Paper detail

Naturalness versus stringy naturalness (with implications for collider and dark matter searches)

The notion of stringy naturalness-- that an observable O_2 is more natural than O_1 if more (phenomenologically acceptable) vacua solutions lead to O_2 rather than O_1-- is examined within the context of the Standard Model (SM) and various SUSY extensions: CMSSM/mSUGRA, high-scale SUSY and radiatively-driven natural SUSY (RNS). Rather general arguments from string theory suggest a (possibly mild) statistical draw towards vacua with large soft SUSY breaking terms. These vacua must be tempered by an anthropic veto of non-standard vacua or vacua with too large a value of the weak scale m(weak). We argue that the SM, the CMSSM and the various high-scale SUSY models are all expected to be relatively rare occurances within the string theory landscape of vacua. In contrast, models with TeV-scale soft terms but with m(weak)~100 GeV and consequent light higgsinos (SUSY with radiatively-driven naturalness) should be much more common on the landscape. These latter models have a statistical preference for m_h~ 125 GeV and strongly interacting sparticles beyond current LHC reach. Thus, while conventional naturalness favors sparticles close to the weak scale, stringy naturalness favors sparticles so heavy that electroweak symmetry is barely broken and one is living dangerously close to vacua with charge-or-color breaking minima, no electroweak breaking or pocket universe weak scale values too far from our measured value. Expectations for how landscape SUSY would manifest itself at collider and dark matter search experiments are then modified compared to usual notions.

preprint2020arXivOpen access
0citations
0reviews
0saves
Nocode
Nodataset
0institutions

Next steps

Decide what to do with this paper

Use like or dislike for the fast social read. The more specific scholarly feedback stays available below when needed.

Log in to curate

Reading frame

Keep the important context close to the paper

Keep the important signals around this paper in one place: votes, save state, collection context, reviews and the metadata you need before deciding what to do next.

Institutions

Add specific reaction

Move through the context

Research map

Open full explorer

Move through nearby people, institutions, topics and adjacent work without leaving the paper page.

Building this graph slice

BZPEER is loading the nearby papers, people, topics and institutions for this page.

Structured reviews

0 review(s)

ContributeLeave structured feedbackUse the review template when you have a concrete strength, concern or method question.Open review form

No structured reviews yet. High-signal critique starts here.

Work discussion

0 comment(s)

DiscussAdd a high-signal commentKeep quick notes, caveats and replication pointers separate from formal reviews.Open comment form

No discussion yet. The first strong comment sets the tone.