4.7 Article

Supersymmetry at a 28 TeV hadron collider: HE-LHC

期刊

PHYSICAL REVIEW D
卷 98, 期 1, 页码 -

出版社

AMER PHYSICAL SOC
DOI: 10.1103/PhysRevD.98.015009

关键词

-

资金

  1. NSF [PHY-1620575]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The discovery of the Higgs boson at similar to 125 GeV indicates that the scale of weak scale supersymmetry is higher than what was perceived in the pre-Higgs boson discovery era and lies in the several TeV region. This makes the discovery of supersymmetry more challenging and argues for hadron colliders beyond LHC at root s = 14 TeV. The Future Circular Collider (FCC) study at CERN is considering a 100 TeV collider to be installed in a 100 km tunnel in the Lake Geneva basin. Another 100 km collider being considered in China is the Super proton-proton Collider. A third possibility recently proposed is the high-energy LHC (HE-LHC) which would use the existing CERN tunnel but achieve a center-of-mass energy of 28 TeV by using FCC magnet technology at significantly higher luminosity than at the high luminosity LHC (HL-LHC). In this work we investigate the potential of HE-LHC for the discovery of supersymmetry. We study a class of supergravity unified models under the Higgs boson mass and the dark matter relic density constraints and compare the analysis with the potential reach of the HL-LHC. A set of benchmarks is presented which are beyond the discovery potential of HL-LHC but are discoverable at HE-LHC. For comparison, we study model points at HE-LHC which are also discoverable at HL-LHC. For these model points, it is found that their discovery would require a HL-LHC run between 5-8 years while the same parameter points can be discovered in a period of a few weeks to similar to 1.5 yr at HE-LHC running at its optimal luminosity of 2.5 x 10(35) cm(-2) s(-1). The analysis indicates that the HE-LHC possibility should be seriously pursued as it would significantly increase the discovery reach for supersymmetry beyond that of HL-LHC and decrease the run period for discovery.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据