy for safety reasons, which would be a total failure!). The LHC will move to higher energy in 2011, after at most 1/fb at 7 TeV.
The problem is that with such uncertainty on energy as well as luminosity, predictions are next to impossible.
Cheers,
T.
Possible Higgs mass:
128.577 Gev
183.7119 Gev
181.0516 Gev
161.9738 Gev
159.6282 Gev

3zy (not verified) | 09/02/09 | 11:22 AM
3zy, it's GeV, not Gev. and anyway, yes, they are all possible, as all the others.

Cheers,
T.

### What's Happening

Current Topic:
The best writers in science tackle science's hottest topics.
Take a look at the best of Science 2.0 pages and web applications from around the Internet!
{"extraction_info": {"found_math": true, "script_math_tex": 0, "script_math_asciimath": 0, "math_annotations": 0, "math_alttext": 0, "mathml": 0, "mathjax_tag": 0, "mathjax_inline_tex": 0, "mathjax_display_tex": 0, "mathjax_asciimath": 0, "img_math": 0, "codecogs_latex": 3, "wp_latex": 0, "mimetex.cgi": 0, "/images/math/codecogs": 0, "mathtex.cgi": 0}, "config": {"markdown_headings": true, "markdown_code": true, "boilerplate_config": {"ratio_threshold": 0.18, "absolute_threshold": 10, "end_threshold": 15, "enable": true}, "remove_buttons": true, "remove_image_figures": true, "remove_link_clusters": true, "table_config": {"min_rows": 2, "min_cols": 3, "format": "plain"}, "remove_chinese": true, "remove_edit_buttons": true, "extract_latex": true}, "english_confidence": 0.9312949180603027, "perplexity_flag": "middle"}