Superconformal Technicolor

TL;DR

This work considers two scenarios, one where the strong dynamics induces vacuum expectation values for elementary Higgs fields, and another where theStrong dynamics is solely responsible for electroweak symmetry breaking, solving the supersymmetry naturalness problem.

Abstract

In supersymmetric theories with a strong conformal sector, soft supersymmetry breaking at the TeV scale naturally gives rise to confinement and chiral symmetry breaking at the same scale. We investigate models where such a sector dynamically breaks electroweak symmetry. We consider two scenarios, one where the strong dynamics induces vacuum expectation values for elementary Higgs fields, and another where the strong dynamics is solely responsible for electroweak symmetry breaking. In both cases there is no fine tuning required to explain the absence of a Higgs boson below the LEP bound, solving the supersymmetry naturalness problem. A good precision electroweak fit can be obtained, and quark and lepton masses are generated without flavor-changing neutral currents. Electroweak symmetry breaking may be dominated either by the elementary Higgs bosons or by the strong dynamics. In addition to standard superymmetry collider signals, these models predict production of multiple heavy standard model particles (t, W, Z, and b) from decays of resonances in the strong sector.

Figures (1)

• Figure 1: Precision electroweak fit. The inner (outer) ellipse is the $95\%$ ($99\%$) confidence level allowed region in the $S$, $T$ plane with reference Higgs mass $120\mathrm{~GeV}$Gfitter. The dotted blue (dashed red) line corresponds to a model with a light elementary Higgs at 130 (350) GeV, with $f=100\, {\rm GeV}$, $\tan \beta = 2$, and $B\mu = 0$. The lines end when $\lambda_u v_u \simeq \lambda_d v_d$, where $T$ is dominated by the light Higgs contribution. The dot-dashed black line is for the model with no light Higgs. The plot assumes that the UV contribution to the $S$ parameter is given by the QCD value, while the UV contribution to the $T$ parameter is estimated using NDA. Both of these have large theoretical uncertainties, so this plot is meant only to be suggestive.