# Presentation: 362652

## LHC4TeV – Tevatron collider physics in the LHC era

- 	Or, is there *important *physics the tevatron can do in the 	next ~decade even with LHC (and its detectors) 	functioning well?
- 		[ILC at least a decade away]
- 					Gordy Kane
- 				Fermilab, University of Chicago
- 					April 2006

## OUTLINE
Supersymmetry – still the default 
Cosmology is a subfield of supersymmetry
Higgs physics issues
Inclusive signatures are all there is at hadron 	colliders
LHC Inverse Problem – from inclusive signatures to 	spectrum, underlying theory
Is it SUSY?
LHC Olympics
Degeneracies – a new complication
Dark Matter Inverse Problem
Toward the underlying theory

- Supersymmetry – still the default
- Cosmology is a subfield of supersymmetry
- Higgs physics issues
- Inclusive signatures are all there is at hadron 	colliders
- LHC Inverse Problem – from inclusive signatures to 	spectrum, underlying theory
- Is it SUSY?
- LHC Olympics
- Degeneracies – a new complication
- Dark Matter Inverse Problem
- Toward the underlying theory

## Supersymmetry remains the default to extend the SM and strengthen its foundations – very good motivation

Part of attractive top-down picture – deeper, simpler theory at very short distances ~ unification scale
Can stabilize hierarchy – assume low scale superpartners (and μ) to get weak scale
Then derive gauge coupling unification, electroweak symmetry breaking (Higgs mechanism)
Can have dark matter candidate particle, can explain matter asymmetry, can calculate  electroweak mixing angle
Consistent with all data, predicts no physics beyond-the-SM at LEP, mh<200 GeV
Alternative approaches generally don’t get GCU, need extra assumption for EWSB, don’t explain absence of LEP signal

- Part of attractive top-down picture – deeper, simpler theory at very short distances ~ unification scale
- Can stabilize hierarchy – assume low scale superpartners (and μ) to get weak scale
- Then *derive* gauge coupling unification, electroweak symmetry breaking (Higgs mechanism)
- Can have dark matter candidate particle, can explain matter asymmetry, can calculate  electroweak mixing angle
- Consistent with all data, predicts no physics beyond-the-SM at LEP, mh<200 GeV
- Alternative approaches generally don’t get GCU, need extra assumption for EWSB, don’t explain absence of LEP signal

## 
“MSSM” means softly broken minimal supersymmetric Standard Model – same SU(3)xSU(2)xU(1) gauge symmetry as SM, 2 Higgs doublet fields, plus “R-parity”

So every SM particle has a superpartner – spin 1⁄2 unit different, mass can be different 

- “MSSM” means softly broken minimal supersymmetric Standard Model – same SU(3)xSU(2)xU(1) gauge symmetry as SM, 2 Higgs doublet fields, plus “R-parity”
- So every SM particle has a superpartner – spin 1⁄2 unit different, mass can be different

## Are there light superpartners to detect at Tevatron? 
	Assume ILC with total energy 500 GeV can produce new particles – then very likely Tevatron can too
		-- small windows where can produce superpartners at ILC 	but not Tevatron, but can produce gluinos at Tevatron and 	not ILC
So no need to argue for light superpartners 

Some analyses encouraging 
	-- ~2σ fits to precision data [Altarelli et al; Hagiwara et al; Ellis, Heinemeyer, Olive, and Weiglein, hep-ph/0602220]  
	-- gμ-2 ~ 2.7σ 
	-- less encouraging – absence of non-SM effects in rare b 	factory phenomena
	-- minimize fine-tuning suggests light gluinos

- 	Assume ILC with total energy 500 GeV can produce new particles – then very likely Tevatron can too
- 		-- small windows where can produce superpartners at ILC 	but not Tevatron, but can produce gluinos at Tevatron and 	not ILC
- So no need to argue for light superpartners
- Some analyses encouraging
- 	-- ~2σ fits to precision data [Altarelli et al; Hagiwara et al; Ellis, Heinemeyer, Olive, and Weiglein, hep-ph/0602220]
- 	-- gμ-2 ~ 2.7σ
- 	-- less encouraging – absence of non-SM effects in rare b 	factory phenomena
- 	-- minimize fine-tuning suggests light gluinos

## Consider only physics Beyond-the-Standard-Model today

Why might Tevatron do physics LHC cannot?
Lower thresholds
Lower, different backgrounds
Certain channels doable 

Local experts Mrenna, Carena, Wagner... also Liantao Wang 
Could do systematic study to ask what luminosity required for all my examples – expect  10 fb-1 
Need to look at several examples in detail to see importance of Tevatron – not just motherhood

- Why might Tevatron do physics LHC cannot?
- Lower thresholds
- Lower, different backgrounds
- Certain channels doable
- Local experts Mrenna, Carena, Wagner... also Liantao Wang
- Could do systematic study to ask what luminosity required for all my examples – expect  10 fb-1
- Need to look at several examples in detail to see importance of Tevatron – not just motherhood

## Why is cosmology a subfield of supersymmetry?

dark matter – but what is the dark matter?
		-- three candidates suggested by data and good theories, neutrinos, axions and lightest superpartner (LSP) 
		– presumably all present, perhaps others -- question is how much of each 
		– must detect signal of each, then must calculate relic density of each --  (ΩDM~0.2 – Ων<0.01 from WMAP etc) 
		– LSP relic density calculations require knowledge of cosmology, superpartners masses and couplings , LSP combination of bino, wino, higgsinos – Tevatron relevant, maybe crucial

COSMOLOGY CONSTRAINS DARK MATTER PROPERTIES, BUT NEED PARTICLE PHYSICS TO SUPPLY THE DARK MATTER PARTICLE – KNOWLEDGE OF LSP CRUCIAL
		 Dark Matter Inverse Problem
	[Brhlik, Chung, GK hep-ph/0005158; Bourjaily and GK, hep-ph/0501262]

- dark matter – but what is the dark matter?
- 		-- three candidates suggested by data and good theories, neutrinos, axions and lightest superpartner (LSP)
- 		– presumably all present, perhaps others -- question is how much of each
- 		– must detect signal of each, then ***must calculate relic density of each*** --  (ΩDM~0.2 – Ων<0.01 from WMAP etc)
- 		– LSP relic density calculations require knowledge of cosmology, superpartners masses and couplings , LSP combination of bino, wino, higgsinos – Tevatron relevant, maybe crucial
- COSMOLOGY CONSTRAINS DARK MATTER PROPERTIES, BUT NEED PARTICLE PHYSICS TO SUPPLY THE DARK MATTER PARTICLE – KNOWLEDGE OF LSP CRUCIAL
- 		 *Dark Matter Inverse Problem*
- 	[Brhlik, Chung, GK hep-ph/0005158; Bourjaily and GK, hep-ph/0501262]

## 				
 Origin of matter asymmetry?
	-- cosmology tells us universe began from neutral vacuum and initially was equally matter and antimatter – and that it is now mainly matter, not antimatter – need particle physics to generate the asymmetry 
	-- main methods use supersymmetry, or need it to have a high scale consistently in the theory
    -- actually several good ways to get matter asymmetry – all may contribute – calculate how much from each – light stop and higgs needed for EW baryogenesis [Carena, Wagner, Quiros et al]  can test at Tevatron – if stop light might be very challenging to test at LHC

	        Matter asymmetry Inverse Problem

-  Origin of matter asymmetry?
- 	-- cosmology tells us universe began from neutral vacuum and initially was equally matter and antimatter – and that it is now mainly matter, not antimatter – need particle physics to generate the asymmetry
- 	-- main methods use supersymmetry, or need it to have a high scale consistently in the theory
-     -- actually several good ways to get matter asymmetry – all may contribute – ***calculate how much from each*** – light stop and higgs needed for EW baryogenesis [Carena, Wagner, Quiros et al]  can test at Tevatron – if stop light might be very challenging to test at LHC
- 	        *Matter asymmetry Inverse Problem*

## 

inflation, followed by Big Bang -- but what is the inflaton?
		-- RH sneutrino?  -- A superpartner...
			[Yanigida et al, Ellis et al, King et al]

		-- scalar fields from string theory (moduli), near string scale, so need to be able to connect high and low scale theories to learn about them – e.g. recent approaches have moduli potentials from “fluxes” (generalizations of electromagnetic fields) 
			[Gaillard, Binetruy; Kallosh, Kachru, Linde, Trevidi; Tye et al] 
	   --also have supersymmetry broken by fluxes  superpartner masses and interactions, measured at colliders, can determine inflation parameters

		COSMOLOGY CONSTRAINS INFLATON POTENTIAL BUT NEED  PARTICLE PHYSICS TO SUPPLY THE INFLATON
			Inflaton Inverse Problem

- inflation, followed by Big Bang -- but *what is the inflaton?*
- 		-- RH sneutrino?  -- A superpartner...
- 			[Yanigida et al, Ellis et al, King et al]
- 		-- scalar fields from string theory (moduli), near string scale, so need to be able to connect high and low scale theories to learn about them – e.g. recent approaches have moduli potentials from “fluxes” (generalizations of electromagnetic fields)
- 			[Gaillard, Binetruy; Kallosh, Kachru, Linde, Trevidi; Tye et al]
- 	   --also have supersymmetry broken by fluxes  superpartner masses and interactions, measured at colliders, can determine inflation parameters
- 		COSMOLOGY CONSTRAINS INFLATON POTENTIAL BUT NEED  PARTICLE PHYSICS TO SUPPLY THE INFLATON
- 			*Inflaton Inverse Problem*

## 
Next look at Higgs physics

- Next look at Higgs physics

## IF SUPERSYMMETRY EXPLAINS HIGGS MECHANISM AND EWSB, EXPECT LIGHT HIGGS  BOSON – ONLY QUANTITATIVE PREDICTION

In MSSM “light” means < 130 GeV – but putting in constraints from non-discovery of superpartners or their effects, to get mh>100 GeV takes some arranging of parameters

Is that a problem?
	-- 				  , i.e. an accident
	-- EMSSM? – e.g. NMSSM – generally string theory gives low scale EMSSM 	and/or CPV MSSM – then usual limits on higgs bosons do not apply
	-- maybe – less fine-tuning if superpartners light, e.g. gluino at Tevatron

In general supersymmetric theory, EMSSM, assume only that theory stays perturbative up to unification scale, and Higgs mechanism gives mass to W,Z – then mh≤2MZ approximately [1993 GK, Kolda, Wells; Espinosa and Quiros] –  no dependence on how supersymmetry is broken, on other vevs, etc. -- upper limit, actual mass could be much smaller 

- In MSSM “light” means < 130 GeV – but putting in constraints from non-discovery of superpartners or their effects, to get mh>100 GeV takes some arranging of parameters
- Is that a problem?
- 	-- 				  , i.e. an accident
- 	-- EMSSM? – e.g. NMSSM – generally string theory gives low scale EMSSM 	and/or CPV MSSM – then usual limits on higgs bosons do not apply
- 	-- maybe – less fine-tuning if superpartners light, e.g. gluino at Tevatron
- In general supersymmetric theory, EMSSM, assume only that theory stays perturbative up to unification scale, and Higgs mechanism gives mass to W,Z – then mh≤2MZ approximately [1993 GK, Kolda, Wells; Espinosa and Quiros] –  no dependence on how supersymmetry is broken, on other vevs, etc. -- upper limit, actual mass could be much smaller

## ]

## Extend MSSM -- NMSSM well motivated (get μ at low scale, common in string theories), 
	--N=s+ia 

	-- suggests [Gunion et al, Pierce et al, ?]                                        

	-- LEP limit < 85 GeV
	-- then can use ggh inclusive production at Tevatron
	-- good signatures, a’s boosted, trileptons with 	different kinematics, etc
	-- very difficult at LHC, OK at Tevatron with 5-20 fb-1

- 	--N=s+ia
- 	-- suggests [Gunion et al, Pierce et al, ?]
- 	-- LEP limit < 85 GeV
- 	-- then can use ggh inclusive production at Tevatron
- 	-- good signatures, a’s boosted, trileptons with 	different kinematics, etc
- 	-- very difficult at LHC, OK at Tevatron with 5-20 fb-1

## Also,

14 MSSM higgs sectors that satisfy LEP bounds  and have light higgs bosons (and often light charged Higgs bosons) that are hard for LHC (GK, Nelson, Wang, Wang (hep-ph/0407001) 

Some related analyses by Carena, Mrenna, Wagner 

- 14 MSSM higgs sectors that satisfy LEP bounds  and have light higgs bosons (and often light charged Higgs bosons) that are hard for LHC (GK, Nelson, Wang, Wang (**hep-ph/0407001)**
- Some related analyses by Carena, Mrenna, Wagner

## Whole region below about 200 GeV can be covered at Tevatron+LHC in almost all models

If mh  115 GeV Tevatron probably easier!!

What if Higgs boson not seen at LHC? Look harder at Tevatron!
		(and study longitudinal WW scattering at LHC)

The form the higgs physics takes points to how the SM gets extended

- If mh  115 GeV Tevatron probably easier!!
- What if Higgs boson not seen at LHC? Look harder at Tevatron!
- 		(and study longitudinal WW scattering at LHC)
***The form the higgs physics takes points to how the SM gets extended***

## HOPEFULLY, SOON DATA FROM LHC (OR TEVATRON) WILL PROVIDE A SIGNAL OF PHYSICS BTSM

After the champagne.....

First question -- is there really a BTSM signal? – compare carefully with the SM – experimenters will do that well, based on existing and coming theory calculations – more work needed, but under control

- After the champagne.....
- First question -- is there really a BTSM signal? – compare carefully with the SM – experimenters will do that well, based on existing and coming theory calculations – more work needed, but under control

## At hadron colliders experimenters will measure σxBR, and some kinematical quantities, distributions – “inclusive signatures” [GK, hep-ph/9709318, Frisch...] --  but nothing they measure is in the Lagrangian

How do we go from such information toward the spectrum of superpartners, and the underlying theory? 
		(For at least a decade after have LHC data 	cannot have a linear collider)

			 LHC Inverse Problem

- How do we go from such information toward the spectrum of superpartners, and the underlying theory?
- 		(For at least a decade after have LHC data 	cannot have a linear collider)
*	**	**	** **LHC Inverse Problem*

## 
Usual approach has been “forward” calculations – really assuming that if one calculates signatures of many models one will recognize what is observed – but that assumes a unique relation between signatures and models – forward approach useful, but unlikely to be sufficient

- Usual approach has been “forward” calculations – really assuming that if one calculates signatures of many models one will recognize what is observed – but that assumes a unique relation between signatures and models – forward approach useful, but unlikely to be sufficient

## LHC INVERSE PROBLEM:

1. Is it SUSY? Or ...

2. What spectrum of superpartners gives the observed signal?

3. Can one figure out the low scale Lagarangian?
		(A major issue – the mass eigenstate masses and decay rates come from 	diagonalizing matrices formed from the Lagrangian parameters)

4. Can one deduce the mass and properties of the LSP dark matter candidate in order to calculate its relic density?

5. Can one figure out the unification scale Lagrangian?

6. Can one get insights into the underlying (presumably 10D string) theory?

Will need Tevatron...

- 1. Is it SUSY? Or ...
- 2. What spectrum of superpartners gives the observed signal?
- 3. Can one figure out the low scale Lagarangian?
- 		(A major issue – the mass eigenstate masses and decay rates come from 	diagonalizing matrices formed from the Lagrangian parameters)
- 4. Can one deduce the mass and properties of the LSP dark matter candidate in order to calculate its relic density?
- 5. Can one figure out the unification scale Lagrangian?
- 6. Can one get insights into the underlying (presumably 10D string) theory?
***Will need Tevatron...***

## 1. IS IT SUPERSYMMETRY?      [Datta, GK, Toharia, hep-ph/0510204]
Several robust types of signatures – GENERAL ANALYSIS (not msugra)

Events with missing transverse energy, from escaping LSP
Same-sign leptons (or b’s or tops) because gauginos are Majorana 		fermions
b-rich events if stops or sbottoms are the lightest squarks, since gluino decays 	then dominated by decays through them
Trileptons if charginos and neutralinos light and if LSP significantly lighter than 	others
Can get prompt photons
Etc.
Note analyses within “msugra” can be quite misleading – many signatures not 	possible

If not these signatures, the events give excess jets and relative jet multiplicities, and one can find them.

Can we distinguish susy from UED? – yes
Can we distinguish susy from something not yet thought of? – yes  

- Several robust types of signatures – *GENERAL ANALYSIS (not msugra)*
- Events with missing transverse energy, from escaping LSP
- Same-sign leptons (or b’s or tops) because gauginos are Majorana 		fermions
- b-rich events if stops or sbottoms are the lightest squarks, since gluino decays 	then dominated by decays through them
- Trileptons if charginos and neutralinos light and if LSP significantly lighter than 	others
- Can get prompt photons
- Etc.
- Note analyses within “msugra” can be quite misleading – many signatures not 	possible
- If not these signatures, the events give excess jets and relative jet multiplicities, and one can find them.
- Can we distinguish susy from UED? – yes
- Can we distinguish susy from something not yet thought of? – yes

## Traditional way people hoped to demonstrate what is discovered is indeed supersymmetry is to measure the superpartner spins, and gauge couplings (which are predicted by the symmetry) – difficult, but will eventually be done even at LHC (easier at linear collider but ...) 

Probably can effectively measure some spins initially at hadron colliders by using relation between spin and cross section once know mass scale

Often claimed that other physics models (e.g. various large extra dimension ones) can fake supersymmetry – can they? – not in my view, after a little work

- Probably can effectively measure some spins initially at hadron colliders by using relation between spin and cross section once know mass scale
- Often claimed that other physics models (e.g. various large extra dimension ones) can fake supersymmetry – can they? – not in my view, after a little work

## The particle spins are different – e.g. in Kaluza-Klein theories it is the spin 1 gluon recurrence that fakes gluinos – but at a fixed mass the production cross sections differ by an order of magnitude so easy to distinguish [Datta, GK, Toharia hep-ph/0510204] – really sensitive to mass difference [Cheng, Low, Wang hep-ph/0510225, and Meade, Reece hep-ph/0601124 ], so may need two scales – once there is data to fix the mass scales, then one can distinguish – need data from Tevatron to get both scales (study in examples)
Also, in SUSY leptons from sleptons and various sources, but in UED from W’, Z’ so branching ratios different if sleptons not too heavy

I think “is it susy” will 
not be hard to settle
at LHC

- Also, in SUSY leptons from sleptons and various sources, but in UED from W’, Z’ so branching ratios different if sleptons not too heavy
*I think “is it susy” will *
*not be hard to settle*
*at LHC*

## 2. Can we learn what spectrum of superpartners gives the observed signal?
	-- e.g. see “82” events with same sign, same flavor dileptons (plus ≥ 2 >100 GeV jets), “175” events with opposite sign dileptons, etc, “inclusive signatures” – but can’t measure masses, BR of superpartners directly – 2 escaping LSP’s, each signature may be from several channels, etc

LHC Olympics!
Simulate results of first year LHC running – post on web site, “blackboxes” – as one would get data from talks by experimenters at first conference, inclusive signatures, numbers and distributions – [also as data would come from detectors so can calculate rates, distributions]
So far – Michigan blackbox, start with underlying 10D theory, assume compactification, susy breaking, get spectrum, calculate inclusive signatures – Harvard, Washington assume spectrum of superpartners, calculate signatures

- 	-- e.g. see “82” events with same sign, same flavor dileptons (plus ≥ 2 >100 GeV jets), “175” events with opposite sign dileptons, etc, “inclusive signatures” – but can’t measure masses, BR of superpartners directly – 2 escaping LSP’s, each signature may be from several channels, etc
*LHC Olympics!*
- Simulate results of first year LHC running – post on web site, “blackboxes” – as one would get data from talks by experimenters at first conference, inclusive signatures, numbers and distributions – [also as data would come from detectors so can calculate rates, distributions]
- So far – Michigan blackbox, start with underlying 10D theory, assume compactification, susy breaking, get spectrum, calculate inclusive signatures – Harvard, Washington assume spectrum of superpartners, calculate signatures

## 	
			N jets:	0	1	2	3	>3
Leptons:

	0		          2919      10284  10694     6857     4734

	1		           607         1693   1458       760       411

	SS                             15            49       25           9           5

	OS                             27            35       25           7           6

  trileptons                       0               0         0            0          0

- 			N jets:	0	1	2	3	>3
- Leptons:
- 	0		          2919      10284  10694     6857     4734
- 	1		           607         1693   1458       760       411
- 	SS                             15            49       25           9           5
- 	OS                             27            35       25           7           6
-   trileptons                       0               0         0            0          0

## 

Tevatron data can be powerful in blackbox analyses
	-- and therefore in the real world too

- Tevatron data can be powerful in blackbox analyses
- 	-- and therefore in the real world too

## DEGENERACIES!
Generally assumed in past that experimenters would find a set of signals, from which we would learn the superpartner masses
But at a hadron collider turns out there are degeneracies
		[Arkani-Hamed, GK, Thaler, Wang hep-ph/0512190]

	e.g. some flat directions

- Generally assumed in past that experimenters would find a set of signals, from which we would learn the superpartner masses
- But at a hadron collider turns out there are degeneracies
- 		[Arkani-Hamed, GK, Thaler, Wang hep-ph/0512190]
- 	e.g. some flat directions

## “Forward” approach fails!

- “Forward” approach fails!

-  Islands are different in important ways – e.g. some LSPs give very different relic densities from others, some have gaugino mass unification
-  “degenerate” means different ways of satisfying the constraints

## 
Need to understand degeneracies to see important role for Tevatron in removing them – will show example where Tevatron needed to learn what the dark matter is

- Need to understand degeneracies to see important role for Tevatron in removing them – will show example where Tevatron needed to learn what the dark matter is

## Slide 30

## Slide 31

## [statistical analysis, can estimate number but only find examples accidentally]

##  Same collider     signatures

- CATALOG DEGENERACIES:
- 	models different if anything not on diagonal

-  Same collider     signatures

## Slide 34

## -- actually found a flipper in analyzing Seattle blackbox

- -- actually found a flipper in analyzing Seattle blackbox

## Slide 36

## Degeneracies not just global, but 

- Degeneracies not just global, but
- for every signature!

- Each
- row a
- signature

- Two models – 3rd is one of them with different initial random number

## Slide 38

## Slide 39

## Slide 40

## Slide 41

## Initial analysis done without SM backgrounds
	-- backgrounds only make it more difficult
	-- used hard cuts so backgrounds small
	-- now repeating (T. Hartman) with SM backgrounds – 	signal ~ backgrounds

- 	-- backgrounds only make it more difficult
- 	-- used hard cuts so backgrounds small
- 	-- now repeating (T. Hartman) with SM backgrounds – 	signal ~ backgrounds

## Suppose LHC finds a signal – very difficult for LHC to deduce nature of LSP– leptons soft – flippers, etc
Several ways to remove higgsino/wino LSP degeneracy using Tevatron data!

1.					□ Note quark partons, better at tevatron
			□ Signature jj+

- Several ways to remove higgsino/wino LSP degeneracy using Tevatron data!
- 1.					□ Note quark partons, better at tevatron
- 			□ Signature jj+

- Light gluino

- Light squark

## Positron energy

- [GK, Liantao Wang, Ting Wang hep-ph/0202156]

*No studies yet, but these LSPs easily in LHC range, probably in Tevatron’s – recently supported by AMS*

## 2.

(Signals, backgrounds studied by Mrenna, Gunion)
3.

- (Signals, backgrounds studied by Mrenna, Gunion)
- 3.

- 3. From spectrum to Lagrangian?
- 	Example: consider charginos
- Four unknowns, two observables—can’t invert!
- Masses, cross sections depend on phases
- In general, more parameters than useful observables at hadron collider – need to untangle light superpartners, much easier at Tevatron than at LHC

- ANOTHER KIND OF DEGENERACY PROBLEM

## The MSSM has a lot of parameters – but all are fundamental physics parameters, all come from complex masses just as in the SM – most because of flavor

Two ways to reduce degeneracies

More independent signatures – we already use ~ 1800 signatures, so need new kinds
use jet charges, so can have quark flavor information – done successfully at LEP---- can also use for studying CPV at LHC
Tevatron data provides independent signatures!

Knowledge of the theory relating parameters – e.g. know origin of susy breaking, or know string theory – of course, we do not actually know that, but in a given theory one can remove the degeneracies, incorporate the LHC info, and make other predictions – if a given theory works pursue it, test it – in fact, we think signatures sensitive to string physics (GK, Piyush Kumar, Jing Shao, in progress)

- Two ways to reduce degeneracies
- More **independent** signatures – we already use ~ 1800 signatures, so need new kinds
- use jet charges, so can have quark flavor information – done successfully at LEP---- can also use for studying CPV at LHC
- Tevatron data provides independent signatures!
- Knowledge of the theory relating parameters – e.g. know origin of susy breaking, or know string theory – of course, we do not actually know that, but in a given theory one can remove the degeneracies, incorporate the LHC info, and make other predictions – if a given theory works pursue it, test it – in fact, we think signatures sensitive to string physics (GK, Piyush Kumar, Jing Shao, in progress)

## Dark Matter Inverse Problem

Now turn to dark matter – how can we deduce the relic density, learn if LSP (or ...) is all the DM?
		[Brhlik, Chung, GK hep-ph/0005158]

Much of literature is full of assumptions, mostly not checkable – hadron collider alone not enough

- Now turn to dark matter – how can we deduce the relic density, learn if LSP (or ...) is all the DM?
- 		[Brhlik, Chung, GK hep-ph/0005158]
- Much of literature is full of assumptions, mostly not checkable – hadron collider alone not enough

## EMSSM’s

- Bino-like: bino part
- of LSP > 0.97

- [Bourjaily, GK hep-ph/0501262]

**So LHC data alone cannot allow calculation of relic density**

## 
CONSIDER TWO MODELS:
   Show here Lagrangian parameters, spectrum,
   relic density, LSP detection

	 μ    m0  m1/2  mA  tanβ  At   Ab  mLSP  mstop  mgluino  mh ΩLSPh2  gf  Ge   sol   
A: 308  413   327  380    11   -.98  -.98    158      351    1138   112   0.10    .94  10-5    0.8
B: -442  406   326  338    15    0.8  0.02   163      360    1134    110  0.002  .99 3x10-8  10-3

- CONSIDER TWO MODELS:
-    Show here Lagrangian parameters, spectrum,
-    relic density, LSP detection
- 	 μ    m0  m1/2  mA  tanβ  At   Ab  mLSP  mstop  mgluino  mh ΩLSPh2  gf  Ge   sol
- A: 308  413   327  380    11   -.98  -.98    158      351    1138   112   0.10    .94  10-5    0.8
- B: -442  406   326  338    15    0.8  0.02   163      360    1134    110  0.002  .99 3x10-8  10-3

- Gaugino fraction—
- note smaller gf has
- larger relic density!

- Counts/day/kg-keV
- In 20 keV bin

- Muons/yr-sq km

- [Bourjaily, GK hep-ph/0501262]

## Choose median signal--√ above, x below, both, N.O. not observable

| Const./Signatures | A | B | C | D | E | F | G |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
|  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |
| HM-A | √ | √ | √ | √ | √ | √ | √ |
| HM-B | √ | √ | √ | √ | √ | √ | √ |
| HM-C | Both | Both | Both | √ | √ | √ | √ |
| PH-A | x | x | √ | √ | √ | √ | x |
| PH-B | x | x | x | N.O. | √ | x | x |
| II-A | x | x | Both | √ | x | x | Both |
| II-B | N.O. | N.O. | N.O. | N.O. | N.O. | N.O. | N.O. |

- Choose median signal--√ above, x below, both, N.O. not observable

## A –  Number of events with >=3 b jets and >=2 jets.  

B –  Number of events with 1 or 2 b jets and >=2jets.

C –  ratio of the number of events with >=3 b jets to the 	number of events with 1 photon (summed over >=2 jets).

D –  ratio of the number of events with 1 or 2 b jets  and the number     	of events with 0 taus

E –  ratio of the number of events with >=3 b jets ...  

etc     

ADDITIONAL SIGNATURES INVOLVING TEVATRON CAN BE VERY POWERFUL

*B* –  Number of events with 1 or 2 b jets and >=2jets.
*C* –  ratio of the number of events with >=3 b jets to the 	number of events with 1 photon (summed over >=2 jets).
*D* –  ratio of the number of events with 1 or 2 b jets  and the number     	of events with 0 taus
*E* –  ratio of the number of events with >=3 b jets ...
- etc
- ADDITIONAL SIGNATURES INVOLVING TEVATRON CAN BE VERY POWERFUL

## HM-A     : Heterotic M-theory models with one kahler modulus.

HM-B     : Heterotic M-theory models with one kahler modulus and 		one five-brane.

HM-C     : Herterotic M-theory models with two kahler moduli.

PH-A      : Perturtabative Heterotic string theory models with kahler 		stabilization of dilaton.  

PH-B      : Perturbative Heterotic string theory models with multiple 		gaugino condensates.

II-A       : Type II A string theory models with Intersecting D-branes.

II-B       : Type II B string theory models with KKLT-like moduli 		stabilization.

*HM-B     *: Heterotic M-theory models with one kahler modulus and 		one five-brane.
*HM-C     *: Herterotic M-theory models with two kahler moduli.
*PH-A*      : Perturtabative Heterotic string theory models with kahler 		stabilization of dilaton.
*PH-B      *: Perturbative Heterotic string theory models with multiple 		gaugino condensates.
*II-A       *: Type II A string theory models with Intersecting D-branes.
*II-B       *: Type II B string theory models with KKLT-like moduli 		stabilization.

## Slide 54

## HM-A construction   ---  Universal gaugino mass soft terms.
                                         Hierarchy between gauginos fixed (M1<M2<M3)
                                         Flipper degeneracy not  possible.

Since M2  ≈  2 M1 at low scale,  squeezer degeneracy also not
possible.

Turns out that slider degeneracy is also not allowed.  

  --- Do not want to vary the gluino mass a lot.
                               (by more than 50-60 GeV)

  --- The electroweak-ino spectrum also more or less fixed by the   	universality of gaugino masses.

  ---  Cannot get a “big-enough”  slider.

                      There exists no degeneracy in the HM-A construction !

-                                          Hierarchy between gauginos fixed (M1<M2<M3)
-                                          Flipper degeneracy *not*  possible.
- Since M2  ≈  2 M1 at low scale,  squeezer degeneracy also *not*
- possible.
- Turns out that slider degeneracy is also not allowed.
-   --- Do not want to vary the gluino mass a lot.
-                                (by more than 50-60 GeV)
-   --- The electroweak-ino spectrum also more or less fixed by the   	universality of gaugino masses.
-   ---  Cannot get a “big-enough”  slider.
-                       **There exists no degeneracy in the HM-A construction !**

## IF LIGHT h AND LIGHT SUPERPARTNERS EXIST, LHC AND TEVATRON WILL SEE SIGNALS 
THEN TEVATRON PROBABLY ESSENTIAL TO LEARNING THE MOST IMPORTANT PHYSICS 
	-- TEVATRON CAN PROVIDE INFO TO DETERMINE 	RELIC DENSITY OF LSP
	-- TEVATRON CAN DETERMINE ORIGIN OF MATTER 	ASYMMETRY
	-- TEVATRON BETTER FOR LIGHT h
	-- TEVATRON CAN UNTANGLE DEGENERACIES
	-- TEVATRON CAN HELP GET LAGRANGIAN FROM 	SPECTRUM,  AND POINT TO UNDERLYING 	THEORY

TEVATRON COMPLEMENTARY TO LHC, RUN TEVATRON WITH LHC UNTIL TURN ON ILC

- THEN TEVATRON PROBABLY ESSENTIAL TO LEARNING THE MOST IMPORTANT PHYSICS
- 	-- TEVATRON CAN PROVIDE INFO TO DETERMINE 	RELIC DENSITY OF LSP
- 	-- TEVATRON CAN DETERMINE ORIGIN OF MATTER 	ASYMMETRY
- 	-- TEVATRON BETTER FOR LIGHT h
- 	-- TEVATRON CAN UNTANGLE DEGENERACIES
- 	-- TEVATRON CAN HELP GET LAGRANGIAN FROM 	SPECTRUM,  AND POINT TO UNDERLYING 	THEORY
- ***TEVATRON COMPLEMENTARY TO LHC, RUN TEVATRON WITH LHC UNTIL TURN ON ILC***