Minimal Scale Invariant Theory of Electroweak Symmetry ......16π2 (λ−3h 2 t +···) Λ2 If Λ...

Minimal Scale Invariant Theory of

Electroweak Symmetry Breaking

Apostolos Pilaftsis

School of Physics and Astronomy, The University of Manchester,

Manchester M13 9PL, United Kingdom

&

Department of Theoretical Physics and IFIC, University of Valencia,

E-46100, Valencia, Spain

CERN, 16 June 2011

Based on JHEP09 (2010) 021 (63 pages), with Lisa Alexander–Nunneley

Plan of the talk

• The Standard Theory of Electroweak Symmetry Breaking: SM

• The Gauge Hierarchy Problem and Proposed Solutions

• Classical Scale Symmetry and Flat Directions

• The Minimal Scale Invariant extension of the Standard Model:MSISM

• Phenomenology

• Conclusions

CERN, 16 June 2011 A. Pilaftsis

• The Standard Theory of Electroweak Symmetry Breaking

Higgs Mechanism in the SM: SU(3)colour⊗ SU(2)L⊗U(1)Y

Φ

V (Φ)

〈Φ

〉

Higgs potential V (Φ)

V (Φ) = −m2Φ†Φ + λ(Φ†Φ)2 .Ground state: 〈

Φ〉

=

√m2

2λ

(01

)

carries weak charge, but no electriccharge and colour.

After Spontaneous Symmetry Breaking:

⇒ W±, Z bosons and matter feel the presence of〈Φ

〉and become massive,

but not γ and ga, e.g. MW = gw〈Φ

〉

⇒ Quantum excitations of Φ =〈Φ

〉+ H

(01

); H is the Higgs boson.


Light SM Higgs boson experimentally favourable

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

10030 300

mH [GeV]

∆χ2

Excluded Preliminary

∆αhad =∆α(5)

0.02758±0.000350.02749±0.00012incl. low Q2 data

Theory uncertaintyJuly 2010 mLimit = 158 GeV

80.3

80.4

80.5

150 175 200

mH [GeV]114 300 1000

mt [GeV]

mW

[G

eV

]

68% CL

∆α

LEP1 and SLD

LEP2 and Tevatron (prel.)

July 2010

[ LEP–TEVATRON EWG, http://lepewwg.web.cern.ch/LEPEWWG/]


• The Gauge Hierarchy Problem

Quantum effects on the Higgs-boson mass MH :

H

+

t

t

· · · : 116π2

(λ − 3h2t + · · · ) Λ2




H

+

t

t

· · · : 116π2

(λ − 3h2t + · · · ) Λ2

If Λ ∼ MGUT, Higgs-mass CT δM2H ∼ 116π2M2GUT → δM2H ∼ 1024M2H!




H

+

t

t

· · · : 116π2

(λ − 3h2t + · · · ) Λ2


=⇒ Vector bosons are protected from quadratic divergences, if gauged.




H

+

t

t

· · · : 116π2

(λ − 3h2t + · · · ) Λ2



=⇒ Fermion masses have no linear divergences because of chirality.




H

+

t

t

· · · : 116π2

(λ − 3h2t + · · · ) Λ2



=⇒ Fermion masses have no linear divergences because of chirality.

=⇒ No logarithmic stability of MH against QM effects from MZ toMU ∼ 1016 GeV or MPl ∼ 1019 GeV.

→ This is the Gauge Hierarchy Problem


• Proposed Solutions to the Gauge Hierarchy Problem

→ SUperSYmmetry

→ Flat or Warped Large Extra Dimensions

→ Higgs as a Pseudo-Goldstone Boson

→ No Higgs at All: Technicolour theories, Composite Higgs . . .

→...


• Proposed Solutions to the Gauge Hierarchy Problem

→ SUperSYmmetry

→ Flat or Warped Large Extra Dimensions

→ Higgs as a Pseudo-Goldstone Boson

→ No Higgs at All: Technicolour theories, Composite Higgs . . .

→...

→ Scale or Conformal Symmetry


References

[1] S. R. Coleman and E. Weinberg, “Radiative Corrections As The Origin Of Spontaneous

Symmetry Breaking,” Phys. Rev. D 7 (1973) 1888.

[2] E. Gildener and S. Weinberg, “Symmetry Breaking And Scalar Bosons,”

Phys. Rev. D 13 (1976) 3333.

[3] R. Hempfling, “The Next-to-minimal Coleman-Weinberg model,”

Phys. Lett. B 379 (1996) 153.

[4] K. A. Meissner and H. Nicolai, “Conformal symmetry and the standard model,” Phys.

Lett. B 648 (2007) 312; Phys. Lett. B 660 (2008) 260.

[5] R. Foot, A. Kobakhidze and R. R. Volkas, “Electroweak Higgs as a pseudo-Goldstone

boson of broken scale invariance,” Phys. Lett. B 655 (2007) 156.

[6] W. F. Chang, J. N. Ng and J. M. S. Wu, “Shadow Higgs from a scale-invariant

hidden U(1)s model,” Phys. Rev. D 75 (2007) 115016.

[7] M. Shaposhnikov and D. Zenhäusern, Phys. Lett. B 671 (2009) 162;

D. Blas, M. Shaposhnikov and D. Zenhäusern, “Scale-invariant alternatives to General

Relativity,” arXiv:1104.1329.

[8] L. Alexander-Nunneley and A. Pilaftsis, “The Minimal Scale Invariant Extension of

the Standard Model,” JHEP 1009 (2010) 021.



Consider the action of a generic theory:

S[Φ(x)] =

∫d4x L[ ∂µΦ(x), Φ(x)] ,

with

L = 12∂µΦ(x)∂

µΦ(x) +1

2m2Φ2(x) − λΦ4(x) + C .



Consider the action of a generic theory:

S[Φ(x)] =

∫d4x L[ ∂µΦ(x), Φ(x)] ,

with

L = 12∂µΦ(x)∂

µΦ(x) +1

2m2Φ2(x) − λΦ4(x) + C .

• Scaling transformation acting on the fields:

Φ(x) → Φ′(x′) = eǫa Φ(eǫx) ,

with a = 1(32

)for bosons (fermions).

Classical Scale Invariance:

S[Φ(x)] = S[Φ′(x′)] =⇒ m2 = 0 , C = 0 .=⇒ No mass-scale in the theory.


• Tree-level Ward identity from scaling symmetry:

If Φ = (φ1, φ2, . . . , φn) = ϕN, with |N| = 1, then

Φ · ∇V tree(Φ) = ϕ ddϕ

V tree(ϕN) = 4V tree(Φ) ,

with ∇ ≡(

∂∂φ1

, ∂∂φ2

, · · · , ∂∂φn

).






with ∇ ≡(

∂∂φ1

, ∂∂φ2

, · · · , ∂∂φn

).

• Flat direction along a given unit vector N = n (ϕ 6= 0):

dV tree(ϕn)

dϕ= 0 ⇐⇒ V tree(ϕn) = 0 , for SI theory only.






with ∇ ≡(

∂∂φ1

, ∂∂φ2

, · · · , ∂∂φn

).


dV tree(ϕn)


• Condition for an extremal or stationary flat direction:

∇V tree(Φ)∣∣∣Φ=ϕn

= 0 . But, ϕ remains undetermined.






with ∇ ≡(

∂∂φ1

, ∂∂φ2

, · · · , ∂∂φn

).


dV tree(ϕn)


• Condition for an extremal or stationary flat direction:

∇V tree(Φ)∣∣∣Φ=ϕn

= 0 . But, ϕ remains undetermined.

• Minimization and convexity conditions:

(v·∇)2V tree(Φ)∣∣∣Φ=ϕn

≥ 0 , V tree(ϕN) ≥ 0 , for all possible v and N.


• Radiative EW breaking of SI: the Gildener–Weinberg approach

General MS-renormalized SI scalar potential:

V tree(Φ) =1

4!fijkl(µ) φiφjφkφl =

ϕ4

4!fijkl(µ) NiNjNkNl ,

with V tree(Φflat = ϕn) = 0, at the RG scale µ = Λ.




V tree(Φ) =1


ϕ4



Stationarity condition for a local extremum:

∇(V tree(Φ) + V 1−loopeff (Φ)

)∣∣∣Φ = vϕn + δΦ

= 0 ,

with δΦ ⊥ vϕn and δΦ = O(1-loop).




V tree(Φ) =1


ϕ4



Stationarity condition for a local extremum:

∇(V tree(Φ) + V 1−loopeff (Φ)

)∣∣∣Φ = vϕn + δΦ

= 0 ,

with δΦ ⊥ vϕn and δΦ = O(1-loop).

Multiply from left with Φ and use the tree-level WI:

4 V tree(vϕn + δΦ) + Φ · ∇V 1−loopeff (Φ)∣∣∣Φ = vϕn + δΦ

= 0 .


GW perturbative approach to find vϕ:

(4 δΦ · ∇V tree(Φ) + Φ · ∇V 1−loopeff (Φ)

)∣∣∣Φ = vϕn

= 0 .




)∣∣∣Φ = vϕn

= 0 .

Since ∇V tree(Φ)|Φ=vϕn = 0, the extremum along Φflat = ϕn is

n · ∇V 1−loopeff (Φ)∣∣∣Φ = vϕn

=dV

1−loopeff (ϕn)

dϕ

∣∣∣∣∣ϕ = vϕ

= 0 .




)∣∣∣Φ = vϕn

= 0 .

Since ∇V tree(Φ)|Φ=vϕn = 0, the extremum along Φflat = ϕn is

n · ∇V 1−loopeff (Φ)∣∣∣Φ = vϕn

=dV

1−loopeff (ϕn)

dϕ

∣∣∣∣∣ϕ = vϕ

= 0 .

The 1-loop effective potential along Φflat = ϕn is

V1−loopeff (ϕn) = A(n)ϕ

4 + B(n) ϕ4 lnϕ2

Λ2= B(n) ϕ4

(ln

ϕ2

v2ϕ− 1

2

),

where A and B are dimensionless constants (depending on particle masses)and

Λ = vϕ exp

(A

2B+

1

4

).


• Remarks:

–Scalar mass spectrum:

Pseudo-Goldstone boson h associated with the radiative EW breaking of SI:

m2h =d2V

1−loopeff (ϕn)

dϕ2

∣∣∣∣∣ϕ=vϕ

= 8Bv2ϕ .


• Remarks:



m2h =d2V

1−loopeff (ϕn)

dϕ2

∣∣∣∣∣ϕ=vϕ

= 8Bv2ϕ .

–SI UV regularization schemes:

UV regularization schemes should preserve the SI WIs of the classical action,such as the dimensional regularization scheme.

=⇒ No need of explicit Mass Counterterm.


• Remarks:



m2h =d2V

1−loopeff (ϕn)

dϕ2

∣∣∣∣∣ϕ=vϕ

= 8Bv2ϕ .

–SI UV regularization schemes:

UV regularization schemes should preserve the SI WIs of the classical action,such as the dimensional regularization scheme.

=⇒ No need of explicit Mass Counterterm.

–The Gauge Hierarchy Problem:

Ignoring Quantum Gravity effects, m2h is stable against QM effects.


• The MSISM

• Scalar fields:

Φ =

(G+

1√2(φ + iG)

), S =

1√2

(σ + iJ) = |S| eiθS .


• The MSISM

• Scalar fields:

Φ =

(G+

1√2(φ + iG)

), S =

1√2

(σ + iJ) = |S| eiθS .

• Classical Potential of the MSISM

V tree(Φ, S) =λ1

2(Φ†Φ)2 +

λ2

2(S∗S)2 + λ3 Φ

†Φ S∗S + λ4 Φ†Φ S2

+ λ∗4 Φ†Φ S∗2 + λ5 S

3S∗ + λ∗5 SS∗3 +

λ6

2S4 +

λ∗62

S∗4

=1

2

(Φ†Φ , S∗S

)(λ1 λ3 + 2Re (λ4e

2iθS)

λ3 + 2Re (λ4e2iθS) λ2 + 4Re (λ5e

2iθS) + 2Re (λ6e4iθS)

)

︸︷︷︸≡ Λ

(Φ†ΦS∗S

).


• Convexity conditions on V tree(Φ, S):

(i) TrΛ ≥ 0 , (ii){

Λ12 ≥ 0 , if Λ11 = 0 or Λ22 = 0DetΛ ≥ 0 , if Λ11 6= 0 and Λ22 6= 0

.



(i) TrΛ ≥ 0 , (ii){


.

• Classification of flat directions:

Φflat = ϕ

nφnσnJ

=

φ

σ

J

; n2φ + n2σ + n2J = 1 .



(i) TrΛ ≥ 0 , (ii){


.


Φflat = ϕ

nφnσnJ

=

φ

σ

J

; n2φ + n2σ + n2J = 1 .

–Type-I flat direction: |S| = 0; Φflat = φ =⇒ λ1(Λ) = 0.

–Type-II flat direction: Φflat general, constrained by V tree minimization.

–Type-III flat direction: φ = 0; Φflat = ϕ

(nσnJ

)=⇒ λ2,5,6(Λ) = 0.



(i) TrΛ ≥ 0 , (ii){


.


Φflat = ϕ

nφnσnJ

=

φ

σ

J

; n2φ + n2σ + n2J = 1 .

–Type-I flat direction: |S| = 0; Φflat = φ =⇒ λ1(Λ) = 0.

–Type-II flat direction: Φflat general, constrained by V tree minimization.

–Type-III flat direction: φ = 0; Φflat = ϕ

(nσnJ

)=⇒ λ2,5,6(Λ) = 0.

(introduces little hierarchy between vSM and Λ)


• 1-loop effective potential for Type-I & Type-II MSISM:

V1−loopeff (φ) = α φ

4 + β φ4 lnφ2

Λ2= β φ4

(ln

φ2

v2SM− 1

2

),

with vSM ≈ 246 GeV and

β =1

64π2v4SM

(2∑

i=1

m4Hi + 6m4W + 3m

4Z − 12m4t − 2

3∑

i=1

m4Ni

),

Λ = vSM exp

(α

2β+

1

4

), for α ∼ β ⇒ Λ ∼ vSM .

m2h = 8β n2φv

2SM ⇐= Pseudo-Goldstone h-Boson


• 1-loop effective potential for Type-I & Type-II MSISM:

V1−loopeff (φ) = α φ

4 + β φ4 lnφ2

Λ2= β φ4

(ln

φ2

v2SM− 1

2

),

with vSM ≈ 246 GeV and

β =1

64π2v4SM

(2∑

i=1

m4Hi + 6m4W + 3m

4Z − 12m4t − 2

3∑

i=1

m4Ni

),

Λ = vSM exp

(α

2β+

1

4

), for α ∼ β ⇒ Λ ∼ vSM .

m2h = 8β n2φv

2SM ⇐= Pseudo-Goldstone h-Boson

• Important remark on SI SM:

β1−loop =1

64π2v4SM

(6m4W + 3m

4Z − 12m4t

)< 0 .

=⇒ Perturbative SI SM unrealistic! What about non-perturbative SI SM?


• Model Taxonomy

Flat direction U(1) Invariant CP Violation Massive DM SeesawCandidate Neutrinos

Type-I

S = 0 Yes None Yes No

S = 0 No Explicit Yes No

Type-II

S = real Yes None No Yes

S = real No Explicit Model YesDependent

S = imaginary No Explicit Model YesDependent

S = complex No Explicit or Model YesSpontaneous Dependent


• Phenomenology

• EW oblique parameters S, T and U

µ ν

φ

G/G±p

µ ν

φ

Z/W±p µ ν

φ

p

Theoretical prediction: δP = PMSISM − PSM, with P = S, T, U .

Experimental limits:

−0.296 < δSexp < 0.096 ,−0.296 < δTexp < 0.136 ,−0.066 < δUexp < 0.366 ,

for mrefHSM = 117 GeV.


• Perturbativity constraints on couplings

Constraint on 1-loop β-functions:

βλ ≤ 1 ,

where λ ∈ {λ1,2,...,6, g′, g, gs, he,u,d, hN , h̃N}.


• Perturbativity constraints on couplings

Constraint on 1-loop β-functions:

βλ ≤ 1 ,

where λ ∈ {λ1,2,...,6, g′, g, gs, he,u,d, hN , h̃N}.

1-loop RGEs for λ1,2,...,6 and hN , h̃N are calculated, using the

Displacement Operator Formalism for Renormalization.[D. Binosi, J. Papavassiliou and AP, PRD71 (2005) 085007.]

ΓR(φR, λR) = limε→0

eD Γ0(φR, λR ; ε) ,

D = δφ∂

∂φR+ δλ

∂

∂λR,

with δφ = φ0 − φR and δλ = λ0 − λR.


Type-I U(1)-Invariant MSISM

V tree(Λ) =λ2(Λ)

2(S∗S)2 + λ3(Λ) Φ

†Φ S∗S .

Scalar boson mass spectrum:

h ≡ φ , H1 ≡ σ , H2 ≡ J ,

with

m2σ = m2J =

λ3(Λ)

2v2SM .

Higgs-to-gauge boson couplings:

g2hZZ = 1 , g2H1,2ZZ

= 0 .


Type-I U(1)-Invariant MSISM [L. Alexander–Nunneley, AP, JHEP09 (2010) 021]

1 10 10210

102

103

104

Λ3HLL

mhHG

eVL

LEP

∆T

∆S

ΒΛ31

1 10 102102

103

104

Λ3HLL

mΣ

,JHG

eVL

LEP

∆T

∆S

ΒΛ31


General Type-I MSISM

V tree(Λ) =λ2(Λ)

2(S∗S)2 + λ3(Λ)Φ

†Φ S∗S + λ4(Λ) Φ†Φ S2 + λ∗4(Λ) Φ

†Φ S∗2

+ λ5(Λ) S3S∗ + λ∗5(Λ) SS

∗3 +λ6(Λ)

2S4 +

λ∗6(Λ)

2S∗4 .


h ≡ φ , H1 = cos θ σ + sin θ J , H2 = − sin θ σ + cos θ J ,

with

m2H1 =1

2

(λ3(Λ)+2|λ4(Λ)|

)v2SM , m

2H2

=1

2

(λ3(Λ)−2|λ4(Λ)|

)v2SM .


g2hZZ = 1 , g2H1,2ZZ

= 0 .


General Type-I MSISM [L. Alexander–Nunneley, AP, JHEP09 (2010) 021]

1 10 10210

102

103

104

Λ3HLL

mhHG

eVL

LEP

∆T∆S

ΒΛ31

Λ4=0

Λ3=2 Λ4

1 10 102102

103

104

Λ3HLL

mH

2HG

eVL

LEP

∆T∆S

ΒΛ31

Λ4 =0

Β=0

1 10 102102

103

104

Λ3HLL

mH

1HG

eVL

LEP

∆T∆S

ΒΛ31

Β=0Λ4 =

0

Λ3=2 Λ4

1 10 102102

103

104

Λ3HLL

LHG

eVL

LEP

∆T∆S

ΒΛ31Λ3=2

Λ4

Λ4 =0


Type-II U(1)-Invariant MSISM

V tree(Λ) =λ1(Λ)

2(Φ†Φ)2 +

λ2(Λ)

2(S∗S)2 + λ3(Λ) Φ

†Φ S∗S ,

withφ2

σ2=

n2φ

n2σ= − λ2(Λ)

λ3(Λ)= − λ3(Λ)

λ1(Λ).

Scalar mass spectrum:

h = cos θ φ + sin θ σ , H1 ≡ H = − sin θ φ + cos θ σ , H2 ≡ J ,

withm2H =

[λ1(Λ) − λ3(Λ)

]v2SM , m

2J = 0 .


g2hV V = cos2 θ =

−λ3(Λ)λ1(Λ) − λ3(Λ)

, g2HV V = sin2 θ =

λ1(Λ)

λ1(Λ) − λ3(Λ).


Type-II U(1)-Invariant MSISM [L. Alexander–Nunneley, AP, JHEP09 (2010) 021]

0

-1

-2

-3

-4

0 1 2 3 4

Λ3HLL

Λ1HLL

LEP

Β=0

ΒΛ2=1

ΒΛ1=1

Pert0

-0.01

-0.02

-0.03

-0.04

0 1 2 3 4

Λ3HLL

Λ1HLL

LEP

Β=0 ΒΛ1=1

Pert

0 1 2 3 40

50

100

150

Λ1HLL

mhHG

eVL LEP

LEP

ΒΛ2=1 ΒΛ1=1

0 1 2 3 4200

300

400

500

600

700

Λ1HLL

mHHG

eVL

LEP

LEP

ΒΛ2=1ΒΛ1=1

Λ3=0Β=0


Type-II MSISM with Maximal SCPV[L. Alexander–Nunneley, AP, JHEP09 (2010) 021]

Breaking pattern U(1) → Z4 symmetry:

V tree(Λ) =λ1(Λ)

2(Φ†Φ)2+

λ2(Λ)

2(S∗S)2+λ3(Λ) Φ

†Φ S∗S+λ6(Λ)

2(S4+S∗4) ,

with

φ2

σ2=

n2φ

n2σ= −2λ3(Λ)

λ1(Λ)= −2

[λ2(Λ) − 2λ6(Λ)

]

λ3(Λ), σ = J , nσ = nJ .


m2H1 =[λ1(Λ)−λ3(Λ)

]v2SM , m

2H2

= 4λ1(Λ)λ6(Λ)

−λ3(Λ)v2SM , H2 =

1√2

(−σ+J) .


g2hV V =−λ3(Λ)

λ1(Λ) − λ3(Λ), g2H1V V =

λ1(Λ)

λ1(Λ) − λ3(Λ).


Type-II MSISM with Maximal SCPV[L. Alexander–Nunneley, AP, JHEP09 (2010) 021]

0-0.005-0.01-0.015-0.02-0.0251

10

102

103

Λ3HLL

mhHG

eVL

Λ2=0.02

Λ2=0.2

LEP

LEP Α=1

Α=1

0-0.005-0.01-0.015-0.02-0.025102

103

104

Λ3HLL

mH

2HG

eVL

Λ2=0.02

Λ2=0.2

LEPLEP

Α=1Α=1

0-0.005-0.01-0.015-0.02-0.025150

160

170

180

190

200

Λ3HLL

mH

1HG

eVL

Λ2=0.2

ΒΛ1=1

Λ1=0

LEP Α=1

0-0.005-0.01-0.015-0.02-0.025150

160

170

180

190

200

Λ3HLL

mH

1HG

eVL

Λ2=0.02

Β=0

ΒΛ1=1

Λ1=0

LEP Α=1


Extension by RH Neutrinos

LYν = − hνijL̄iLΦ̃ν0jR −1

2h

Nij ν̄

0CiR Sν

0jR −

1

2h̃

Nij ν̄

0iRSν

0CjR + H.c.

Neutrino mass spectrum:

LMassν = −1

2

(ν̄0iL, ν̄

0CiR

) ( 0 mDijm

TDij mMij

) (ν0CjLν0jR

)+ H.c.,

with

mD =φ√2

hν , mM =

1√2

[σ

(h

N + h̃N†)

+ iJ(h

N − h̃N†) ]

.

Type-II MSISM with σ ↔ J symmetry =⇒ hN = −ih̃N†.

mν = −1

4

√−λ3(Λ)λ1(Λ)

vSM hν(RehN)−1 hνT , mN = 2

√λ1(Λ)

−λ3(Λ)vSM Reh

N .


Extension by RH Neutrinos [L. Alexander–Nunneley, AP, JHEP09 (2010) 021]

0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.20

200

400

600

800

Re hNHLL

mNHG

eVL

LEP

ΒΛ1=1

Λ1=0

Β=0

Case A

0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.20

200

400

600

800

Re hNHLL

mNHG

eVL

LEPΒΛ1=1

Λ1=0

Β=0Α=1

Case B

0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.20

200

400

600

800

Re hNHLL

mNHG

eVL

LEP

ΒΛ1=1

Λ1=0

Β=0

Case C

A: λ2(Λ) = 0.1 , λ3(Λ) = −0.01 ,

B: λ2(Λ) = 0.1 , λ3(Λ) = −0.005 ,

C: λ2(Λ) = 0.05 , λ3(Λ) = −0.005 .


• Conclusions


• Conclusions

• Perturbative SI extension(s) of the SM as potential solution tothe gauge hierarchy problem (up to quantum gravity effects)


• Conclusions


• MSISM = SI SM + 1 complex singlet scalar S


• Conclusions



• Convexity conditions and classification of MSISM flat directions


• Conclusions




• 1-loop effective potential and radiative EW breaking of SI


• Conclusions





• EW constraints + perturbativity up to MPl=⇒ Type-II U(1)-violating MSISM + Z4 symmetry

=⇒ Stable H2 Scalar as DM + Maximal Spontaneous CP Violation


• Conclusions







• RH neutrinos predicted at the EW scale in the Type-II MSISM


• Conclusions







• RH neutrinos predicted at the EW scale in the Type-II MSISM

• LHC will partially probe the Higgs sector of the MSISM


Minimal Scale Invariant Theory of Electroweak Symmetry ......16π2 (λ−3h 2 t +···) Λ2 If Λ...

Documents

Transcript of Minimal Scale Invariant Theory of Electroweak Symmetry ......16π2 (λ−3h 2 t +···) Λ2 If Λ...