Upload
others
View
2
Download
0
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
Lattice simulations and extensions of thestandard model with strong interactions
Georg BergnerFSU Jena
SIFT 2017: Jena 23. 11. 2017
1 Strong interactions
2 Supersymmetric Yang-Mills theory on the lattice
3 Adjoint QCD and Technicolour theories
4 Conclusions and outlook
in collaboration with P. Giudice, S. Kuberski, G. Munster, I. Montvay,
S. Piemonte, S. Ali, H. Gerber, P. Scior, C. Lopez
2
Strong interactionsFeatures of strong interactions:
formations of bound states of hadronsand nuclear matter
create most of the mass of the bayonicmatter in the universe
dynamical scale generation
gu
uQ >> ΛQCD Q << ΛQCD
u d
uu
d
ggg
u + u + d −→ uu
d
3× 5 MeV 1000 MeV ∝ ΛQCD
3
The extension/completion/explanation of the StandardModel
Why extend the standard model of particle physics:
add missing explanation for Dark Matter
solve hierarchy problem and explain small Higgsmass
explain standard model parameters: flavour,mass parameters / Yukawa couplings
may other motivations: neutrino physics,quantum gravity, unification of forces
dark energy
dark matter
SM matter
4
The extension/completion/explanation of the StandardModel
General paradigms for the introduction of new physics:
1 new physics means new parameters and scales,less “explanation”
2 new physics adds natural explanation of scales by dynamics orsymmetry
3 scales and parameters are explained by unknown quantumgravity
5
Strong interactions: dynamic scale generationMassless QCD has no free parameters:
hadronic bound states are dynamical generated
scale of the masses not a free parameter of the theory
theory explains, not parametrizes, the masses
generates naturally large scale separationmassless pions (Goldstone bosons),massive bound states
[B. Lucini]
6
Specific extensions of the Standard Model
Composite or Technicolour models:
new strong dynamics beyond the standard model
Higgs generated as bound state, natural due to scale ofadditional strong interactions
Supersymmetry:
natural explanation by symmetry
Higgs mass corrections canceled by fermionic partners
interesting theoretical concept
7
The old idea of Technicolour
QCD + weak interactions without Higgs
QCD corrections to W and Z propagators
dominant contribution in massless limit: pion propagator
effectively generates mass for W and Z bosons
QCD
W W W π W m2W = 1
4gf2π
W mass correction by pion decay constant [Weinberg ’76],[Susskind ’79]
SU(NTC )× SU(3)× SU(2)L × UY
Two TC flavours: π±T ,π0T become longitudinal part of W , Z
8
The new idea of Technicolour or Composite models
Problems:
Higgs particle observed
Higgs generates fermion masses via Yukawa interactions
Requirements:
need light Higgs particle, large scale separation to other states
need effective interactions with via Extended Technicolour
Approaches:
1 Walking Technicolour approach
2 Composite models
3 Partial compositeness
9
The challenges for the constructions of Technicolour orComposite models
You have to explain:
fermion mass generation
electroweak precision data
flavour
Higgs mass
. . .
Since everything should be naturally generated by stronginteractions you have to explain everything at once . . . May be thisis not a good idea.
10
Supersymmetry
only possible non-trivial extension of the space-timesymmmetries (Coleman-Mandula theorem)
supersymmetry: every bosonic particle has fermionic partnerwith same mass
Where are the partner particles?
supersymmetry must be broken at lower scales
without knowledge of breaking mechanism: many possiblebreaking terms and parameters, less predictive
11
Strong interactions from lattice simulations
still no analytic method to compute low energy features ofstrongly interacting theories
first principles method: Lattice simulations
Well established method for the investigations of QCD, but can weapply it to other theories?
QCD: we have a good feeling about parameters anduncertainties
BSM: we need to redo and even re-think the analysis
12
Why needs Supersymmetry non-perturbative methods?
Two main motivations:
1 Supersymmetric particle physics requires breaking terms basedon an unknown non-perturbative mechanism.⇒ need to understand non-perturbative SUSY
2 Supersymmetry as theoretical concept: (Extended) SUSYsimplifies theoretical analysis and leads to newnon-perturbative approaches.
⇒ need to bridge the gap between “beauty” and
13
The challenges for supersymmetry on the lattice
discretize, cutoff in momentum space
(controlled) breaking of space-time symmetries⇒ uncontrolled SUSY breaking
derivative operators replaced by difference operators with noLeibniz rule⇒ breaks SUSY
fermonic doubling problem, Wilson mass term
Nielsen-Ninomiya theorem:No-Go for (naive) lattice chiral symmetry⇒ breaks SUSY
gauge fields represented as link variables⇒ different for fermions and bosons
[G.B., S. Catterall, arXiv:1603.04478]
14
The challenges for supersymmetry on the lattice
discretize, cutoff in momentum space
(controlled) breaking of space-time symmetries⇒ uncontrolled SUSY breaking
derivative operators replaced by difference operators with noLeibniz rule⇒ breaks SUSY
fermonic doubling problem, Wilson mass term
Nielsen-Ninomiya theorem:No-Go for (naive) lattice chiral symmetry⇒ breaks SUSY
gauge fields represented as link variables⇒ different for fermions and bosons
[G.B., S. Catterall, arXiv:1603.04478]
14
N =1 supersymmetric Yang-Mills theory
Supersymmetric Yang-Mills theory:
L = Tr
[−1
4FµνF
µν +i
2λ /Dλ−mg
2λλ
]
supersymmetric counterpart of Yang-Mills theory;but in several respects similar to QCD
λ Majorana fermion in the adjoint representation
15
Supersymmetric Yang-Mills theory:Symmetries
SUSY
gluino mass term mg ⇒ soft SUSY breaking
UR(1) symmetry, “chiral symmetry”: λ→ e−iθγ5λ
UR(1) anomaly: θ = kπNc
, UR(1)→ Z2Nc
UR(1) spontaneous breaking: Z2Nc
〈λλ〉6=0→ Z2
16
Supersymmetric Yang-Mills theory:effective actions
symmetries + confinement → low energy effective theory
low energy effective actions:1. multiplet1:mesons : a− f0 and a− η′fermionic gluino-glue2. multiplet2:glueballs: 0++ and 0−+
fermionic gluino-glue
Supersymmetry
All particles of a multi-plet must have the samemass.
1[Veneziano, Yankielowicz, Phys.Lett.B113 (1982)]
2[Farrar, Gabadadze, Schwetz, Phys.Rev. D58 (1998)]
17
Supersymmetric Yang-Mills theory on the latticeLattice action:
SL = β∑P
(1− 1
Nc<UP
)+
1
2
∑xy
λx (Dw (mg ))xy λy
Wilson fermions:
Dw = 1− κ4∑
µ=1
[(1− γµ)α,βTµ + (1 + γµ)α,βT
†µ
]gauge invariant transport: Tµλ(x) = Vµλ(x + µ);
κ =1
2(mg + 4)
links in adjoint representation: (Vµ)ab = 2Tr[U†µT aUµTb]
of SU(2), SU(3)
18
Recovering symmetry
Fine-tuning (Veneziano, Curci)1:
chiral limit = SUSY limit +O(a), obtained at critical κ(mg )
Wilson fermions:
explicit breaking of symmetries: chiral Sym. (UR(1)), SUSY
restored in chiral continuum limit
practical determination of critical κ:
limit of zero mass of adjoint pion (a− π)
⇒ definition of gluino mass: ∝ (ma−π)2
1[Veneziano, Curci, Nucl.Phys.B292 (1987)]
19
Supersymmetric Yang-Mills theory: Scale and massdetermination
scale setting:parameters: r0, w0
can be used for comparison to Yang-Mills theory, QCD
meson states (singlet)a–f0 (λλ), a–η′ (λγ5λ)methods for disconnected contributions [PoS LATTICE 2011]
glueballs
spin-1/2 state (gluino-glue)∑µ,ν
σµνtr [Fµνλ]
Technical challenge: Unfortunately all states are quite challengingto determine!
20
The particle masses ofN = 1 SU(3) supersymmetric Yang-Mills theory
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1
1.2
1.4
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9
am
(amπ)2
gluino-glueglueball 0++
0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9
am
(amπ)2
glueball 0++
a-η′a-f0
situation similar to the SU(2) case with comparable latticespacing
indication for a multiplet formation and restored SUSY inchiral limit
21
The status of the project
verification of VC scenario: chiral symmetry breaking andsupersymmetric Ward identities
multiplet formation found in the continuum limit of SU(2)SYM [JHEP 1603, 080 (2016)]
SYM thermodynamics: coincidence of chiral anddeconfinement transition [JHEP 1411, 049 (2014)]
SYM compactification: Witten index and absence ofdeconfinement [JHEP 1412, 133 (2014)]
first indication of multiplet formation in the excited states
first SU(3) results with clover improved Wilson fermions
SU(3) very similar to SU(2) case: Multiplet formation.
22
Walking Technicolour and the conformal windowWalking Technicolour scenario:
near conformal running of the gauge coupling toaccommodate fermion mass generation and absence of FCNCapproximate conformal symmetry might also lead to naturallight scalar particle (Higgs)
Interesting general question:
conformal window, strong dynamics different from QCDconformal mass spectrum: M ∼ m1/(1+γm) characterised byconstant mass ratios
α∗ conformal
Nf & 12
QCD
Q
α
23
Conformal window for adjoint QCD
Gauge theories in higher representation:
smaller number of fermions needed
here: conformal window for adjointrepresentation
mass anomalous dimension γ∗(Nf )
[Dietrich, Sannino,hep-ph/0611341]
24
Adjoint QCDadjoint Nf flavour QCD:
L = Tr
[−1
4FµνF
µν +
Nf∑i
ψi ( /D + m)ψi
]
Dµψ = ∂µψ + ig [Aµ, ψ]
ψ Dirac-Fermion in the adjoint representation
adjoint representation allows Majorana condition ψ = C ψT
⇒ half integer values of Nf : 2Nf Majorana flavours
Chiral symmetry breaking:
Z2Nc × SU(2Nf )→ Z2 × SO(2Nf )
25
Particle states and lattice action
Lattice action
Wilson fermion action + stout smearing
tree level Symanzik improved gauge action
some results: clover improvement
Particle states
triplet mesons mPS, mS, mV, mPV
glueball 0++
spin-1/2 mixed fermion-gluon state∑µ,ν
σµνtr [Fµνλ]
singlet mesons ma–f0 , ma–η′
26
Nf = 2 AdjQCD, Minimal Walking Technicolour
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1
1.2
1.4
1.6
0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25 0.3 0.35
M/m
PS
amPCAC
√σ/mPS
mV/mPSmspin− 1
2/mPS
m0++/mPSFπ/mPSmS/mPS
mPV/mPS323 × 64483 × 64643 × 64
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1
1.2
1.4
0.08 0.1 0.12 0.14 0.16 0.18 0.2 0.22 0.24 0.26
M/m
PS
amPCAC
√σ/mPS
mV/mPSmspin− 1
2/mPS
m0++/mPSFπ/mPSmS/mPS
mPV/mPS
Expected behaviour of a (near) conformal theory:
constant mass ratioslight scalar (0++)no light Goldstone (mPS)
Well established results: [Debbio, Lucini, Patella, Pica, 2016],[GB, Giudice, Munster, Montvay, Piemonte, 2017]
27
Results for Nf = 1 adjoint QCD
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
0 0.02 0.04 0.06 0.08 0.1 0.12 0.14 0.16
mState / σ
a mPCAC
2⁺ scalar baryon
2⁻ pseudoscalar baryon
2⁻ vector baryon
Spin-½ state
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
0 0.02 0.04 0.06 0.08 0.1 0.12 0.14 0.16
mState / σ
a mPCAC
0⁺ scalar meson
0⁻ pseudoscalar meson
0⁺ axial vector meson
0⁻ vector meson
0⁺ glueball
[Athenodorou, Bennett, GB, Lucini, arXiv:1412.5994]
28
Results for Nf = 3/2 adjoint QCD
0
0.5
1
1.5
2
2.5
3
0.06 0.08 0.1 0.12 0.14 0.16 0.18 0.2 0.22 0.24
M/m
PS
amPCAC
323 × 64243 × 48√σ/mPS
mV/mPSmspin− 1
2/mPS
m0++/mPSmS/mPS
mPV/mPS
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1
1.2
1.4
1.6
0.06 0.08 0.1 0.12 0.14 0.16 0.18
M/m
PS
amPCAC
323 × 64243 × 48483 × 96
Nf Dirac fermions → 2Nf Majorana fermions
with our experience of supersymmetric Yang-Mills theory, wecan simulate half integer fermion numbers
requires the Pfaffian sign
29
Pfaffian in Nf = 3/2 adjoint QCD
−4
−3
−2
−1
0
1
2
3
4
−0.2 −0.1 0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6
N1.4
sℑλ
N1.4s ℜλ
even at the critical parameters: no sign fluctuations of Pfaffian
30
Mass anomalous dimension for Minimal WalkingTechnicolour: Methods
Methods for determination of γ∗:scaling of mass spectrummode number (integrated spectral density of D†D )
Methods for mode number determination:
Chebyshev expansion of the spectral densityconsistency with [Giusti, Luscher, 0812.3638] checked
-0.1
0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
1
0 0.5 1 1.5 2
-0.010
0.010.020.030.040.050.060.070.080.090.1
0.10.150.20.250.30.350.40.450.5
Chebyshev expansiondiagonalisation
projection
-16
-14
-12
-10
-8
-6
-4
-2 -1.5 -1 -0.5 0
Chebyshev expansionprojection
31
Mass anomalous dimension for Nf = 3/2
0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 1.4
γ
Ωmin
κ = 0.1340κ = 0.1320κ = 0.1322
ν(Ω) = 2
∫ √Ω2−m2
0ρH(λ)dλ ; ν(Ω) = ν0 + a1(Ω2 − a2
2)2
1+γ
mass anomalous dimension around 0.38(2)
32
Mass anomalous dimension for Nf = 3/2
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
LM
(L/a)(amPCAC)1/(1+0.5)
323 × 64243 × 48163 × 32LmPSL√σ
LmV
0
5
10
15
20
25
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
LM
(L/a)(amPCAC)1/(1+0.38)
323 × 64243 × 48163 × 32483 × 96LmPSL√σ
LmV
check with the hyperscaling of the spectrum
33
Comparison with Nf = 1 and Nf = 1/2
Theory scalar particle γ∗ small β γ∗ larger βNf = 1/2 SYM part of multiplet – –Nf = 1 adj QCD light 0.92(1) 0.75(4)∗
Nf = 3/2 adj QCD light 0.50(5)∗ 0.38(2)∗
Nf = 2 adj QCD light 0.376(3) 0.274(10)(∗ preliminary)
remnant β dependence: γ∗ not real IR fixed point values
final results require inclusion of scaling corrections
investigation of (near) conformal theory requires carefulconsideration of lattice artefacts and finite size effects
34
What can we learn for realistic models?
Next to Minimal Walking Technicolour: Nf = 2 in sextetrepresentation [Bergner, Ryttov, Sannino, 1510.01763]
conformal window for adjoint fermions approximatelyindependent of Nc
large Nc up to factor 2 equivalence between symmetric,adjoint, and antisymmetric representation
small Nc = 2 equivalence between symmetric and adjointrepresentation
conformal behaviour of Nf = 1 indicates conformality ofNMWT
35
Towards more realistic theories: Ultra Minimal WalkingTechnicolour
mass anomalous dimension too small in MWT to be a realisticcandidate
Nf = 1 has large mass anomalous dimension, but not therequired particle content
Nf = 1 in adjoint + Nf = 2 in fundamental representation ofSU(2) has been conjectured to be ideal candidate (UMWT)
Nf = 1/2 adjoint + Nf = 2 in fundamental might also beclose enough to conformality
interesting also for further investigations: SQCD withoutscalar fields
test of mixed representation setup for partial compositenessmodels
36
First investigations in mixed representation setup
difficult tuning: two bare mass parameters have to be tuned
one-loop clover improved action with Wilson fermions infundamental and adjoint representations
investigate the influence of the adjoint fermions onfundamental sector
0
0.5
1
1.5
2
2.5
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8
w0mV
(amπ)2
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1
6.2 6.4 6.6 6.8 7 7.2 7.4 7.6 7.8 8
m2 π
1/κ
κfκfκaκa
37
Conclusions and outlook
interesting strongly interacting extensions of the StandardModel with dynamics different from QCD
close connection between the investigations of conformal, ornear conformal models and supersymmetric theories
N = 1 SU(3) supersymmetric Yang-Mills theory showssupersymmetric particle spectrum
interesting new investigations: adjoint+fundamental SU(2),adjoint Nf = 1 coupled to scalar
38