5 Higgs-like bosons -- natural supersymmetry required?

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the implications of the Minimal Supersymmetric Standard Model (MSSM) and natural supersymmetry (nMSSM) in relation to the existence of additional Higgs bosons beyond the Standard Model's prediction of a single Higgs boson at 126 GeV. Participants explore the predicted masses of these additional Higgs bosons, the implications of their absence in LHC findings, and the broader context of Higgs boson research.

Discussion Character

  • Debate/contested
  • Technical explanation
  • Exploratory

Main Points Raised

  • Some participants assert that MSSM and nMSSM require five Higgs-like bosons in total, while others clarify that this includes the 126 GeV Higgs predicted by the Standard Model.
  • There is uncertainty regarding the predicted masses of the additional Higgs bosons, with some participants suggesting that these values are largely speculative.
  • Participants discuss the mass exclusion ranges established by the LHC for various extra Higgs bosons, noting that these are experimental exclusions rather than definitive predictions.
  • One participant mentions that the absence of additional Higgs bosons could be explained if they are degenerate in mass with the observed 126 GeV Higgs boson.
  • There is a discussion about the potential for future experiments, such as a proposed Higgs factory, and whether these are necessary given the current capabilities of the LHC.
  • Some participants express the view that the LHC has effectively demonstrated that the observed Higgs boson aligns with the properties predicted by the Standard Model, while others question the need for further validation.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants do not reach a consensus on the implications of the LHC's findings regarding additional Higgs bosons. There are competing views on the significance of the mass exclusion ranges and the necessity of future experiments.

Contextual Notes

Limitations include the speculative nature of the predicted masses for the additional Higgs bosons and the dependency on model assumptions for the exclusion limits provided by the LHC.

kodama
Messages
1,088
Reaction score
144
MSSM and nMSSM require 5 higgs like bosons in addition to the 126 GEV the SM predicts.

thus far LHC has not found any of them.

what masses are predicted for Natural SUSY for these additional higgs and how much of a problem is it that the LHC has not found them?

if natural SUSY is correct should additional higgs have been found in LHC run 2?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Maybe. However, the masses of the additional Higgs bosons are guesswork right now.
 
kodama said:
MSSM and nMSSM require 5 higgs like bosons in addition to the 126 GEV the SM predicts.

No, it predicts five in total.
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: ohwilleke
Vanadium 50 said:
No, it predicts five in total.

given 1 higgs has a mass of 126 gev, what are the range of values for the other 4 predicted higgs masses?
 
What the LHC has done has created mass exclusion ranges for various prospective extra Higgs bosons. Specifically, a positively charged Higgs boson (H+), a negatively charged Higgs boson (H-), a pseudo-scalar Higgs boson (A) and an extra scalar Higgs boson (either H or h depending on whether the one at 126 GeV is the heavier one or the lighter one).

There are really no predictions regarding the other Higgs masses. They are free parameters in the model. All we have are experimental exclusions.

Exclusions as of 2013 can be found at https://cds.cern.ch/record/1556867/files/ATL-PHYS-SLIDE-2013-391.pdf

To summarize, as of that time, a heavy Higgs was excluded from 145 GeV to 710 GeV; A was excluded up to masses of about 200 GeV, charged Higgs were excluded up to 160 GeV. Almost all of those limits have grown larger over time.

One way for an extra Higgs to hide is for it to be degenerate with the 126 GeV Higgs in mass. But, the observed Higgs is so purely scalar than there can't be a degenerate mass A.

A 2015 summary is here: https://cds.cern.ch/record/2117949/files/ATL-PHYS-PROC-2015-206.pdf but has no "quotable" limits.

The particle data group summarizes limits for neutral extra Higgs here: http://pdglive.lbl.gov/Particle.action?node=S055 (it is quite conservative due to the model dependency of the limits since the couplings of extra Higgs bosons are uncertain, if they exist).

The particle data group limits for charged Higgs bosons are here: http://pdglive.lbl.gov/Particle.action?node=S064 and are also far too conservative.

A preprint search for 2HDM (two Higgs doublet models) in the experiment subsection would probably reveal more up to date papers with more rigorous limits than PDG does.
 
ohwilleke said:
What the LHC has done has created mass exclusion ranges for various prospective extra Higgs bosons. Specifically, a positively charged Higgs boson (H+), a negatively charged Higgs boson (H-), a pseudo-scalar Higgs boson (A) and an extra scalar Higgs boson (either H or h depending on whether the one at 126 GeV is the heavier one or the lighter one).

There are really no predictions regarding the other Higgs masses. They are free parameters in the model. All we have are experimental exclusions.

Exclusions as of 2013 can be found at https://cds.cern.ch/record/1556867/files/ATL-PHYS-SLIDE-2013-391.pdf

To summarize, as of that time, a heavy Higgs was excluded from 145 GeV to 710 GeV; A was excluded up to masses of about 200 GeV, charged Higgs were excluded up to 160 GeV. Almost all of those limits have grown larger over time.

One way for an extra Higgs to hide is for it to be degenerate with the 126 GeV Higgs in mass. But, the observed Higgs is so purely scalar than there can't be a degenerate mass A.

A 2015 summary is here: https://cds.cern.ch/record/2117949/files/ATL-PHYS-PROC-2015-206.pdf but has no "quotable" limits.

The particle data group summarizes limits for neutral extra Higgs here: http://pdglive.lbl.gov/Particle.action?node=S055 (it is quite conservative due to the model dependency of the limits since the couplings of extra Higgs bosons are uncertain, if they exist).

The particle data group limits for charged Higgs bosons are here: http://pdglive.lbl.gov/Particle.action?node=S064 and are also far too conservative.

A preprint search for 2HDM (two Higgs doublet models) in the experiment subsection would probably reveal more up to date papers with more rigorous limits than PDG does.

dear olwilleke, what kind of LHC experimental setups can prove that the Glashow-Weinberg-Salam Higgs as modeled by Higgs, Kibble, Guralnik, Hagen, Brout and Englert is correct? I read that the mass terms in the Higgs can come from other ways like the Coleman-Weinberg mechanism, etc.. If the latter is proven. Do they withdraw the Nobel Prize of Peter Higgs?
 
What the LHC can do is prove that the observed particle has all of the properties of the Standard Model Higgs boson. It has done a very good job in a very short time of doing just that. It has shown that it has the right quantum numbers to a very high precision. It has shown that the couplings that have been documented are the predicted ones to within a very modest margin of error. It is in the process of demonstrating that it is produced in all of the predicted ways. The width of the Higgs boson resonance has been constrained to a far smaller range of values than had been expected to be possible at this point due to some clever techniques.

Even if one or another detail of the properties of the Higgs boson turn out to be not exactly as predicted, Peter Higgs absolutely deserves his Nobel Prize for coming up with an idea so close to the mark forty years in advance. Nobody faults Newton for not discovering General Relativity when none of the evidence available at the time would have made it possible for him to do so. Nobody faults Maxwell for not discovering quantum electrodynamics. A scientist's job is to move our understanding forward so that the next generation can stand on the shoulders of giants. Peter Higgs meets that very high bar.
 
ohwilleke said:
What the LHC can do is prove that the observed particle has all of the properties of the Standard Model Higgs boson. It has done a very good job in a very short time of doing just that. It has shown that it has the right quantum numbers to a very high precision. It has shown that the couplings that have been documented are the predicted ones to within a very modest margin of error. It is in the process of demonstrating that it is produced in all of the predicted ways. The width of the Higgs boson resonance has been constrained to a far smaller range of values than had been expected to be possible at this point due to some clever techniques.

Even if one or another detail of the properties of the Higgs boson turn out to be not exactly as predicted, Peter Higgs absolutely deserves his Nobel Prize for coming up with an idea so close to the mark forty years in advance. Nobody faults Newton for not discovering General Relativity when none of the evidence available at the time would have made it possible for him to do so. Nobody faults Maxwell for not discovering quantum electrodynamics. A scientist's job is to move our understanding forward so that the next generation can stand on the shoulders of giants. Peter Higgs meets that very high bar.
what would be a reason then to build a $10 billion higgs factory one proposed in Japan, an ep collider, if the LHC can do that.

for $10 billion why not build a more powerful 100 GEV+ 50-100km hadron collider?
 
ohwilleke said:
What the LHC has done has created mass exclusion ranges for various prospective extra Higgs bosons. Specifically, a positively charged Higgs boson (H+), a negatively charged Higgs boson (H-), a pseudo-scalar Higgs boson (A) and an extra scalar Higgs boson (either H or h depending on whether the one at 126 GeV is the heavier one or the lighter one).

There are really no predictions regarding the other Higgs masses. They are free parameters in the model. All we have are experimental exclusions.

Exclusions as of 2013 can be found at https://cds.cern.ch/record/1556867/files/ATL-PHYS-SLIDE-2013-391.pdf

To summarize, as of that time, a heavy Higgs was excluded from 145 GeV to 710 GeV; A was excluded up to masses of about 200 GeV, charged Higgs were excluded up to 160 GeV. Almost all of those limits have grown larger over time.

One way for an extra Higgs to hide is for it to be degenerate with the 126 GeV Higgs in mass. But, the observed Higgs is so purely scalar than there can't be a degenerate mass A.

A 2015 summary is here: https://cds.cern.ch/record/2117949/files/ATL-PHYS-PROC-2015-206.pdf but has no "quotable" limits.

The particle data group summarizes limits for neutral extra Higgs here: http://pdglive.lbl.gov/Particle.action?node=S055 (it is quite conservative due to the model dependency of the limits since the couplings of extra Higgs bosons are uncertain, if they exist).

The particle data group limits for charged Higgs bosons are here: http://pdglive.lbl.gov/Particle.action?node=S064 and are also far too conservative.

A preprint search for 2HDM (two Higgs doublet models) in the experiment subsection would probably reveal more up to date papers with more rigorous limits than PDG does.

do these other Higgs suffer from same higgs hiearchy problem that the SM 126 gev higgs does?

wouldn't multiple higgs interact both with one another and with SM particles + SUSY partners?
 
  • #10
For my druthers, $10 billion would be better spent on space telescopes (including gravitational wave detectors) than on a new collider of any kind.
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: nikkkom
  • #11
ohwilleke said:
For my druthers, $10 billion would be better spent on space telescopes (including gravitational wave detectors) than on a new collider of any kind.

maybe there are SUSY partners just beyond LHC energies but within 100 TEV collider range. verifying SUSY might be more important to particle physics than space telescopes
 
  • #12
kodama said:
do these other Higgs suffer from same higgs hiearchy problem that the SM 126 gev higgs does?

wouldn't multiple higgs interact both with one another and with SM particles + SUSY partners?

Nobody knows because nobody has ever seen any evidence that they exist and there are several varied hypotheses regarding their properties (unlike the SM Higgs whose properties were completely determined by its mass).
 
  • #13
ohwilleke said:
Nobody knows because nobody has ever seen any evidence that they exist and there are several varied hypotheses regarding their properties (unlike the SM Higgs whose properties were completely determined by its mass).

if natural SUSY and by extension MSSM and nMSSM were realized in nature, what can be said on these other higgs and their interactions with SM + SUSY on purely theoretical grounds
 
  • #14
kodama said:
maybe there are SUSY partners just beyond LHC energies but within 100 TEV collider range. verifying SUSY might be more important to particle physics than space telescopes

Even if SUSY did exist at those energy scales, it wouldn't be very useful and it is not like the laws of the universe are going anywhere. And, if SUSY exists anywhere, it is almost certainly not "just beyond LHC energies" because if it were, there would be a lot more anomalies in the LHC data because some observables are sensitive to much higher energy phenomena. We might not know just what was around the corner, but we would know that something was amiss. For SUSY to have no meaningful impact on LHC scale physics it has to be way over the mountains, across the desert and out across the sea, not just around the corner.

In contrast, we know for a fact that we are observing BSM physics with telescopes today that give rise to dark matter phenomena (dark energy is not really BSM since it can be fully explained through GR with the cosmological constant). And, we have myriad ways that we can narrow the range of theories that can fit the data associated with this BSM physics simply by having better instrumentation. Why spend our money on science that might, just possibly maybe reveal new physics when we can spend it on physics that will definitely reveal BSM physics of some kind and the only question is what kind?
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: kodama
  • #15
kodama said:
if natural SUSY and by extension MSSM and nMSSM were realized in nature, what can be said on these other higgs and their interactions with SM + SUSY on purely theoretical grounds

Not much. Even natural SUSY, MSSM and nMSSM offer lots of wiggle room and choices, in addition to having way more free parameters than the already ugly SM.
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: kodama
  • #16
ohwilleke said:
Even if SUSY did exist at those energy scales, it wouldn't be very useful and it is not like the laws of the universe are going anywhere. And, if SUSY exists anywhere, it is almost certainly not "just beyond LHC energies" because if it were, there would be a lot more anomalies in the LHC data because some observables are sensitive to much higher energy phenomena. We might not know just what was around the corner, but we would know that something was amiss. For SUSY to have no meaningful impact on LHC scale physics it has to be way over the mountains, across the desert and out across the sea, not just around the corner.

In contrast, we know for a fact that we are observing BSM physics with telescopes today that give rise to dark matter phenomena (dark energy is not really BSM since it can be fully explained through GR with the cosmological constant). And, we have myriad ways that we can narrow the range of theories that can fit the data associated with this BSM physics simply by having better instrumentation. Why spend our money on science that might, just possibly maybe reveal new physics when we can spend it on physics that will definitely reveal BSM physics of some kind and the only question is what kind?

ed witten for one is a fan of building the chinese collider.

"
With a circumference of 50 to 100 km, however, the proposed Chinese accelerator Circular Electron Positron Collider (CEPC) will generate millions of Higgs boson particles, allowing a more precise understanding.

"The technical route we chose is different from LHC. While LHC smashes together protons, it generates Higgs particles together with many other particles," Wang said. "The proposed CEPC, however, collides electrons and positrons to create an extremely clean environment that only produces Higgs particles," he added.

The Higgs boson factory is only the first step of the ambitious plan. A second-phase project named SPPC (Super Proton-Proton Collider) is also included in the design-a fully upgraded version of LHC.

LHC shut down for upgrading in early 2013 and restarted in June with an almost doubled energy level of 13 TeV, a measurement of electron volts.

"LHC is hitting its limits of energy level, it seems not possible to escalate the energy dramatically at the existing facility," Wang said. The proposed SPPC will be a 100 TeV proton-proton collider.


If everything moves forward as proposed, the construction of the first phase project CEPC will start between 2020 and 2025, followed by the second phase in 2040.

"China brings to this entire discussion a certain level of newness. They are going to need help, but they have financial muscle and they have ambition," said Nima Arkani Hamed from the Institute for Advanced Study in the United States, who joined the force to promote CEPC in the world.

David J. Gross, a US particle physicist and 2004 Nobel Prize winner, wrote in a commentary co-signed by US theoretical physicist Edward Witten that although the cost of the project would be great, the benefits would also be great. "China would leap to a leadership position in an important frontier area of basic science," he wrote.

http://www.dailygalaxy.com/my_weblo...universe-so-far-the-standard-model-seems.html

Nima Arkani Hamed Ed Witten and David Gross thinks China should build a 100 TEV scale collider presumably with Chinese money

perhaps the US and Russia and EU can build telescopes ;)-)

perhaps a 100 TEV collider is needed to create dark matter and explore other BSM physics.

2040 is a long time from now :'(
 
  • #17
ohwilleke said:
Not much. Even natural SUSY, MSSM and nMSSM offer lots of wiggle room and choices, in addition to having way more free parameters than the already ugly SM.

SUSY is invoked to explain the higgs fine-tuning, but all those free parameters MSSM nmmsm has seems to also be fine tuning so as to avoid conflict with experiment.
 
  • #18
Absolutely.
 
  • #19
ohwilleke said:
Absolutely.

the SM has a fine tuning problem with the higgs stability and theta in QCD. if there is an axion, that would explain why QCD theta is zero, which leaves 1 fine tuning problem, the higgs.

SUSY MSSM and nMSSM, no SUSY has been seen by tevatron, ep colliders, ilc, LHC colliders. no SUSY seen in neutron, electron EDM or rare decays. no gluinos and squarks produced in proton colliders. LHC sees no SUSY no rare decay rates deviate from SM values.
no SUSY dark matter observed.

so SUSY MSSM and nMSSM has 120 parameters, and each has to be fine tuned to avoid the above constraints.

so in effect the SUSY hypothesis may solve 1 fine tuning in the higgs sector, by introducing 5 higgs, and 120 parameters that need to be fine tuned to avoid conflict with experiment plus another set of particles "hidden sector" involved in SUSY-breaking, which might have additional fine tuning issues. occam's razor would suggest that SM is more parsimonious than SUSY.

and the LHC has seen no evidence of natural SUSY that would explain higgs stability
 
  • #20
"Fine tuning" is not a problem, it is a category error that looks like a problem only in the minds in misguided theoretical physicists. More humble physicists recognize that the laws of nature and its physical constants are what they are and are not subject to adjustment. The amount of sheer brainpower and time and money that has been spent thinking otherwise is a travesty.
 
  • #21
ohwilleke said:
"Fine tuning" is not a problem, it is a category error that looks like a problem only in the minds in misguided theoretical physicists. More humble physicists recognize that the laws of nature and its physical constants are what they are and are not subject to adjustment. The amount of sheer brainpower and time and money that has been spent thinking otherwise is a travesty.

so what's your fav solution to the higgs hiearchy ? apparently susy isn't the correct answer according to the LHC
 
  • #22
My position is that the Higgs hierarchy isn't a problem that calls for a solution.

If Nature wants to make heaps of huge numbers almost exactly balance out, but not quite, that is Nature's right and it isn't for us to second guess.

The Higgs mass has the values we have measured it to have. It comes to these values because all of the other physical constants and equations of the SM are just right to produce this result. Asking for a solution to the higgs hierarchy is like asking for a solution to "the problem" of why I was born on a Tuesday. There may be a reason for that, but the fact that I was born on a Tuesday is immutable and is not a problem. First and foremost, that is just how the world happens to be.

Even if there is a deeper reason that a constant has a particular value, that never means that the value that we observe is a "problem". Perhaps a mystery, but not a problem.

At most the question ought to be open ended along the lines of, "is there any deeper reason that the Standard Model have the physical constants that it has, and if so which experimentally measured constants of the model can be derived from other constants, and if they can be derived from other constants, how is this done"? (A more thoughtful version of the same question would touch on the concept of degrees of freedom in some way because, for example, it might be the case than any two of three constants in the SM is sufficient to perfectly predict the third.)

Moreover, an answer to that more general question should not start with any presuppositions about what values those physical constants "should have" at least so long as we don't have any serious internal inconsistency between constants in the model that is not attributable to measurement or calculation errors.

Yes, I have some hunches about why some Standard Model constants have the values that they do, some of which simple involve the existence of numerical relationships that I think are probably not coincidences even though I don't know any deeper reasons for, and some of which amount to an ansatz or conjecture. Nobody needs to hear my pet theories on those topics in this thread. Certainly, like most people who have thought seriously about the question, I don't actually think that all 26+ experimentally measured Standard Model constants are all purely arbitrary (counting exactly how many comes down to definitional issues and some can be traded for others so the list wouldn't be identical for everyone, also, for example, should Plank's constant be considered a Standard Model experimentally measured physical constant? what about the speed of light? You can't do SM calculations without either and they aren't mathematical abstractions either).

But, I also don't think that the Higgs boson mass, or the zero value of the theta term in QCD present any different kind of question than the fundamental particle masses or the coupling constants or the CKM and PMNS matrix parameters. The fact that someone has a counterfactual theory about the value that a constant should have had doesn't make the physical constant that someone has a theory about any more of a problem than one that there is no accepted theory to explain.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: kodama
  • #23
the issue with the higgs is also that the higgs is sensitive to the cutoff of the theory where new physics arise, and that quantum processes would drive up the mass of the higgs to Planck level values.
 
  • #24
kodama said:
the issue with the higgs is also that the higgs is sensitive to the cutoff of the theory where new physics arise, and that quantum processes would drive up the mass of the higgs to Planck level values.

Clearly, that mass of the Higgs has not been driven up to Planck level values. So, either there are no physics, or the theory that predicts that this will happen is wrong. My money would be on the former, although both might be true.
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: kodama
  • #25
ohwilleke said:
Clearly, that mass of the Higgs has not been driven up to Planck level values. So, either there are no physics, or the theory that predicts that this will happen is wrong. My money would be on the former, although both might be true.

option 1
new physics appears to be required for baryogenesis dark matter, inflation etc.

option 2
since it seems standard QFT and SM physics makes this "prediction", it would seem standard QFT and SM physics is "wrong"
 
  • #26
ohwilleke said:
For my druthers, $10 billion would be better spent on space telescopes (including gravitational wave detectors) than on a new collider of any kind.

off topic

one reason chinese are interested in building a $10 billion 100km circumference 100tev-scale hadron collider is they think all the scientific and technical know-how in building a collider that scale will greatly stimulate technological advancements and training engineers in china specifically.

how would that benefit compare with building $10 billion telescopes?

nasa already has several such telescopes planned including james webb telescope 2018 price tag $8 billion

of course there's no guarantee that chinese communist party will still be in power by 2040
 
  • #27
kodama said:
option 1
new physics appears to be required for baryogenesis dark matter, inflation etc.

option 2
since it seems standard QFT and SM physics makes this "prediction", it would seem standard QFT and SM physics is "wrong"

Keep in mind that when I said "the theory that predicts that this will happen is wrong" is responding to your statement that "the higgs is sensitive to the cutoff of the theory where new physics arise[.]" So the exclusion of "new physics" is limited to new physics of the kind that could have any impact on the Higgs boson mass.

Nothing in the Standard Model predicts that any of the kinds of new physics that we know simply must be out there has to have anything to do with Higgs physics.

It is not at all obvious that baryogenesis or inflation would have any connection to the Higgs boson mass (there are theories where it does, but far more where it does not). Similarly, if new physics arise from quantum gravity or some subtle modification of general relativity, there is no reason it would have any measurable impact on Higgs physics or Standard Model physics more generally.

It is likewise perfectly possible that dark matter particles may be in a sector of physics that has nothing to do with the Higgs boson. Indeed, if a dark matter particle were close to the mass of the bottom quark (about 4.2 GeV) or more, and less than half of the Higgs boson mass (about 62.5 GeV) this would be the dominant type of particle to which Higgs bosons decayed or at least a very high frequency subdominant decay mode, either of which would produce extremely noticeable missing energy signatures where Higgs boson decays would be expected, and the total frequency with which Higgs bosons are produced would seem to be far below what was predicted by the Standard Model.

Lighter dark matter particles that interacted with the Higgs boson could have been missed so far (for example, we have not yet observed Higgs boson decays to charm quarks which are the third most common form of fermion pair decays predicted for the SM Higgs boson, due to their lower frequency and the larger backgrounds involved than in bottom quark pair and tau lepton pair decays which have been observed). But, Higgs physics should, in theory, be more sensitive to higher energy new physics than to lower energy new physics.
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: kodama
  • #28
ohwilleke said:
My position is that the Higgs hierarchy isn't a problem that calls for a solution.

If Nature wants to make heaps of huge numbers almost exactly balance out, but not quite, that is Nature's right and it isn't for us to second guess.

dear ohwilleke, so you are more into fine tuning than Susy or others? but more physicists dislike fine tuning
 
  • #29
Isn''t the cancellation of big numbers in the renormalisation of the higgsmass an artefact of doing perturbation theory? And if we could develop math.techniques to calculate amplitudes exactly, the problem wouldn't be there?
 
  • #30
fanieh said:
dear ohwilleke, so you are more into fine tuning than Susy or others? but more physicists dislike fine tuning

I'm saying "fine tuning" is a meaningless concept.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
3K
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
3K
  • · Replies 13 ·
Replies
13
Views
4K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
4K
  • · Replies 24 ·
Replies
24
Views
4K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
3K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
4K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
3K
  • · Replies 74 ·
3
Replies
74
Views
11K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
3K