Otter.ai
LIVE
Snowmass EF08 meeting
Fri, 5/14 · 10:24AM Live
KEYWORDS
massleptonselectronquestionhiggsmodellimitsanomalysleptmassescolliderdecaymuflavorgvparticlesphysicscontributionleftconstraints
0:34
Test.
2:25
Hi how are you how are you. Hey Elliot
2:31
going good.
5:16
Hi Howie Spann.
5:21
How's it going, I'm gonna be interested to see how you get through your 38 slides.
5:27
Yes, you may have seen nearly 90% of them are backup.
5:32
Okay. No worries, no worries. It's really, of course I rely on the fact that you are first and you will say maybe something about the particle content of the model. So I'll be very brief there. But on the other hand, probably, I can also rely on the fact that nearly everybody knows the audience. Yeah, I'm very very happy that you accepted our other workshop. Yeah, oh yeah that sounds like it should be fun. Yeah, yeah, I think, well, the idea is that we learn something and that it's also fun both things at the same time. Yeah, you can really ask questions about details and that people are not bothered with, I don't know, motivating. Why the emphasis in the screen I want to know why your parameter space is favored or so, yeah. And so I think this one's interesting.
6:34
Yeah, yeah, yeah, by now, all speakers are confirmed, so we have five days.
6:43
Lots and we have 20 speakers.
6:48
And we mean it serious when we say about half the time for discussion. This is really, that's why you should not prepare for more than 20 minutes 20 minutes for talk and then the rest of the discussion yes Yes, something like that. Okay.
7:05
Me online, four times the five minutes of today.
7:10
Exactly, exactly.
7:13
If I would give a talk, I don't, I would give a talk I just could move things from the backup to the main part again yeah and then it would be done but as I said, the only one of the organizers who's giving a talk will be Dominic has the task to give a little overview of all the swizzy papers that they are, except maybe the ones that will be presented by speakers now. No, okay. So besides you from the Suzy part we have no scene. So, I forgot who was the third was the fourth one. For Munich.
7:55
Check.
7:57
What are you talking about, I'm sorry. Hi, Tanya, I just got so curious I tried to guess but it's uncomfortable. Okay, I'll say, I'll say something in my own talk about this as well. I have one so far, it's the other one. We are organizing a little workshop on the phonology of BSM models in the light of Gi minus.
8:21
And I'll give some details I have one slide in the very end, this as well. But it's a very low level workshop yeah inscription is by sending an email to the organizers and
8:39
the main idea is that we learn something now that we can ask all the questions that we want them to be resolved, more than half of the time for discussion, do you have 42 slides I was looking at how we set the same most of them on the backup.
8:56
Okay, interesting.
8:58
Carlo Rubio, used to be able to go through 38 slides in five minutes, anyone understand what he was saying, I mean, he was the only one to go through them all the rest of the audience exactly the other people switched off and then switched on.
9:18
So Andreas did you post your slides or no sorry I didn't post my slides yet but I can share them now and post them later. I didn't even try it if it works, sorry. Okay, um, I'm going to present just two slides before.
9:35
Before we start, so why don't I start with that and then.
9:41
And then we'll, we'll go ahead and start with your talk.
9:46
Sure. Perfect. Okay, so I'm going to go ahead and start then.
9:52
So, I of course don't need to show anybody here. This plot of the latest t minus two results, but more what we want to do is just tried to set the goal here for what we should be thinking about is how do we include these results, and other anomalies in our snow mass process right, what do we really want.
10:17
What should they do and so some, some questions that came to my mind and you can add to these questions if you have more in our discussion so I made the talks really short so that we could have a little discussion about that sort of the, how we should be handling this and thinking about that.
10:35
So, how should we handle, you know, encouraging but not definitive results, also known as anomalies in terms of what we consider in terms in the model space and things like that.
10:49
And then of course, more specifically what model should be considered. And I think people will talk a little bit about that, and then a final question that that came to my mind has already actually come up in our chats about PMS SM scans.
11:03
Is there you have to have a preferred value, and what should that preferred value be.
11:10
Should it be the standard model or the experimental measurement.
11:19
And, and so that's one thing that I think we should think a little bit about how we want to handle when we move into that PMS SM space.
11:29
Scan space. And then the other thing that I will just advertise here in case people aren't thinking about this is that of course, there should be a word of caution, we should not take this anomaly which you know is, as I said it's intriguing and encouraging but not, not, not conclusive, and we should be a little cautious, because of course, not only could it go away because of various, you know, issues. It's not definitive. There's also the this lattice QC result that lands right in the middle, and sort of says, well maybe this is not as big an anomaly as it looks like, etc.
12:17
I don't want to comment on, you know, the technical details here but just, it should. That alone should give us a little bit of pause about taking it too seriously.
12:28
Okay. So that being said I will stop my share. And let Andrea share, you should actually let me make sure. Now you should be able to share.
12:43
So I think what we'll do is we'll go to my Elliot.
12:48
This is not she should we be recording. Yes.
12:54
Okay. I am recording now.
13:00
Okay, so let me briefly say what I wanted to have to say, so about a mu b I understand that. So of course, I agree with what we have said before, we must be a little bit cautious. You shouldn't put any everything only on the anomalous magnetic moment of the moon, but it is of course a very intriguing anomaly.
13:24
So, but what I think what is always important to mind is that the anomalous.
13:31
Sorry. No, sorry. But what I think.
13:36
I think somebody needs to mute.
13:38
Okay.
13:42
Okay, so what I think it's important to mind is that, keep in mind is that the nominal magnetic moment of communion doesn't stand alone, it comes together with all these other hints for the violation of Lectron flavor universality. So, of course, we have p to SP mu, this is even more significant, it's at least about five sigma, maybe even already above seven sigma. So this is really conclusive in my point of view, but then there are also all these other things here, rd rd star, the Kappa angle anomaly tau to mu nu, nu and now recently also the CMS measurement of non resonant high energetic electron pairs which deviates from the standard model by three sigma. And so, assuming the anomalous magnetic moment of the moon will be confirmed, meaning that they also future lattice calculations which agree with the current White Paper value and that experimental error to things, then I think it should still not be considered on its own, it should be considered in the context of all these other anomalies, which also point towards afterpay weirdness and the key violation.
14:53
And then, assuming a mu is confirmed. Here is what I think, what other observables, it could point to, so it doesn't only belong to this whole set of laptop labor universally violating anomalies itself already has implications for other observables which haven't been measured yet. So, if I explain it with curl enhancement with odd minimal flavor violation, then I have a travel free phrase and if I have to channel free face. I expect a sizable electric dipole moment of neurons, which can be measured in the future. Then, if since a mew if you want to explain it if having new physics requires careful enhancement, then you also get said to me, mu and h two mu, were both modifications of this process, again, a measure of electroweak symmetry breaking, like the numbness magnetic moment of the ruinous itself. Of course, then if you have a magnetic operator coupling to neurons, it's much more likely that you also have a magnetic operator coupling to Tom you and mui so that you have flavor violation, and then of course, since.
16:04
And then almost forget the moment of computing is directly connected to the Higgs, you should at some point also see things like each time you. So, these are all processes which, where you don't necessarily see an effect, so at least the three year on the right, top and bottom, they are, you don't necessarily see an effect but you expect one here on the left. This is also why I made this arrow bigger here, you definitely should see something at some point here, You cannot have exactly this.
16:32
And then, as I said, I think we should not keep him you separate, this is also here in this picture, what I show you is a very personal view of how strongly all these anomalies points to some extensions of the standard model and you see two minds to play plays a crucial role but again it's not alone and you see here, many arrows point towards lab to coke so I think this is definitely one promising solution but all the other ones are also interesting and we just need more data to see what could be understand.
17:07
Okay, so this was my motivation, how I would look at t minus two. Are there any questions is Susie buried in the new scalars and fermions.
17:20
Okay.
17:22
Which anomaly is CA People angle anomaly, it's this deficit in the first row seeker M unitarity and also first column seeker M unitarity.
17:34
It's between if you're conservative three sigma if you're aggressive It could even be five.
17:44
Okay. I have a question.
17:47
And they ask, Why do you necessarily see something like lepton universality violation in you. We don't know anything conclusive, about a he or a toe, so they could all behave the same.
18:04
If they would all behave the same, then I think you would overshoot the anomalous magnetic moment of the electrode. So, you need some MFE like scaling you mean.
18:16
I mean, we know that the, the corrections scale roughly with the ratio of the masses, and with the electron one is barely getting to that precision as far as I know, it's, it's scaling linearly in the masses out any assumption on with some coefficients. And it's scaling quadratically in the masses, if you assume in addition, minimum flavor violation.
18:39
I think even without no further violation goes, I mean, I think it's linear.
18:46
I agree with that and this is nice sheen, because I thought it was because the karate, one. Yeah,
18:56
I could, I think I'll decide if you want but as far as I remember is that without
19:06
the square and so that was also the thing that if you have these corrections and you wouldn't see it, it was it ended up being like an order of magnitude smaller than the current uncertainties in delta E right now. Yeah, but if you only if you assume minimum flavor violation, then it's an order. You say, if I assume normal formulation and then complain violation of labor violation. Yeah but you have to, I don't make any assumption on it. Yeah I just look at it. What also Nasim was saying, Yep, how would foot scale with a mess and usually it's proportional to the. If it's linear in the math Exactly, yeah. And then, if the Wilson coefficients were the same for Amy Wilson coefficient, sorry, this is, if I think of a new model that contributes the new contribution. That is the overall mass scale of these particles. And then there's the other couplings and with the electrons the skulls like an E with a neon Slyke and mu and for the Gauss like and tau.
20:15
And with an E or with the enormous magnetic moment of the electron. We don't have the x y&z precision, not yet. And with the towels by far not too many orders of magnitude away. Therefore, they could all behave the same. And then, like they do understand that model, or in the MSSM, but the standard model, also the vision coefficients are proportional to the mass. So in the standard model is killing is quadratic.
20:47
But it's this would be the case, then your argument is even weaker because then we couldn't see anything for the electrons, then we would be several orders of magnitude away for the electrons.
20:58
The only one, and then we can't say anything about electron flow relation, the electron is here. You also have to take into account that it depends on the mass of your particles, if you have something massless like the photon, then you don't have this scaling the scaling is only valid if you have something heavy. Well, we talked about the the electron the muon and the tau know, we know the masses, we know the ratios, and no matter whether they scale linear, we are close to, to getting there if they scale quadratically. Then, we can't say anything about electron and tall. Also, sorry. Maybe now understanding the full discussion but like if you turn on an electron coupling, then you did I mean the bigger problem is not that you messed up with the electrons humans do is that you you will generate a mutually gamma type of the case.
21:55
Only if you don't separate us from electrons yeah so in general, you can separate mute from electrons then you don't generate you to gamma. Okay, it's possible. It might be possible that you physics is completely flavor blind for a mute, but this would be very strange because it's a curiosity, flipping observables. So, how would you do this in the UV complete model that the Higgs couplings to neurons are the same than two electrons are the same than two towers, so I don't think anybody was saying this, But if you think you want the flavor blind.
22:33
Wilson coefficient, I don't want any Wilson coefficient. I take my model. My preferred model that you will see in a moment that is for me also always preferred model, and there I get a perfect explanation for a new without any electron flavor violation. Yeah, I never said lepton universality violation. Yeah, okay.
22:57
But, so maybe that anomalous magnetic moment in the standard any anomalous magnetic moment of charge leptons already measured directly left to flavor universality violation, because if the mass of the electron were zero, the anomalous magnetic moment would vanish.
23:17
Okay so, if the standards are completely natural flavor universal, and we know that leftover universality is broken by the Higgs, but if the sendible were completely electrically universal, then all anomalous magnetic moments were zero.
23:33
Wait, hold on a sec.
23:36
There's different things here, right, that your statements that you're making here.
23:45
No, go ahead. One by one, is that, you know whether that you're talking about laptop flavor universality, or not.
23:54
And the other is what is the dependence on the mass of the leptons, right. Both are related because in the Standard Model. The only thing that breaks left on flavor universality, are the Higgs couplings to leptons and therefore the masses.
24:13
Sure, if the standard model were electro flavor, universal, then, then the normal match right I mean, imagine that you had a standard model where every, all the the masses were the same, so the Higgs, your covers were the same for the leptons, why does that mean that the anomalous magnetic moment would go to zero. No that wouldn't be the same as the electron, and we know that the electron one is much smaller than the muon one, but sorry, the Higgs contribution in the standard model to a mew is negligible really yeah its contribution is negligible, and this is one way you say it breaks leptons universe without the Higgs, there wouldn't be a laptop mass, everything, and without electron mass they wouldn't be t minus two. Okay. Can I can I make a comment and I mean notional machine I think I agree with you that to say issues are separate on the one hand there's a question of whether or not the Crowley flippin g minus two comes from the Milano from new physics sources, but totally separate from that there's the question of whether you have flavor effects and correlated effects in other leptons and whether that's g minus two or or MUTYH gamma or other kinds of decays it's all kind of under the same umbrella if you have something like mSv then you kind of don't have those things and if you have not MFE then maybe you have them into some degree or you probably do, or whatever, but that's a separate question of whether or not you have a have a BSN crowdy flip in the G minus two loop. Wow, right like that completely different questions. No, they don't have to be related. Right. Exactly. I agree. Okay.
25:52
Okay, so I suggest that we go on and here's some other models and then we can discuss a bit more at the end.
26:02
So why don't we go ahead with how is talk.
26:10
Okay.
26:13
I guess I will share my screen from the sound.
26:21
Let's see if screen sharing works
26:30
is visible.
26:34
Okay, so, yeah, I'm going to talk about supersymmetry interpretation of G minus two anomaly.
26:44
And we already know. Back in 1996 McCoy did the complete Suzy on loop calculation contribution, and a rather general analysis from thing and match of in 2001 showed that any sort of anomaly can be explained by Susie by juggling around the particle masses, and their signs.
27:09
And so for us to get around 25, plus or minus 5.9 deviation we really need slept on less than 500 GB.
27:24
Now the current question is can the Susy. Explain the current G minus two anomaly, while also keeping the Higgs mass around 125 GB and obey LFC constraints, especially there's a slept on search analysis in simplified models that claim slept on should be bigger than 700 gV.
27:49
And then we'd also like to be natural, ie, natural models predict the weak scale, namely the WC and Higgs mass to be around 100 gV without unnatural fine tunings.
28:04
So we exam this question and we found that, yes, you still can explain g minus two anomaly. But for a rather peculiar Susy spectrum, where you have what's called a normal scalar mass hierarchy, where the first generation or two have firelighter scalar masses in the third generation. So we call that a normal scalar mass hierarchy.
28:34
Since you have to invoke some splitting in the scalar masses.
28:41
So in order to be natural one asked to move beyond C MSSM type models and have splitting in the Higgs sector, because basically one wants to pull the up Higgs mass, large enough that it gets driven by radiative corrections to just barely break electroweak symmetry, then it gives a small contribution to the weak scale, and you get a natural model. So we scanned over this type of a parameter space
29:16
and plotted the Delta electroweak naturalness measure versus the contribution to g minus tool, so you should lie in between these dashed lines up here. And in fact these green points.
29:33
Obey all the LSC constraints, along with naturalness, and the Higgs mass gluino Mass, and the top squark mass limits, but you get a very peculiar spectrum for, that's a little bit non anomalous. You do get slept on masses, Here's the mass of the left muon going out to 20 tv. And you do get these green points up here with slept on masses between few 107 100 gV are Sol. And you might normally think that these would be excluded due to the LH C search limits on slept ons.
30:31
However, if you look at the detailed spectra. And most of the spectra are similar to this sort of benchmark point.
30:40
This thing has, well first of all you can see m 03 is about three P V and M 012 is around 368 GB.
30:52
You need a big, a parameter to jack up the Higgs mass, and a small mu parameter so you get a Higgs Xeno like LSP to be natural. But down here. This muon masses, they're the same as this electron and neutrino masses down here, the lightest slept on is the muon neutrino at 250 G D. And then the left, select select cron and smoo honor at 376 gV the right, select Tron is over a T V and mass. So you do get a rather peculiar spectrum with lifts Milan's as the lightest Susy particles.
31:37
And the reason this occurs, normally this would not occur, but in the renormalization group equations,
31:46
there are the usual terms but then there are these ones that involve the S parameter here, S is the difference in the Higgs soft terms, plus the trace over the matter scalars, normally in models like the C MSSM this term is exactly zero due to universality. But now we've got Higgs splitting and so MH u squared and MHD squared are quite different. And this S curve is quite large. And so the S curve actually has this minus three tenths coefficient here, it drives the left slept on doublets to small values, while the right ones come in with the opposite sign. So they get pushed up in mass.
32:37
And so our left slept times are the lightest ones. And then when you go and look at the specific mass formula at the bottom here, the neutrinos actually turns out to be lighter than the left side smoo on. Because of these electroweak d term contributions that are proportional dem z squared cosine to beta is negative here actually. So, that drives the smoo on mass smaller because it's multiplied by a half, while the other left slept on is minus a half plus sine squared theta W. So that ends up quite a bit heavier.
33:18
So, normally you might think that this model is going to be excluded by LFC searches since there's pretty tight slept con mass limit.
33:33
However, the muon neutrino mainly decays to invisibles and I added on a table at the next slide so maybe I should just jump to the next slide.
33:44
This new, new left is the muon neutrino.
33:49
The last column here is the branching fraction.
33:53
So the, this is going 75% Into neutralino one plus neutrino. And so it's decaying almost mainly to Invisibles.
34:08
But it does have a 22% branching fraction into a hard Meilan plus a charge genal And since the charge Genos and neutralino are all exetel light like a nearly degenerate. They're pretty much invisible, although they can give rise to some soft leptons, so you do get a hard mu on here but only 21% of the time. From this decay here.
34:34
The left smoo on which is somewhat heavier, that actually decays.
34:41
Almost 100% into w bows on plus a Milan's neutrino again, and then the muon neutrino decays as up in this upper channel here. So instead of decaying directly into a let hard leptons, you get a W pair plus missing energy signals being dominant from that channel.
35:05
So these branching fractions, don't fulfill the requirements on the ATLAS and CMS simplified model searches. And so, it appears that these like Milan's and neutrinos would still be allowed by the searches, but they do open up new search channels. For instance this new left, which could be several 100 GV is going to give you WW plus missing energy signature, and that would be a different route for looking for slept ons that would be motivated by the g minus two analysis.
35:50
And then you might also look for the hearts muons from smooth renal decay, but these would be highly suppressed from usual slept on analyses because you'd have to square this branching fraction, you'd only get 4%.
36:13
The case into hard die Milan pair.
36:18
But yeah, if one takes the muon anomaly seriously, then you would be looking under the ramp wrong lamppost with the simplified model search, and you'd want to look for these new decay chains that are somewhat different from what you usually assume first kliptown searches, and the rights Milan is much heavier.
36:47
Even though, so that that guy would lie, well beyond the simplified model search limits.
36:57
So that's my five minutes.
37:05
Great. Any questions discussion and wait yeah. Could you show your spectrum again for a second I refinancing.
37:18
Yeah that one. What is it.
37:22
Yeah, I don't fully understand why the snow, three no selectra mass difference is in larger than 100 CV.
37:37
Well, that
37:43
or the left and the. Yeah, you know. Yeah.
37:49
Usually that comes from these extra deep term contributions.
37:55
But my your attention Bita is large, right, this shows me.
38:03
In this particular case it's 26, Chicago's time to eat i is minus one. So, right, then the question is, if you look at the expression, it's a quadratic expression where the difference is still valid, but the smaller than 100 so I don't understand why the how the linear difference could be, well, that's a matter what is something I don't understand from from the spectrum because this come from justification variance, then, and then you see it, we'll see what the insane so the left is m, so m squared we can neglect. But MC square multiply by something of further force with minus sign, and is one half. So it's three fourths, in a quadratic time square but this is quadratic. So then, well anyway so it's something that the yeah I'd have to do my local calculator to see. Yeah, because it looks like.
39:11
Just Pythagoras theorem will tell you that the difference is smaller than the MC but, but maybe I'm wrong. So, anyway, so you're going to take a look at that, take a look, please. Okay, but they are things very interesting of course, now I only wanted to add a physics wise that this limit of same chemistry is not only associated with a specific became directly came to light and neutrally.
39:40
That usually is not valid in your case, but but but also it can be violated when the spectrum a sufficiently machinery. Yeah, the one the magnificence is small within it.
39:53
So even in that, yeah, okay, just Yeah, no, you could, for instance the mu parameters somewhat free so you could always lift that up, so that you don't make these leptons and the.
40:09
Yeah. Nearly degenerate. I mean disregard what is your mu parameter then we're trying to be natural. So in this particular benchmark it's 203 small 230 I see, Yeah, so it's neutrino and the
40:31
egg Exynos are nearly mass degenerate.
40:35
Right, right.
40:37
Okay, very good, something to take a look at. Okay, thank you very much for actually if you go to the next slide, given that I'm sorry that the one with the table.
40:50
If the neutrinos. If this neutrino and the Higgs you know are nearly mastered generat. Does that mean that like this decay, that's the 20% on the top table is actually too soft leptons, about the charge genome is nearly degenerate with the neutralino. So, the charge genome is effectively invisible.
41:19
So the smooth ion decays up into a somewhat hard Yuan although since the snood remain on say generally how small, are we talking here.
41:31
Well, Carlos just said that one of these guys was 246 240 50 gV, while the three Higgs Xenos the charge Gino one and the neutralino one and two are all two brown 230 gV.
41:53
Matter of fact, the exact masses are listed in the table here, 227 239 and 249 so they're pretty tight tightly.
42:05
They are detectable mass differences right there in that kind of compressed spectra analysis reads Yeah, it's in the compressed area differences the mesh structure would be very different right because you'd have additional missing particles. Right, and from softer particles, the maximum of this limit has a goal for a mass of about 10 GB if you're above or below, then the limit is reduced already. That way you are. And for the spectrum you can avoid it. I mean, the excellent limit for the Compress record enters in the relevant parameter region and I think with future searches one could do something there, but the set we go a bit above or below 10 GB then it becomes substantially soft already.
42:57
All right. Shall we go on then. Oh, I have one more remark.
43:01
Yeah, I think this is for discussion here. Then, I'd like to use the opportunity, how your anxiety or your idea to resolve t minus two and being an agreement with all the other constraints, led you to split third generation from first and second generation. Now, for me, I don't know whether more natural, but let's say, more appealing solution would be to split squawks from leptons, or color particles from uncoloured particles, then you would also naturally be able to, to fulfill all the constraints that there are that you try to look into this as well. We didn't, I don't like to split the colored from the uncolored ones, because there's no reason. In this case, I guess we're a little bit biased by the fact that the generations fill out a spinner of vessel town.
44:09
So, you want some sort of unification along those lines, whereas squirt slept on splitting violates all the gut relations. Yeah.
44:26
So you'd have to Oh we deal with that. Okay. My take is always that we still haven't thought of the right mechanism, or that we didn't have the correct idea for that yet. I hope. Okay this is more hope than scientific yeah understand the pension if you think about social breaking happening at what scale, right, if it happens if there is unification it happens about unification scale. So, what are we saying is more natural. So if you think somewhere below the unification scale then there is no new phi group and then su three processor to pursue any one nighter and then you can split the color from one color party.
45:10
But we are now. So I don't know how much you want to do fast sampling excessively we cannot. Yeah no I mean, you can certainly do the same explanation.
45:24
Yeah, yeah, having arbitrary slept on soft terms, and then making the squarks heavier.
45:34
So, Yeah, yeah, this has got some theoretical bias built in but I think it's very solid bias.
45:45
I'm not as eager to dismiss theory as many other phenomenologists. No, but it's not a dismissing theory it's making a statement about whether you think one of the things that you have there has the correct idea or not. Right, I mean, the idea of ideas not thought of is infinite, and to make the statement that we've definitely, you know, have the subspace which has the real idea that that's a very strong statement. And I'm not sure that I, I agree with that, so that the our question was, can you explain g minus two. Within a theory preferred scenario, Right. That is interesting and bleach, you to a particular spectrum. But yeah, that depends on having the right and left slept times for instance degenerate in here, because the right one gets pushed up to big masses.
46:45
If you could dial the right slept on independently very low than maybe that would have contributed additional pieces.
46:54
Okay, so why don't we I see we have one hand up so why don't we take Jeff's question and then go on to spends talk.
47:02
Oh you know you should there's time. I mean, I think we can. Okay, well yeah thanks for the talk, Javi, especially I like seeing this benchmark point as an experimentalist, this is exactly the sort of thing I want to see in talks like this. But can I ask a question about the slide where you showed the sort of scan that you perform as a function of the neuron mass.
47:25
This one. Yes, exactly. The one that was this one or the previous one.
47:31
The one with the smile on the one right now. All right, um, so can you just remind me what each color corresponds to what is constraining what constraint is being applied that gives you this.
47:46
The green points with the very low smear on masses is this. Yeah, that the great points are violate the LHCb limits on the gluino mass and the top squark mass, and the blue and the orange at sea.
48:08
I forget the difference between the blue and the orange at the moment, but the green fulfill all the LH see limits search limits and MH And the naturalness. So, and they lie in this two sigma band.
48:23
So yeah, green ones. It's basically showing that the slept times need to be quite light which we already knew. But the question is how can they be light. When LH see search limits really prefer a heavy Susy spectrum, especially to generate highly mix heavy tops quirks and gluinos to avoid the search limits. But it sounds like there's a lot there's a lot baked into the requirement that gives you this tight constraint on the, on the spoon on Massa going from like orange to green, that's not one requirement it's maybe several of the ones that you had on the in the intro slide so I'm wondering like if you pretend that we have no idea where the, the scale of the, you know weekend or where the week scale comes from. If, if these green points are all the sudden you know allowed up to five GV or something like that. I like five, but I'm just I'm just saying you know I wonder, it might be interesting to have this plot, but in a more fine grained way where you apply the constraints that you mentioned on one of the previous slides sort of one at a time. So you can see, you know what, what, five what Naturalness is is providing to this constraint to okay when we do have more plots in our paper but I was trying to be at five minutes.
49:47
This plot this blog, however, is quite intriguing because there is a continuity here that I don't know what is the source of it. So you'll see that the orange and blue is separate from the green.
50:00
Then, unless you intentionally separated them, so.
50:06
So,
50:09
as I said the spectrum looks strange. Without the things that don't match.
50:18
Okay. This paper was written, quickly because g minus two came up quickly. So originally we wanted to allow these points by avoiding the slept time constraints by lifting the mu parameter up so they'd be nearly degenerate. And that selected out this batch of points, but if we had too heavy of swept times, then we would have to pull mu up too hard, too large, and we'd in order to get degeneracy. And then we would violate naturalness. So, but that was before we realized that the branching fractions.
51:09
Alone. Allow this green band, so we've since updated this plot, But I was actually on vacation when I put this together I just got back last night. So it actually does fill in this region here, just due to the, you don't have to be degenerate anymore. Even the slept ons around 500 to 700 g v which would get up to this, LH c limit here are allowed, and then it makes it contiguous with the blue spectra. So this was putting in the requirement of naturalness and degeneracy, but the degeneracy doesn't have to be there, because of the branching fractions allow you to escape the LH C search limits.
52:01
Okay, so we should maybe move on because we're going to run out of time here, I do want everybody have a chance.
52:08
look to go ahead spend. Yes.
52:15
Where am I.
52:20
Okay.
52:22
Um, you can look up later.
52:26
Yeah, I will talk about our take on this within supersymmetry, but let me make one remark first, namely the questions that Elliott had put up in the beginning and I think one important question was not spelled out at all, at least not clearly. For me, the most important question is, what do our interpretations of t minus two imply for future colliders yeah and if we say how this model could fit it. What does this imply for future collider searches or which collider is able to test it, or what can we see at the high Lumi nhc where do we need other future colliders etc. I'll try to go a bit in this direction.
53:09
And, okay, we've seen why Susie can fit it, and
53:15
which particles are relevant here like Charlie knows and neutrinos all swans and neutral angels, this is all well known, and the general idea of the analysis that I will very briefly show here is that we concentrate on the electric Susy parameter space and assume that the colored one is heavier so it's also quite complimentary to what how he was saying, it's more like only low energy analysis that may tell us something about what's going on at high energies, but we probably haven't had the right idea about what's going on and high energies yet so we concentrate on the electronic parameter space and then, like, do you know searches Higgs mass etc are easily fulfilled. But we take all the constraints that are relevant there D minus two dark matter density that metadata detection and of course the LFC searches for electric particles. And then there are several mechanisms that are dictated by a dark metallic density, you can have, we know we know that metal was charging or cannulation or it's mostly been odacc metal and with electron correlation Higgs, you know, dark matter, or window dotnet and how he was talking about this possibility I will try to cover this and putting this together. This gives us lower and particularly upper limits on the various electric particles and then we can evaluate the prospects of future searches.
54:34
And just to show that was also mentioned by how he limits that are available in simplified model spectra. They look like this here for example the lightest neutralino mass versus ChargeNow mass and then we have all these limits, but as how he was pointing out, they always assume all branching ratios are one and usually they are reduced strongly. If we take into account the correct branching ratios. I would like to stress that my two collaborators here Mani Mala anti cheater did heroic work and included most of these new limits into checkmate which used for analysis.
55:09
Then, Since I analyze this in some detail. There are many more things and just prevention ratios. First of all, the assumption is that the case description of the case includes averages and nobody knows this, and they use a winner cross section now, the winner of done became two who neutralino word in the den compensation delegation to fix mostly. And the second is the use of cross sections that are associated with a company squarks, yes. And actually, the squares covered the, the continent. The general conclusion for the cross sections that the radius and cross sections. So in general the limits are very different from these and we analyzed this integration work with the, with a Gru shopping.
55:57
One, and now I'm again is Southern so I think that one should take all these beyond. We are not learning anything should take into account. As far as I understand, so we take the cross section that is evaluate the same reasons.
56:19
The reasons, so I think that the experiment that he who performed the face should be very well aware that there are assumptions that they're making sometimes self contradictory so in the sense that the windows. If you use a Winograd assertion, you cannot assume that the the case 100% into into set and neutralino so the minute I fully agree with you, I just like to phrase it slightly differently. I think the simplified model spectra are a great way to transmit exponential results but they should never be confused with limits on the masses. Right.
56:58
Okay.
57:00
I have a similar plot for slept on here. Yeah, and I also have plots on the backup where we show how much this is reduced by applying checkmate really, but usually the reduction is quite, quite strong. For various reasons, not only the margin ratios, I agree with Carlos, what are the different colors signify the different colors, or different searches you would have. Here we have the reference the whole paper and then we refer to certain figures from that one, I don't know my heart. Yeah, I mean, we had three limits here and here we had seven limits. I don't know them by heart. Now, only those funds are the compressed spectral limit down here. This one here otherwise, I depends on the decayed channels that are also in duration that you are interested, say Dave and Audrina 250 series and they slept on limit is 350 for instance, that I've plucked from the back of that so we live at, but I tried, I have only done I understand it's done but the body's put in context, what he was saying, yes.
58:06
Okay, so we use GM to kayak, either with the old or the new G minus two result.
58:12
We use micrometers for intensity and also for the direct detection limits, and I set out these five scenarios that I was mentioning be novena with charging accumulation be no Selectron correlation Higgs, you know, dark matter or we know dark matter here one should note that for these two cases stack network engineer has to cannot simultaneously be fulfilled because the LSP is too heavy and then you can't get two humans to read them all, so we only take it as an upper limit, in this case. And for this we also have results with the new G minus two result already, but the main one of the main messages is and this coincides with what I was always saying, you get always upper limits on the LSP and MLSP masters, roughly at the ballpark 500 to 600 gV. Now this applies to other scenarios. And in fact, the Nugee minus two result, maintain these limits because the minus two, I wrote it here I think this is all, this is new but old minus two sigma old is roughly nu minus two. Sigma Nu, so the upper limit on the particle masses, Roughly stays the same, with the new result.
59:26
And the preparation for future colliders this was my main concern, or my main question for this group here. And I'll just show you two results, what's that we did this plot itself is quite well known I think this is the mass of the NSP and the massive difference with the LSP this I think it's usually the ChargeNow here, and this was done for the Higgs ino case. And then we see the different limits the projected ones for here Hailo mi l HC, or this is also highly mi l HC and this is high energy LFC and FC ch H H. But these vertical lines come from a plus or minus CLI, that's where you can usually go up to half the kinematic up to the kinematic limit response half the center of mass, energy, and we put into this plot our preferred points that survive all the constraints, including LH see whatever is. Here we have the we know dark matter here we have the Higgs, you know, dark matter and here we have the vino vino was trudging accumulation. The other stone have compressed spectra so they don't fit into this plot, but what one can see for these two ones where one can really apply the limits from the PP colliders part will be covered by the high Lumia xe but large parts may remain uncovered here.
1:00:45
This one here can be tracked better with halloumi LH c, and this is even a conservative because different production cross sections come out for vino vino dark matter and eggs you know that meta which was assumed in order to obtain these limits. But okay, part can be covered on the other hand future plus or minus kaleida can really cover the full parameter space depending on how you go in the sense of mass energy but click with 1500 for sure everything but nearly the IOC with 1000 could also be able to cover everything. And if you have a question on the size of the cross sections. I have two examples here for the vino vino darkmatter, you can see we are in the ballpark of several 10s of bento boxes.
1:01:33
Central federal bonds.
1:01:35
So, if they exist at a plus or minus claim there should be a piece of cake, to see them the other number of events is really high enough.
1:01:44
And I think this is the last slide.
1:01:48
There's several groups that claim that the Wino Dark Matters excluded due to indirect search limits. Yes, those take into account because, well, one could take them to count them, we just fill out this part, this can be done, or one things that these limits the indirect limits usually have large uncertainties and not in order not to over constrain ourselves. Yeah, we just kept this possibility. But I agree, this is, but they are really density very small.
1:02:27
So, it's very small. So then, it applies to the families, mentioning us. When usually people invoke non thermal Dark Matter production, yeah. Yeah, but this is not when it's when it's doing so then it's not talking about we know that a mother really is talking about a small contribution to the Armada about 10% and for Higgs, you know, we have 1%, roughly, right. So, and can be smaller.
1:02:58
So I don't I don't see the specific motivation for those points from the point of view. Right. So then it's just that it happens that they give a small contribution is they are the lightest, but I think that they call in their machine the little is usually called fixin or we know that. He really does. So then he is simply that the small contribution to the sun, that should be emphasized to.
1:03:27
You have some plots that we didn't publish yet where we show the size of the dark matter density that we get out is that we are at the ballpark either 1% or roughly 10% No, you need him for the ACCION anyway exactly so it's always the excellent, it's how he likes to phrase this right.
1:03:48
What.
1:03:50
On that note, maybe we'll do our last talk, and then we can have a guess, can I fold one more slide we'll take only less than one minute in case you're interested, we are organizing a little workshop, g minus two days, 21, and the topic is really focused on BSM physics in light of G minus two. If you want to register, go to this webpage here. And for example, how we will talk their machine will talk Andrea's will talk there, and several others I think have already registered, but in case you're interested, just go to this web page and send us an email. Okay, great, that's, that's a whole week dedicated to what we dedicated our to so yes it's three hours per day it's the three hours where all the regions in the world may be able to participate. So, for some time, it's from three to six in the afternoon.
1:04:43
All right, thanks. So we'll go on to Rodolfo, and then we'll have our extended discussion afterward.
1:04:54
Hello Amy. Yep.
1:04:59
Okay, so. Hello and thanks for the invitation. So since that my my talk is complimentary transients. So, I'm going to talk about a couple of projects. One is fully on g minus two and applications from young collider. The other one has overlap with the BMS and anomalies, has to do with electro quarks and also implications from your collider. So, so because they are focused on the lightning physics for humans to AI then their own heading. Then I decided to focus on light explanations, and then the vector let the part for the RK.
1:05:42
So, okay, we know this.
1:05:45
So these are lighter notice explanation they fall in the category that we call the similar scenarios you know, in our paper, these edges you just introduce this single scalar, vector that has these mune philic coupling G, right, so then the parametric so the contribution to human still goes with g square and then the mass of the single square divided by. And then the mass of the mean square. And because there is an upper bound on on the coupling leeches activity in 30. Then there's an upper bound on the math. So, in this context I'm calling light, new physics for damage to in this interval of one GV to one dV.
1:06:33
Right, so.
1:06:35
So a combination of low energy experiments. You can see that, for example, an immune collider, can cover the this parameter space.
1:06:46
So they like, you can see here for example for the bar, it already excludes up to like five or six GV and down to what 200 Then you need. But then there are other proposals like MQ different phases they will cover even lower masses. This parameter space.
1:07:10
Then, so this will be this region over here to the left, but then to the right, you see how you get the luminosity needed for for discovery as a function of the mass of the singlet and this is this one other one over here is the mystical target for that at the new collider. So, so you will see these, looking at the gamma plus singlet production and then the X is because the singlet can in principle decay to either invisible or back to neurons to appear to be quiet. So until we need rather pessimistic or like conservative type of search here.
1:07:53
We'll get to me if you click on this became modes, then a lot more background and stuff, but, but the principal, the GTV collider can cover this family space after the better majority.
1:08:08
So then, what, what is a specific model you have in mind, something that is not not the one on the left. No. Yes, but if you. Yes, go to the left, to the next slide, where we're sorry then you have a trident, so bound that that is essentially covered, so I understand the correspondence between the two slides. So then I went What is basic. I think it's because in this search, they assume a b minus, like L mu minus l. Something type of thing that actually is a vector model actually yeah I'm mixing up things because this is also this is for the scalar and is for a vector, but I mean the the boundary principles similar for the scalar you wouldn't have right.
1:09:03
Well, would you Okay, so then therefore, I want to understand what this x, then so you say that x can be arbitrary or what the in this surgery. Yes, in principle is the single IP so either the scalar or the vector, but then it would decay to, like, in principle, like invisible or, or back to me also, something else.
1:09:29
Yes, that is my question. So then, what are the dashed lines and solid lines. So what are the assumptions in the decoder okay so for the solid lines. Yeah. Sorry for going too fast, was just, you know, by worrying about the time. But, yeah, in the solid lines has basically no assumptions you, you look at the bar by scattering. The two means colliding it's changing their singlet. In the D and S channel, and just look at deviations from Baba scattering either the cross section or or both, things like forward backward symmetries and top things. But then, for the, for the dashed lines, you do to put some assumptions right so how you produce the singer but then how does it decay. That's the question right because you have to be you and you have to pay some branches ratio penalty right.
1:10:24
Okay, very good, very fine, fine, thank you. Yeah, good.
1:10:31
Yeah. So then, for the RK, we know that so this is a three and two point a few the deviations in this ratio mu k mu.
1:10:43
And so in this effective operator approach, you have these operators oh nine and 10. And you can arrange a you know pure left hand.
1:10:58
Best fit where you know the proficiency nine and 10 are equal and opposite in sign to you have left. Mewn current over here. And the best feet of minus point 43 Four C nine. The only thing why I mentioned this is because, so the u one vector llactapata He comes to the wire can the electron doublet. So you can you can forget this. Right. Coupling for a moment, is focused on the left one and you with this one just with this one, you can produce these B f mu k. So you put in the beta three two and beta two two couplings, and the best fit gives you a constraint on this top plane and masses, something like this. So then we looked at the new collider, so if I can if I can clear so DNA is a vector massive lepto Quark, right, so there must be a notable completion here, then, because if not they rushed the loop level nonsense we usually do versions. So, yeah, we I mean we took this model from there is a UV completion return should either party salon. And so we do the, The Lagrangian from from those. But may I say something to the So Carlos you're definitely right so the LaCrosse, he wrote down is not renormalized.
1:12:27
Fortunately, you can still calculate the loop effects in many of the flavor observables, and in this loop effects. You can do it the unitary gauge and you take into account the gauge person contribution, that's fine. You checked also that in oxeye cage you can do it at the time dependence of artists are fine, but the effects are also very important to what you mentioned on the slide before. So, if we go back to the slide before, What you should see here is that the second SEMA C, 10 equals minus c nine. This is generated entry level as you say.
1:13:02
The first one to C nine. This is the loop effect right.
1:13:07
Yes yes yes. And this loop effect, this is then generated by different couplings, like you, so if you show in the next page.
1:13:17
So here, you say yes to two times three, two, but the loop effect goes with two, three, times three, three, and this is the end correlate to all the other stuff, and this is what makes this you want to poke so nice because if you explain rd rd star, you have a loop effect in P two S and L, which gives you theanine lepton flavor universal.
1:13:41
I see. I see. So, this is the really nice thing about this laptop box so if you go back to the slide before sorry on seventh, this C nine is universal, not only to neurons, and this is what happens in your case, it's universal, then you have even a much better fit.
1:14:04
So you should say, you should put a university here to see nine physicals, this is in fact your scenario. So, this is not exactly the right plot here on the right hand side, which is crisis scenario. Okay okay I see I can I can ask a question for my understanding here, probably to Andreas because you mentioned it, you say that c 10 is equal to minus C nine is a tree level effect. Yes, there's a tree level effect he shows us each and then the value of C nine, this minus point four three is a loop effect. But, so the loops are such that the tree level relation holds also at the loop level.
1:14:45
No, in the loop level. This is the off shell photon Penquin this really gives C nine universal only nothing. Okay, so what's happened. Imagine if c 10 Then the dimension, C 10 is nearly zero, this is.
1:15:00
But then it doesn't make sense to write here, see 10 is equal to minus C No no no complaints right, two different scenarios when no in the same scenario, you get exactly what you see nine universal plus C nine equals minus c 10 Only with ruins. This is what you get. So if you put a universal at a C nine, then it's exactly what you get in your scenario it shaft that C nine is generated by a different coupling combination, then C nine equals minus c 10. But the good thing is that coupling comes B nation, which generates thi nine universal exactly the same one, which explains rd rd star.
1:15:46
Yeah. Cool. Thanks, Tom. Maybe I also got my feet wet anyway so we can.
1:15:54
Yeah, I think I'm completely confused.
1:15:58
Okay, ready go better good yeah but okay but in principle without you know going to rd, for example, just in the in the RK eg you get the diversity is your constraint on these combinational cups into masses. And so then we look into the mule glider, the different production, production modes, you know, single production, double production or, or even the alien interference with the standard model. And so what we saw is that, basically, you know, draw yen and both different production modes also cover the department's pays for the arcade, even add a 3d Demian glider already. Well, here there is an assumption to that these companies are saying but then, you know modifications of these assumptions and extra details. That is something to be explored.
1:16:59
But this is like a invisible so I basically just show you two scenarios where there is this premise space for humans to have K, and a 3d video glider. Cover the entire thing, but, but again for ik just one benchmark model scenario. But for g minus two is this is a well defined scenario that gives you light solutions to demons to.
1:17:29
Yeah, and then so yeah, that, that's my five minutes.
1:17:38
So you think we there is there is a chance we'll get the three TV Moon collider somewhere. What are the prospects right now.
1:17:47
Oh yeah, I don't know, we'll be dead Carlos, we will be.
1:17:53
I mean you will too. Yeah, certainly not Rodolfo right. He is.
1:17:59
He will die out.
1:18:05
I have to leave in three minutes, I, I just wanted to come very quickly back to the left hand flavor universality violation if you allow me because I thought a bit better, how to explain it in the meantime. So, in the Standard Model, there are two contributions to t minus two afternoon. One is linear in the new math, this comes this comes from the massless photon. And one is quadratic in the real mass. This are the electroweak contributions.
1:18:36
So, now, if you had new physics that were linear in electron mass, you would, oh, you would get two, which would. Yeah, but the whole effect is linear, you would get a two big effect in t minus two of the electron.
1:18:52
So, it cannot end new physics is linear in the electron mass. If the new physics, amplitude is independent of the electron mass. So, if new physics were completely flavor blind, and this is not the case about the MSS and so that's important, the emphasis is not flavor applied, but if new physics were flavor blind, then you couldn't explain t minus two of the moon without violating the electron one.
1:19:21
I say, you confuse me again.
1:19:26
You say, for example, what we are looking at is not flavor blind. No, it's not table blind because you know we cannot explain g minus two of the moon without being in contradiction with three months to have the electron, no, no, no. I said, you can explain to me of the moon, because the MS is m is not flavor blind, but if you were flavor of lime.
1:19:52
Then you have to have the same contribution to the mass, yes and then you do the math, because the math comes in from the equations of motion, one part of the mass, you can never get rid of the second poll of the month, they're not there. So the amplitude were flavor Playa and then you could not explain she managed to afternoon without violating the electron one, but this is not a problem for the emphasis and because the MSM is electron flavor, conserving, but it's not lepton flavor blind.
1:20:27
That's right. Okay, so I love to look at the numbers again but okay, I mean, that's fine, but I could buy that. Okay, then I'm very happy that we all agree on this, I have to go, sorry I need the corner to close it, It closes a tick so I have to leave.
1:20:44
Okay, okay by the sea again Andrea thanks for the invitation.
1:20:52
Okay.
1:20:56
Any other discussion topics.
1:21:00
Didn't we have. Oh, that was the last talk. Okay, yeah, I tried to make the time reasonably close to the first hour and 15 or so. Yeah, people have other things they want to discuss.
1:21:16
Otherwise I think it's in about six weeks we'll have another discussion which we haven't defined yet, so we'll have to think about what's most relevant there. Right and I think that we will definitely come back to this u minus two topic in a more formal way as we get back to our Snowmass activities right to the next year. The thing.
1:21:39
Can I make a quick qualitative comment about the geochemistry on Snowmass just to just to answer some of the questions that were the very very first slides that someone showed. And I mean, I guess the point is that there is, and this is something that is relevant for the Mian coder discussion as well.
1:22:00
There is an incredibly simple experimental roadmap as far as new colliders are concerned from g minus two right and this is something that does apply for things like supersymmetry but applies more generally, as you know the paper with Rodolfo and union Gordon and I makes clear wishes that, if q minus two is true then there's either particles couplings in the meal in proportion to the mass below a few TV or new charge states below, say, tennis TV that's kind of a very very simple experimental roadmap, and that can apply to almost any kind of new collider as being a huge new physics motivation, but the, but whenever we say this in Snowmass, because Snowmass is going to come out, perhaps before the lattice.
1:22:41
Results are confirmed. We have to be really careful to sort of say everything without g minus two and then at the end say oh by the way, if q minus two, that this is the best thing ever. And you should pivot to making this the main deal but only if it is confirmed, so we need to make sure that we don't over rely early, but also make clear in how this was presented that if it is true, here's what it means. So I'm sort of assuming that that is part of how this is going to go, I don't know. Yeah, I mean it kind of depends on the timeline for all of this stuff so I think the hope at least my hope was that the lattice results, the checks right are supposed to be in order of a year. Yeah right. Understanding the end.
1:23:27
That's my go to. Yeah, so and then I think the current plan for Snowmass is end of next summer. So, yeah, you know, we'd have to keep an eye on things and see what's ahead. Well yeah, I mean, but I mean, but you know like, the snow is going to come out in the next summer, but everything was going to be written, way before that. So I think all the work is going to happen before we know the confirmation. So, I mean, obviously everybody who is working on Jimmy minus do it has been waiting a journal as to, that it's there. I don't understand it, or study machine.
1:24:08
I thought like somebody was gonna start working on Junior miners to once we know the latest thoughts like people have been working on it for a long time, like the BSM explanations, and as well as like walking up at future stuff, but I think I get what they will. Sorry.
1:24:29
Sorry, go ahead. Yes, we will have to be, you know, we will have to stress or not stressed stuff, like how we finally write down our Snowmass report at the end of the day, depending on what happens, you need some argument to push for these colliders right so then.
1:24:47
No, I absolutely say. So do you menstruation I bought this is of course, but, but you know that gives you a framework to say okay we like you did in your paper so okay if she managed to release through so this is what happened. But I think that there is nothing wrong with going ahead with this hypothesis right and the other argument here that one shouldn't dismiss.
1:25:14
If the latest result was confirmed. Yeah, even in that case, you must explain probably with new physics the difference between the old with the dispersive methods and the lattice somewhere else in your physics Yeah, So, and it's not so easy to think about it as four g minus two. But that's true.
1:25:37
Because the where the bias, if the current lattice result is like the future lattice result that it's confirmed then it's only two sigma from both sides and, you know, no but they're running at hydronic data Yes Yeah, much worse.
1:25:54
And that I honestly it's like I don't know what to do.
1:25:58
I don't mean, it's not like if this was true then oh there's nothing there, it's absolutely true and then it's like what the fuck is
1:26:12
given estimates were not invented like unitarity and analyticity are real things that, you know, arguments, but but it's the statistical significance of the discrepancies are none of them are that low No, no, no, no, you are you are thinking, because you are thinking our projection for protecting the vessels on the G minus two plane, but you have to take the allotted results and try to reconstruct what will be the Atlantic cross sections that would correspond via the special relation to the Atlantic research, and you will see that, do you need to have a big bump. So in the low inertia duration about once you either did not observe in any of the experiments, now, now therefore, so therefore, the question is, what is the physics, responsible for this. So then I doubt that any, any future measurement of these sections will produce such a thing. I personally think that there is another problem but since I want to write a paper about this. I will mention it to you next.
1:27:17
Well the reason is pretty man call me on either we'll have a different measurement of the hydronic vacuum polarization and Ken's no mass, like you know push for something like that is that the other thing.
1:27:30
What do you mean, like, experiment, like Yeah, I mean part of the, the charge as I see it is to kind of look at different experimental probes and be like okay, this has a good you know motivation or whatever to probe physics that we think is super relevant right is that's what your question is.
1:27:54
And that's what, no, no paper requests, etc. No.
1:27:59
Yes. No, you're right, but rather for good you remind us what these are the experiment is. It's a scattering experiment of the moons on a fixed target and the idea is to, to cut to measure the just the running of the Alpha, ah, they recommend you can just subtract the three loops calculation of the everything that is no hadronic, and then you get the hydronic contribution, which basically it is exactly that you want is you want to scatter muons on electrons.
1:28:33
So you basically have the scattering the scattering experiment, which, as far as I understand what I from simple ex mentalist view is more close to what the lattice calculations is actually doing.
1:28:49
So, um, and this is, I don't know what the situation is but I know they've been doing initial studies already. So this basically an experiment I put in number of thin film targets, really foreign to beryllium or something like that, and attracted and detected just after that into the new on the map zone and you repeat this kind of stations 50 times. And then you just measure new ones scattering of the electrons in such is a reasonably simple experiment and I really hope it will be done because it's really get get you a different, a different experimental input to the calculation from as compared to the, the annulation experiments, and it can't happen before Sven and I die.
1:29:45
Yes.
1:29:47
This is like, I like to say that this is a tabletop but you need 50 tabletops.
1:29:56
You need 50 tabletop one after another.
1:30:01
And you need several so 100 200 gV new one being, which of course, so on is the only one that can give you.
1:30:13
Okay. Was that your comment for your raised hand Michael or did ya know and I've actually I'm in my first data x I had two questions. One question was exactly the discussion and that was going on, on, on, on the lattice results. The other thing was actually to how we because I took some time to, to digest your, your numbers. If I understand correctly, you have your chinos and Ukranians lighter than, then the your new one. Right.
1:30:46
Then the small ones you mean, yeah, yeah right, immediately make the energy limits irrelevant, because then the new ones will decay over genus and neutralino so not directly to, I mean this would not be a simplified model approach, but the simplified model assumes this Milan's decayed law leptons, plus a neutralino. Yeah, I mean you have, if you have if you have the, the view on decaying to a charging on the neutrino and on the judge you know the case due to the new cleaner with more nasty friends rights completed Yeah, Right, right.
1:31:30
Right. Yeah, no it's the branching fractions are all quite different from the simplified model, it will render the fact that you placed the casinos lighter than this left on means that simplified models depth to name is irrelevant.
1:31:52
Well, I mean there's.
1:31:54
It's the usual scenario except that the decay into the leptons, plus neutralino one is I actually pressed up on the branching factor of course that could still be large. So, but,
1:32:11
no, definitely do the differences.
1:32:15
Then we rapidly simplify scenarios.
1:32:22
Right, this is an important discussion for not just Snowmass but the LFC right now, what other people are people are pointing out these preferred models for this very intriguing anomaly and if we're completely missing it, not just that we have a model which is you know, close enough that will give a reasonable reinterpretation if we're just completely missing the signature, we need to know that now.
1:32:47
Okay. On that note, anything else pressing or should we close our meeting.
1:32:56
Thanks all for the conversation. And I just think this will be an ongoing conversation about exactly how to how to think about how much weight to put on things, and how to segregate it, and things like that.
1:33:12
And make sure that that appropriate sensitivity studies are getting done, which I think is maybe the first thing that we should be thinking about, because they take the longest times, so.
1:33:23
Okay.
1:33:25
Thanks, everyone. Bye. Thank you.
1:33:30
All right, thanks.
Image
Comment
Highlight