• Register
PhysicsOverflow is a next-generation academic platform for physicists and astronomers, including a community peer review system and a postgraduate-level discussion forum analogous to MathOverflow.

Welcome to PhysicsOverflow! PhysicsOverflow is an open platform for community peer review and graduate-level Physics discussion.

Please help promote PhysicsOverflow ads elsewhere if you like it.


New features!

Please do help out in categorising submissions. Submit a paper to PhysicsOverflow!

... see more

Tools for paper authors

Submit paper
Claim Paper Authorship

Tools for SE users

Search User
Reclaim SE Account
Request Account Merger
Nativise imported posts
Claim post (deleted users)
Import SE post

Users whose questions have been imported from Physics Stack Exchange, Theoretical Physics Stack Exchange, or any other Stack Exchange site are kindly requested to reclaim their account and not to register as a new user.

Public \(\beta\) tools

Report a bug with a feature
Request a new functionality
404 page design
Send feedback


(propose a free ad)

Site Statistics

123 submissions , 104 unreviewed
3,600 questions , 1,219 unanswered
4,602 answers , 19,547 comments
1,470 users with positive rep
423 active unimported users
More ...

Higgs boson and string theory

+ 6 like - 0 dislike

Assuming Higgs is found at 125 GeV.Is there any direct or indirect consequence on string theory ? Will it be a blow to string theory or models employing string theory ?


Ps - I am just a curious pure maths student, so forgive me if my question makes no sense ! :)

This post has been migrated from (A51.SE)

asked Dec 13, 2011 in Theoretical Physics by Serifo Blade (30 points) [ revision history ]
retagged Apr 20, 2014
There are ways to get a Higgs-Type effect in String Theory. But since the main Issue is still finding a sensible way to get the Standard Model to arise naturally, I believe it's still a bit early to say. I'm also rather interested in what role the Higgs Effect will play in String Theory.

This post has been migrated from (A51.SE)
See http://arxiv.org/abs/arXiv:1112.1059 (stolen from Lubos Motl's blog) for a string scenario in very good agreement with the 125 GeV figure

This post has been migrated from (A51.SE)
The Standard Model predicts a Higgs at around this mass.

This post has been migrated from (A51.SE)

3 Answers

+ 12 like - 0 dislike

I'm going to answer a slightly different question about consequences of a 125 GeV Higgs for low-energy supersymmetry. For internal consistency, supersymmetry seems to be a requirement at very high energies (or perhaps just on the worldsheet) in string theory. So these questions are indirectly (and tenuously) connected.

This also seems to be the approach Luboš Motl took in his answer, but I think he conflates some issues that should be disentangled. The bottom line, in my opinion, is: 125 GeV is an unexpectedly large mass in the MSSM. If supersymmetry at the TeV scale is correct, this Higgs mass strongly hints at one of three things: either very heavy scalar superpartners, out of reach of collider searches (though fermionic ones may be lighter), or a SUSY spectrum with very large mixing among scalar top quarks, or an extension of the minimal model with new interactions for the Higgs boson. Only the last of the three can evade the conclusion of fine-tuning, though one can debate whether Nature cares about what we call tuning.

One typically hears that supersymmetry requires a Higgs mass below 135 GeV. For instance, you can find such a statement in equation 45 of a review article by Carena and Haber (which can also serve as a source for other statements I'll be making in this answer; I won't try to be exhaustive with references to the original literature). Let's unpack that claim a little, which is also related to this other recent question about the little hierarchy problem:

The MSSM: This is the minimal supersymmetric Standard Model. In this model, the Higgs has gauge interactions and the Yukawa interactions it needs to give mass to SM fields, and no other interactions. This is very predictive. At leading order, it predicts $m_h < m_Z$ = 91.1876 GeV. So the MSSM is always in some tension with larger Higgs masses. There are corrections to this Higgs mass formula, however, from quantum corrections arising from its interactions with supersymmetric partners of the top quark (scalar tops or "stops"); roughly, there are corrections going as $m_t^4/v^2 \log m_{\tilde t}^2$ with $m_{\tilde t}$ the stop mass, and corrections going as $m_t^4/v^2~X_t^2/m_{\tilde t}^2$ and $m_t^4/v^2~X_t^4/m_{\tilde t}^4$ where $X_t$ is a measure of mixing between left- and right-handed stops.

So, in the MSSM, a large Higgs mass requires large stop masses. The masses required are a little less large when the stops are highly mixed. Now, the number 135 GeV for the maximal allowed Higgs mass is derived assuming stops are below 2 TeV, although I think a more modern version of the calculation would conclude that even 135 is out of reach. On the other hand, dropping the assumption of stops below 2 TeV, in the MSSM with extremely heavy superpartners the Higgs mass could even be a little above 140 GeV.

The MSSM, with large Higgs masses, is tuned: both the stop mass and the mixing $X_t$ show up in quantum corrections that want to shift the electroweak breaking vacuum. Most people working on the MSSM have studied models with light superpartners, below 1 TeV, so that this tuning is relatively small. On the other hand, some have studied "split" models with heavy scalars, giving up on solving the fine-tuning issue. A 125 GeV Higgs is a better fit to those scenarios, with scalars in the ~ 10 TeV regime, than to "standard" MSSM models. It is still compatible with more standard MSSM scenarios in the limit of large stop mixing, however (though this imposes strong and interesting constraints on the model!).

Luboš is advocating the split models, and they are interesting; nature may not care what we consider to be "fine-tuned." Also, one sometimes encounters claims that the fine-tuning is reduced in some versions of these models. Trying to quantify precisely what is meant by tuning is a can of worms I'll avoid opening in this response. I don't agree that these slightly split models with 10 TeV scalars are more "stringy" than "QFT-like," since all of the calculations are done in effective supergravity theories, although they do lend themselves to solving the moduli problem that arises in string theories (see this and this, as well as the more recent work of Gordy Kane that Luboš cites).

Beyond the MSSM: Supersymmetric models can also accommodate a Higgs with more than the minimal set of interactions. In that case, new contributions to its mass can arise already at the leading order, and the tension with fine-tuning described above is much smaller. There are too many conceivable versions of this to classify in this answer, and their implications for colliders can depend on details. But it's certainly interesting to consider models without tuning and with new physics beyond the MSSM.

Bottom line: It's still too early to say definitively if the hints at the LHC are evidence of a 125 GeV Higgs. If so, then the next few years--possibly even 2012--could tell us if we are in one of these three scenarios (split MSSM, MSSM with highly mixed stops, beyond the MSSM) or if supersymmetry is completely absent at the weak scale.

This post has been migrated from (A51.SE)
answered Dec 14, 2011 by Matt Reece (1,630 points) [ no revision ]
Most voted comments show all comments
A nice quasi stock review paper just came out today regarding the naturalness of SuSY with Mh at 125 GeV. http://arxiv.org/abs/1112.2703

This post has been migrated from (A51.SE)
It's not just a review, they point out an important bit of physics in the $\lambda$SUSY scenario that earlier papers had missed (that the Higgs is made relatively light by mixing with the singlet). I'll have my own mini-contribution (with Draper, Meade, and Shih) focusing on just the MSSM and how this constrains certain classes of mediation mechanism on the arxiv tonight. A whole flood of these things should be coming in....

This post has been migrated from (A51.SE)
Plus one, Matt. I think that the MSSM is still being given too much credibility relatively to other SUSY theories/limits but your answer was ordered, anyway.

This post has been migrated from (A51.SE)
"I don't agree that these slightly split models with 10 TeV scalars are more "stringy" than "QFT-like," since all of the calculations are done in effective supergravity theories" - Well, unless extra dimensions are large or very warped, all physics below $10^{18}$ GeV or so will always be dominated by calculations based on QFT and SUGRA. This doesn't mean that all of these calculations are equally stringy or non-stringy, does it? String/M-theory simply has different "naturalness" standards than QFTs. One may even say that things like grand unification are "more stringy" than bare MSSM.

This post has been migrated from (A51.SE)
@Luboš: SUSY models other than the MSSM are definitely growing much more interesting in light of the data. It's just that I don't know how to explain all the options in an answer of reasonable length here!

This post has been migrated from (A51.SE)
I'm sympathetic to the picture that many string constructions have scalars heavier than gluinos (e.g. by factors of $\log(M_P/m_{3/2})$ or volumes of small cycles), and that this fits fairly comfortably with solving cosmological problems. I'm less comfortable with saying that details of "generic" moduli stabilization are understood well enough to calculate all the soft terms, understand various corrections, and make statements about tuning. If I could translate more string pheno to EFT I would find it more robust. I am a string sympathizer, at least, though.

This post has been migrated from (A51.SE)
@Matt: well, I surely hope you (or someone else) will explain the right answers in the papers. BTW congrats to your new one and greetings to your co-authors (I know two of them, not counting you). - No, I surely didn't want to say that the moduli stabilization technicalities are under control for each compactification. I could only write that in principle, each well-defined stabilized string compactification predicts all seemingly continuous low-energy parameters with an arbitrary accuracy. To convert this from principle to practice is a hard work that's been done in some cases, not others.

This post has been migrated from (A51.SE)
+ 5 like - 0 dislike

125 GeV is below 135 GeV, which means that it makes supersymmetry, a key component of string theory, more likely than not. Moreover, 125 GeV is the boundary between "simple and visible QFT-like SUSY" (below 125) and "hidden, complicated, or extended SUSY" like stringy SUSY (above 125), if I am a bit approximate.

So there are lots of grand unified supersymmetric models and string/M-theory-based models that predict Higgs of this mass.

On the contrary, the Standard Model predicts that it's unlikely that the Higgs mass is below 135 GeV or so – well, the Standard Model would prefer masses that are larger by orders of magnitude and even given the known and measured vev, it would prefer masses closer to 500 GeV or more. Moreover, the Standard Model with the Higgs mass below 126 GeV or so – the number is known plus minus a few GeV (which is unfortunate because the newly measured Higgs mass is very close to this critical value) – would ultimately cause the vacuum to be unstable at an energy scale beneath the Planck scale which would probably be an inconsistency. This inconsistency has to be fixed by adding new fields and particles to the Standard Model, anyway.

To summarize, 125 GeV makes pure Standard Model much less likely, it makes SUSY more likely, among SUSY models, it makes extended and stringy models somewhat more likely than the simple field-theoretical ones, but no definitive and fully reliable statement about the right theory of the Universe may be extracted out of this single number, of course.



and articles linked in it for more comments on this issue.

This post has been migrated from (A51.SE)
answered Dec 14, 2011 by Luboš Motl (10,178 points) [ no revision ]
+ 0 like - 3 dislike

At 125 GeV, the Higgs boson (force carrier for the Higgs interaction) is going to be much too weak for it to impart mass or interact in any manner we can test or measure with strings.   This is unfortunate, but the universe we know is what it is.  One of the principle weaknesses of string theory is that is seems to morph itself to fit new discoveries (like the Higgs boson, for instance).  Protons evidently do not decay (until or unless the Higgs field undergoes a phase change at some point) in cosmological time.  If this wasn't a solid enough roadblock for continuing to develop string theory, perhaps it should have been.

Unless a much higher energy 'supersymmetric' version of Higgs is discovered in order to rescue SUSY or string theory or both, these previously promising mathematical constructs may need to be abandoned in order to pursue more verifiable ideas like Garrett Lisi's E8.

answered Apr 21, 2014 by danshawen [ no revision ]

This is completely wrong. String Phenomenology makes clear predictions about the higgs mass for selected vacua. 

Just one Higgs then?  Very edgy.  Thanks.

Your answer

Please use answers only to (at least partly) answer questions. To comment, discuss, or ask for clarification, leave a comment instead.
To mask links under text, please type your text, highlight it, and click the "link" button. You can then enter your link URL.
Please consult the FAQ for as to how to format your post.
This is the answer box; if you want to write a comment instead, please use the 'add comment' button.
Live preview (may slow down editor)   Preview
Your name to display (optional):
Privacy: Your email address will only be used for sending these notifications.
Anti-spam verification:
If you are a human please identify the position of the character covered by the symbol $\varnothing$ in the following word:
Then drag the red bullet below over the corresponding character of our banner. When you drop it there, the bullet changes to green (on slow internet connections after a few seconds).
To avoid this verification in future, please log in or register.

user contributions licensed under cc by-sa 3.0 with attribution required

Your rights