Reconciling Supersymmetry and Leptogenesis Hitoshi Murayama (IPMU - - PowerPoint PPT Presentation
Reconciling Supersymmetry and Leptogenesis Hitoshi Murayama (IPMU Tokyo & Berkeley) COSMO 08, Madison, August 28, 2008 New intl research institute in Japan astrophysics particle theory particle expt mathematics official language:
Hitoshi Murayama (IPMU Tokyo & Berkeley) COSMO 08, Madison, August 28, 2008
New intl research institute in Japan astrophysics particle theory particle expt mathematics
>30% non-Japanese $13M/yr for 10 years launched Oct 1, 2007
2
New intl research institute in Japan astrophysics particle theory particle expt mathematics
>30% non-Japanese $13M/yr for 10 years launched Oct 1, 2007
2
SuperK with Gd to detect relic supernova neutrinos use KamLAND to look for 0νββ XMASS Xenon 800kg direct dark matter detection new HyperSuprimeCam camera at Subaru for weak lensing survey to measure dark energy w will join SDSS-III
billions of years
e− νe _ e− νe=νe _ e− n n p n p p
5
10 20 30 40 50 10/1/07 1/1/08 3/1/08 5/1/08 7/1/08 9/1/08 11/1/08
number of scientists
Japanese Asian European American Australian
Hitoshi Murayama (IPMU Tokyo & Berkeley) COSMO 08, Madison, August 28, 2008
8
working very hard to make things happen
reading tea leaves.....
9
data
KamLAND 2008 data beautiful oscillation demonstrate neutrino mass ⇒ heavy right-handed neutrinos? disappear reappear disappear r e a p p e a r
20 30 40 50 60 70 80
/E (km/MeV) L Survival Probability
KamLAND data Neutrino oscillation with real reactor distribution
1
0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 10
10
10
1
ILL Goesgen Savannah River Palo Verde CHOOZ Bugey Rovno Krasnoyarsk previous reactor experiments
10
11
Why is neutrino mass so small? Need right-handed neutrinos to generate neutrino mass
ν L νR
mD mD ν L ν R ν L νR
mD mD M ν L ν R mν = mD
2
M << mD
To obtain m3∼(Δm2
atm)1/2, mD∼mt, M3∼1014GeV (GUT!)
, but νR SM neutral
60 40 20 i-1() Minimal Supersymmetric Model [GeV] 1018 1015 1012 109 106 103 U(1)Y SU(2)L SU(3)C
12
hierarchy problem Neutrino Mass Non-baryonic Dark Matter Dark Energy Density Fluctuation
⇒supersymmetry ⇒seesaw + leptogenesis ⇒thermal relics with
mass < 100 TeV
⇒Λ or scalar field ⇒inflation
Kawasaki, Kohri, Moroi
14
Ω3/2h2<0.1
10
10
10
10
10
10
1 1 10 10
2
10
3
10
4
10
5
10
6
10
7
10
8
10
9
m3/2 (GeV) Tmax (GeV)
Moroi, HM, Yamaguchi +de Gouvêa
n3/2 s ≈ 1.5 × 10−12 TRH 1010GeV
anomaly mediation gauge mediation
NLSP late decay vs BBN
gravity mediation
Thermal leptogenesis Buchmüller, Plümacher
m3/2 = Λ2
SUSY
MP l
very low-energy
non-thermal leptogenesis
Superpartner of νR: V=m2φ2 displaced from the minimum at the beginning rolls down slowly: chaotic inflation now possible in string
(Silverstein)
quantum fluctuation source
reheating = leptogenesis decay products contain supersymmetry and hence usual SUSY Dark Matter
HM, Suzuki, Yanagida, Yokoyama
17
ns∼0.96, r∼0.16 Need m∼1013GeV , seesaw scale! Still consistent with latest WMAP , but V=λφ4 excluded Verification possible in the near future enough lepton asymmetry consistent with gravitino problem!
Murayama, Yanagida + Hamagchi
nB s ≈ 10−10 TRH 106GeV
For the leptogenesis to succeed, it is not required that sneutrino is the inflaton just need νR to dominate the universe at one point large coherent oscillation of νR from the end
inflaton decay into neutrinos (Lazarides, Schaefer, Shafi) but hybrid inflation tight dark matter: usual WIMPs in gravity mediation
18
(Randall Sundrum; Giudice, Luty, HM, Rattazzi)
used to rely on physical separation between MSSM and hidden sector stabilization of moduli? conformal sequestering replaces extra D (Luty, Sundrum) ISS + gauged flavor naturally realizes conformal sequestering
(Schmaltz, Sundrum)
gotten easier and more generic
SUSY masses due to anomaly = loops mSUSY ≈ m3/2/(16π2) m3/2≈100 TeV , decays before BBN, safe! solves also the flavor problem tachyonic sleptons may be solved with D- terms (Arkani-Hamed, Kaplan, HM, Nomura) integrating out νR violates flavor, but lepton flavor violation still adequately suppressed
(Ibe, Kitano, HM, Yanagida)
21
Mi = −βi(g2) 2g2
i
m3/2, m2
i = − ˙
γi 4 m2
3/2,
Aijk = −1 2(γi + γj + γk)m3/2
Randall, Sundrum Giudice, Luty, HM, Rattazzi
Dynamical Supersymmetry Breaking Messenger Sector Supersymmetric Standard Model µ107 GeV µ105 GeV µ102–103 GeV messenger U(1) SU(3)SU(2)U(1)
W = φ+φ−X + X3 + X ¯ ff
23
W = X ¯ ff
Dynamical Supersymmetry Breaking Messenger Sector Supersymmetric Standard Model µ107 GeV µ105 GeV µ102–103 GeV messenger U(1) SU(3)SU(2)U(1)
SU(6) U(1) U(1)m U(1)R A 15 +2 − 18
7
F 6 −5 − 18
7
¯ F ± ¯ 6 −1 ±1
16 7
¯ F 0 ¯ 6 −1
16 7
S± 1 +6 ±1
16 7
S0 1 +6
16 7
W = A ¯ F + ¯ F − + ¯ F 0(F +S− + F −S+) + FF 0S0
W = φ+φ−X + X3 + X ¯ ff
24
Kawasaki, Kohri, Moroi
25
Ω3/2h2<0.1
10
10
10
10
10
10
1 1 10 10
2
10
3
10
4
10
5
10
6
10
7
10
8
10
9
m3/2 (GeV) Tmax (GeV)
Moroi, HM, Yamaguchi +de Gouvêa
n3/2 s ≈ 1.5 × 10−12 TRH 1010GeV
Thermal leptogenesis Buchmüller, Plümacher
anomaly mediation gauge mediation
NLSP late decay vs BBN
gravity mediation
SUSY
26
SU(Nc), SO(Nc), Sp(Nc)
M ¯ ff mQ ¯ QQ 1 MP l ¯ QQ ¯ ff
Nc < Nf < 3 2Nc
27
SUSY SU(Nc) QCD Nc<Nf<3Nc/2 low-energy free magnetic theory (mQ<Λ) SUSY breaking @ Local minimum with long lifetime Generates SUSY breaking in f, fbar their loops⇒gauge mediation doesn’ t have to be ISS, many others possible W = mij
Q ¯
QiQj W = mij
QΛMij + Mij ¯
qiqj
W = 1 MP l ¯ QQ ¯ ff
28
Mij = 0,
∂W ∂Mij = mij Q = 0
Intriligator Seiberg Shih
HM, Nomura
String theory does not predict unique solution “Landscape” of possibilities for gauge groups, matter content, number of SUSY We at least need SM We tend to get extra “junks”, i.e. extra gauge groups, extra vector-like matter the “junks” are precisely what we need to break SUSY via gauge mediation Easy, Viable, Generic!
29
e.g., Kawano, Ooguri, Ookouchi
30
gravitino mass very flexible, can be ≈10eV , consistent with leptogenesis local minimum with low m3/2 sufficiently long- lived (Hisano, Nagai, Sugiyama, Yanagida) dark matter: hidden “baryon” ≈ 100 TeV
(Hamaguchi, Shirai, Yanagida)
SUSY breaking sector may be conformal (Roy,
Schmaltz), (HM, Nomura, Poland), helps to explain why
Mf ≈ Λ to obtain low m3/2
31
sleptons promptly decay into lepton+gravitino with picosec lifetime ➔ measure m3/2! specific mass spectrum of SUSY particles in principle depends on “hidden” sector but testable sum rules if GUT (Cohen, Roy,
Schmaltz), (HM, Nomura, Poland)
superlight gravitino may be detectable in LSS, Lyman α forest current most aggressive analysis requires m3/2<16eV (Viel, Lesgourgues, Haehnelt, Matarrese, Riotto), but probably weakened by systematics & WMAP5, m3/2<100eV or so
32
33
34
good size for cosmological constant can also be axion-like quintessence explains cosmic coincidence
Arkani-Hamed, Hall, Kolda, HM
anomaly mediation
Why do we see matter and cosmological constant almost equal in amount? “Why Now” problem Actually a triple coincidence problem including the radiation There must be a reason behind it
10–41 10–35 10–29 10–23 10–17 10–11 10–5 101 107 1013 1019 1025 1031 1037 1043 1049 1055 1061 1067 10–18 10–16 10–14 10–12 10–10 10–8 10–6 10–4 10–2 100 102 104 106
[GeV cm–3] T [GeV] radiation matter Tnow
Why do we see matter and cosmological constant almost equal in amount? “Why Now” problem Actually a triple coincidence problem including the radiation There must be a reason behind it
10–41 10–35 10–29 10–23 10–17 10–11 10–5 101 107 1013 1019 1025 1031 1037 1043 1049 1055 1061 1067 10–18 10–16 10–14 10–12 10–10 10–8 10–6 10–4 10–2 100 102 104 106
[GeV cm–3] T [GeV] radiation matter Tnow
10–35 10–29 10–23 10–17 10–11 10–5 101 107 1013 1019 1025 1031 1037 1043 1049 1055 1061 1067 10– 10–16 10–14 10–12 10–10 10–8 10–6 10–4 10–2 100 102 104 106
[GeV cm–3] T [GeV] radiation matter Tnow
Radiation energy density ρR~T4 Matter energy density ρM~(TeV2/MPl)T3 They inevitably meet at T0~(TeV2/MPl)~10K If there is a reason for ρΛ~((TeV)2/MPl)4, all
Indeed, ρΛ~(2meV)4 while (TeV)2/MPl~1meV
~((100TeV)2/MPl)T3
~((100TeV)2/MPl)T3
~((100TeV)2/MPl)T3
thermal relic abundance unitarity limit <σ vrel>≤4π(2J+1)/(m2vrel) ΩM ≥ m2/(100TeV)2 saturates the limit with m=100TeV just the right scale for SUSY breaking! Actually m<100TeV requires light SUSY, typically m(gluino)<2TeV
39
ΩM = 0.756(n +1)x f
n+1
g1/2σannMPl
3
3s0 8πH0
2 ≈ α 2 /(TeV)2
σann
Dark matter may annihilate in the galactic center very high-energy gammas (i.e. HESS) data consistent with power law so far
Energy (TeV) 1 10 )
s
dN/dE (TeV cm
E
10
10
10
2004 (H.E.S.S.) 2003 (H.E.S.S.) MSSM KK
b 70% b
DM DM → visible background: dN/dE=2.5 10-12 ETeV-2.22 TeV-1 cm-2 s-1 signal: N∼3.0 10-13 cm-2 s-1 could show up at higher energies (Mandal, HM) can demonstrate by extrapolating weakly coupled calculable models
(Ibe, HM, Nakayama, Yanagida)
Energy (TeV) 1 10 )
s
dN/dE (TeV cm
E
10
10
10
2004 (H.E.S.S.) 2003 (H.E.S.S.) MSSM KK
b 70% b
neutrino oscillation provides a strong motivation for leptogenesis conflict with SUSY: gravitino problem non-thermal leptogenesis sneutrino inflation=φ2 chaotic inflation anomaly mediation much nicer w/ conformal sequestering gauge mediation easy, generic prompt decays into gravitino @ collider very high energy gammas signal?
42
looking for more data to read!
43
data