text:
# 3d Lorentzian, Dynamically Triangulated Quantum Gravity

## 1 Introduction

Three-dimensional quantum gravity provides a good model for the study of quantum gravity. Locally, the classical solution is just flat space, or in the case of a positive cosmological constant, 3d deSitter space. If one expands around such a classical solution in order to quantize the theory it is non-renormalizable. Nevertheless we know the theory has no dynamical field degrees of freedom, but only a finite number number of degrees of freedom. Thus it can be quantized following different procedures, e.g. reduced phase space quantization. However, it remains unclear if anything is “wrong” in an approach where one perform the summation over fluctuating three-geometries and how such an approach deals with the seemingly non-renormalizability of the theory of fluctuating geometries.

In two-dimensional quantum gravity the simplest direct approach to the theory of fluctuating geometries, known as dynamical triangulations has been very successful (see e.g.
). However, simple generalizations to higher dimensions seem not to work. In four-dimensional space-time the failure could in principle be due to the non-existence of a four-dimensional theory of quantum gravity which is not embedded in a larger theory, but this argument does not apply to the three-dimensional theory of quantum gravity. This led two of us to suggest, following an old idea by Teitelboim, that Euclidean quantum gravity might not be related to the “real” Lorentzian quantum gravity and that one should only include causal geometries in the sum over histories . The geometries which appear in the regularized version of such a theory were called Lorentzian dynamical triangulations, and each of these geometries has a well defined rotation to an Euclidean geometry. The opposite is not true however: there are many Euclidean geometries which cannot be rotated to a Lorentzian geometry with a global causal structure. However, it implies that one can perform the summation over this restricted class of geometries in the “Euclidean sector”, and rotate back after the summation has been done. This is the way we will treat the summation over histories in the following.

In two dimensions one can perform the summation over the class of Lorentzian geometries explicitly and obtain a theory which is different from Euclidean two-dimensional quantum gravity. The difference is best illustrated by considering what is called the proper-time propagator, where one sums over all geometries with the topology $`S^1\times [0,1]`$, where the two spatial boundaries are separated by a proper time $`T`$. In the Lorentzian theory the spatial slices at a time $`T^{}<T`$ are characterized by the fact that the spatial topology always remain a circle. In two-dimensional Euclidean quantum gravity similar spatial slices corresponding to constant proper time split up into many (in the continuum limit infinitely many) disconnected “baby” universes, each having the topology $`S^1`$.

## 2 3d Lorentzian dynamical triangulations

### 2.1 Theory

As mentioned above the proper-time propagator is a convenient object to study. We choose the simplest possible topology of space-time, $`S^2\times [0,1]`$, so that the spatial slices of constant proper time have the topology of a two-sphere. Each spatial slice has an induced two-dimensional Euclidean geometry. In the formalism of Lorentzian dynamical triangulations the space of Euclidean 2d geometries is approximated by the space of 2d dynamical triangulations. In order to obtain a three-dimensional triangulation of space-time we have to fill space-time between two successive time slices. This is done as follows: above (and below) each triangle at proper time $`t=na`$, $`n`$ integer, we erect a tetrahedron with its tip at $`t+a`$, so-called (3,1)-tetrahedra ($`ta`$, so-called (1,3)-tetrahedra). Two tetrahedra which share a common spatial link in the $`t`$-plane might be glued together along a common time-like triangle. Remaining free time-like triangles are glued together by so-called (2,2)-tetrahedra which have a spatial link both in the $`t`$-slice and the $`t+a`$ slice. (2,2)-tetrahedra can also be glued to each other in all possible ways, the only restriction being that if we cut the triangulation in a constant $`t`$-plane between $`t`$ and $`t+a`$, the corresponding graph, which consists of triangles and squares (coming from cutting the (2,2)-simplexes) forms a graph with spherical topology.

Summing over all such piecewise linear geometries with the Boltzmann weight given by the Einstein-Hilbert action defines the sum over geometries (see  for details). The partition function becomes (up to boundary terms)

$$Z(k_0,k_3,T)=\underset{T}{}\text{e}^{k_0N_0(T)k_3N_3(T)},$$
(1)
where the summation is over the class of triangulations mentioned, and $`N_0(T)`$ denotes the total number of vertices and $`N_3(T)`$ the total number of tetrahedra. $`k_0`$ is inversely proportional to the bare inverse gravitational coupling constant, while $`k_3`$ is linearly related to the cosmological coupling constant.

### 2.2 Numerical simulations

The model (1) can be studied by Monte Carlo simulations (see  for details). There is only one phase111In some previous studies we observed a phase transition for large $`k_0`$. This was caused by restrictions on the gluing of (2,2)-simplexes. We have now dropped these restrictions.. Let us fix the total three-volume of space-time to be $`N_3`$, and let us take the total proper time $`T`$ large. One observes the appearance of a “semiclassical” lump of universe, as shown in Fig. 1.

We observe that a typical spatial volume $`N_2(t)`$ in the lump, and the time-extent $`\mathrm{\Delta }T`$ of the lump scale as:

$$N_2N_3^{2/3},\mathrm{\Delta }TN_3^{1/3}.$$
(2)
This justifies the use of the word “semiclassical” for the lump. In the computer simulations the center of mass of the lump moves around randomly and there are fluctuations in the spatial volumes. We have studied the fluctuations of successive spatial volumes and the distributions of such spatial volumes is very well described by

$$P(N_2(t),N_s(t+a))\text{e}^{c(k_0)\frac{(N_2(t+a)N_2(t))^2}{N_2(t+a)+N_2(t)}}.$$
(3)
The constant $`c(k_0)`$ decreases as $`k_0`$ increases (i.e. the bare gravitational coupling constant decreases). At the same time one can observe that the total number of (2,2)-simplices decreases. The (2,2)-simplices act as glue between successive spatial volumes.

Thus an effective action for the spatial volume of the model seems to be

$$S_{eff}(V_2)=𝑑t\left(\frac{\dot{V}_2^2(t)}{V_2(t)}+\mathrm{\Lambda }V_2(t)\right).$$
(4)
This is exactly the classical action for the spatial volume in proper-time gauge, thus supporting the semiclassical interpretation of the lump.

## 3 3d Lorentzian gravity as a matrix model

If we slice our three-dimensional configurations, not at proper time $`t`$, but at proper time $`t+a/2`$ we will, as mentioned earlier, obtain a spherical graph with from two types of triangles, coming the spatial intersections of (1,3)- and (3,1)-tetrahedra, respectively. In addition the graph will contain squares coming from (2,2)-tetrahedra. This class of graphs can be described by a two-matrix model:

$$Z=\text{d}A\text{d}B\text{e}^{N\text{Tr}\left((A^2+B^2)\alpha (A^3+B^3)\beta ABAB\right)}.$$
(5)
$`A`$ and $`B`$ are $`N\times N`$ Hermitean matrices and the special graphs are selected in the large $`N`$ limit. The coupling constants $`\alpha ,\beta `$ can be related to the gravitational coupling constants. The phase diagram is shown in Fig. 2 (for a slightly different model, see  for details). The matrix model is defined for small values of $`\alpha ,\beta `$ and has a critical line. This line corresponds to the continuum limit of the 3d quantum gravity theory. Small values of $`\beta `$ on the critical line correspond to small values of the bare gravitational coupling constant.

Increasing $`\beta `$ or the gravitational coupling constant we meet a phase transition, separating the weak coupling phase we have observed in the computer simulations from a strong coupling phase. The matrix model allows spherical graphs at $`t+a/2`$ such that the (1,3)- and (3,1)-triangles no longer correspond to triangulations of $`S^2`$, but rather a disconnected set of baby universe. One can say that gravity becomes so strong that space is torn apart into many pieces connected by thin wormholes, . In this way 3d Lorentzian dynamical triangulations provide us with an explicit realization of the quantum foam ideas of Hawking and Wheeler.


format: text

text:
# Nonresonant corrections to the 1s-2s two-photon resonance for the hydrogen atom.

## Abstract

The nonresonant (NR) corrections are estimated for the most accurately measured two-photon transition 1s-2s in the hydrogen atom. These corrections depend on the measurement process and set a limit for the accuracy of atomic frequency measurements. With the measurement process adopted in the modern experiments the NR contribution for 1s-2s transition energy can reach $`10^3`$ Hz while the experimental inaccuracy is quoted to be $`\pm `$ 46 Hz.

PACS numbers: 31.30.Jv, 12.20.Ds, 0620Jr., 31.15.-p

Nonresonant (NR) corrections have been first introduced in Ref.  where the modern QED theory of the natural line profile in atomic physics has been formulated. The NR corrections indicate the limit up to which the concept of the energy of an excited atomic state has a physical meaning - that is the resonance approximation. In the resonance approximation the line profile is described by the two parameters: energy $`E`$ and width $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ . Beyond this approximation the specific role of $`E`$ and $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ should be replaced by the complete evaluation of the line profile for the particular process. If the distortion of the Lorentz profile is small one can still consider the NR correction as an additional energy shift. Unlike all other energy corrections, this correction depends on the particular process which has been employed for the measurement of the energy difference. Quite independent of the accuracy of theoretical calculations of the ”traditional” energy corrections which can be much poorer than the experimental accuracy, NR corrections define the principal limit for the latter. One can state that nonresonant corrections set the limit for the accuracy of all the atomic frequency standards.

Nonresonant corrections have been evaluated for H-like ions of phosphorus (Z=15) and uranium (Z=92) in Refs. . While for uranium the NR correction turned out to be negligible, its value was comparable with the experimental error bars in case of phosphorus. Recently the NR correction has been evaluated for the Lyman-$`\alpha `$ 1s-2p transition in hydrogen . In  the process of the resonance photon scattering was considered as a standard procedure for the determination of the energy levels. According to  the parametric estimate of the NR correction to the total cross-section is (in relativistic units):

$$\delta _1=c_1m\alpha ^2(\alpha Z)^6$$
(1)
Here $`\alpha `$ denotes the fine structure constant, $`m`$ is the electron mass, $`Z`$ is the nuclear charge number and $`c_1`$ abbreviates a numerical factor. Evaluations in  yielded $`c_1=1.3110^3`$ and $`\delta _1=1.30`$ Hz. In Ref.  a factor $`4/9`$ was missing in the expression for $`c_1`$. Moreover, there exists another NR correction to the total cross section of the same process, connected with the contribution of the near-resonant $`2p_{3/2}`$ state (see below):

$$\delta _2=c_2m\alpha ^4(\alpha Z)^4$$
(2)
For the hydrogen atom ($`Z=1`$) this correction is parametrically of the same order, but numerically it is larger than (1): $`c_2=\mathrm{4.94\hspace{0.17em}10}^3`$, $`\delta _2=4.89`$ Hz. Finally, the ”asymmetry” correction, which is of the same order, arises from the resonant term when replacing the width $`\mathrm{\Gamma }(\omega _0)`$, where $`\omega _0`$ is the resonant frequency, by $`\mathrm{\Gamma }(\omega )`$. In the case of the Lyman-alpha transition $`\mathrm{\Gamma }(\omega _0)=\left(\frac{2}{3}\right)^8\alpha ^3`$ a.u. should be replaced by $`\mathrm{\Gamma }(\omega )=(2^{11}/3^9)\alpha ^3\omega `$ a.u. This result corresponds to the ”velocity” form of the transition amplitude. The ”length” form that follows from the ”velocity” form after the gauge transformation would yield $`\mathrm{\Gamma }(\omega )=(2^{17}/3^{11})\alpha ^3\omega ^3`$ a.u. The ”asymmetry” shift is different for the ”velocity” and the ”length” forms. However, we should remember that the ”velocity” form follows originally from the QED description and that the gauge transformation in the simple form mentioned above does exist only at the resonance frequency. The additional ”asymmetry” shift which follows from the ”velocity” form of $`\mathrm{\Gamma }(\omega )`$ is given by $`\delta _3=c_3m\alpha ^2(\alpha Z)^6`$ with $`c_3=\left(\frac{2}{3}\right)^{17}=1.01510^3`$ yielding $`\delta _3=1.007`$ Hz. The $`\omega `$-dependent terms in the Lorentz denominator lead to smaller NR contributions . Still the accuracy for the Lyman-$`\alpha `$ frequency measurements is much poorer: about $`6`$ MHz . Modern experimental techniques employed in Lamb-shift measurements are based on two-photon resonances, in particular for the transition 1s-2s . In the present paper we provide an estimate for the NR correction to the transition frequency in this case.

The magnitude of the NR corrections depends strongly on the conditions of the experiment. It is important whether total or differential cross sections are measured since some NR corrections vanish after the angular integration. In  the following expression for the NR correction to the frequency of the one-photon transition, which applies in case when the total cross section scattering is measured, has been derived:

$$\delta _1=\frac{1}{4}\frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }_A^{}^2}{\mathrm{\Gamma }_{A^{}A}\mathrm{\Gamma }_{BA^{}}}Re\left[\underset{nA^{}}{}\frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }_{AA;A^{}n}\mathrm{\Gamma }_{BB;nA^{}}}{E_nE_A^{}}+\underset{n^{}}{}\frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }_{An;A^{}B}\mathrm{\Gamma }_{nB;AA^{}}}{E_n+E_A^{}E_AE_B}\right].$$
(3)
Here $`B`$, $`n`$, and $`A`$ denote initial, intermediate and final electron states, respectively. $`A^{}`$ lables the resonant intermediate state. Then $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_A^{}`$ is the total width and $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{A^{}A}`$, $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{BA^{}}`$ are partial widths, connected with the transitions $`A^{}A`$ and $`BA^{}`$. The notations $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{AB;CD}`$ are used for the ”mixed” transition probabilities where one amplitude corresponds to the transition $`AC`$ and the other one to the transition $`BD`$. Finally, $`E_B`$, $`E_A^{}`$ and $`E_n`$ denote the one-electron energies. In case of the Lyman-$`\alpha `$ transition $`B=A=1s,A^{}=2p`$ and the photon frequency is close to $`\omega =E_{2p}E_{1s}`$. Then $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_A^{}=\mathrm{\Gamma }_{A^{}A}=\mathrm{\Gamma }_{BA^{}}=\mathrm{\Gamma }_{2p}`$. Assuming that the ”mixed” probabilities are parametrically of the same order as $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{2p}m\alpha (\alpha Z)^4`$ (in relativistic units) and using the parametric estimate $`\mathrm{\Delta }Em(\alpha Z)^2`$ for the energy denominators in Eq. (3) we obtain immediately the estimate (1). An explicit summation over the total energy spectrum for the hydrogen atom leads to the coefficient $`c_1`$ quoted above.

Expression (3) corresponds to the interference term between resonant and nonresonant contributions to the photon scattering amplitude. The nonresonant contributions arise when we replace the resonant intermediate state $`2p`$ by $`np`$ states with $`n>2`$ and also when the incident and emitted photons are interchanged.

In  it has been observed that a large NR contribution arises when taking into account the fine structure of the H atom and considering the state $`2p_{3/2}`$ as a nonresonant one. Then the enhancement follows from the small energy denominator $`\mathrm{\Delta }E_f=E_{2p_{3/2}}E_{2p_{1/2}}`$. However, this contribution vanishes in the total cross section after angular integration and remains only finite if the differential cross section is considered. The latter may correspond to a particular experimental situation but it is the total cross section which defines the absolute limit for the accuracy of the frequency measurement. Additionally, we would like to note that there exists also a quadratic NR contribution to the total cross section from $`2p_{3/2}`$ state. This contribution does not vanish after angular integration and is given by the formula:

$$\delta _2=\frac{(\frac{1}{2}\mathrm{\Gamma }_{2p})^4}{\mathrm{\Delta }E_f^3}.$$
(4)
This can be easily obtained in the same way as Eq. (3) (see ). The parametric estimate Eq. (2) immediately follows from Eq. (4) and from the estimate $`\mathrm{\Delta }E_f=m(\alpha Z)^4`$.

Formula (3) is valid also for the NR correction to the process of the resonant two-photon excitation $`1s+2\gamma 2s`$. In this case $`B=A=1s,A^{}=2s`$, $`2\omega =E_{2s}E_{1s}`$, $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_A^{}\mathrm{\Gamma }_{A^{}A}\mathrm{\Gamma }_{B^{}A}=\mathrm{\Gamma }_{2s,2\gamma }`$. Here $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{2s,2\gamma }`$ is the two-photon width of the $`2s`$ level (neglecting the small contribution of the one-photon width $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{2s,1\gamma }`$). Using the parametric estimate for the two-photon width $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{2s,2\gamma }m\alpha ^2(\alpha Z)^6`$ one obtains

$$|\delta |=\frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }_{2s,2\gamma }^2}{\mathrm{\Delta }E}\frac{[m\alpha ^2(\alpha Z)^6]^2}{m(\alpha Z)^2}=m\alpha ^4(\alpha Z)^{10}$$
(5)
This estimate has been derived in Ref.  where the conclusion has been drawn, that NR corrections for $`1s+2\gamma 2s`$ transition enter at the level $`10^{14}`$ Hz and thus are negligible at the current and projected level of experimental accuracy. At present the latter is $`\pm 46`$ Hz and is expected to be two orders of magnitude smaller in future experiments .

The NR correction (5) corresponds to the process described by the Feynman graph of Fig. 1. However, the experiment in  is based on a different process. In this experiment the H atom being in its ground state is excited first by the absorption of the two laser photons into the $`2s`$ state. After some time delay $`t_D`$ the $`2s`$ state is detected by applying a ”small” electric field and observing the quenched Lyman-$`\alpha `$ decay. The corresponding process is described by the Feynman graph of Fig. 2. For the analysis we will assume that for the ”small” electric field the Stark parameter $`\xi _\mathrm{S}=2s|\stackrel{}{d}\stackrel{}{E}|2p/\mathrm{\Delta }E_\mathrm{L}`$ corresponds to $`\xi _\mathrm{S}1`$. $`\stackrel{}{d}`$ is the electric dipole moment operator, $`\stackrel{}{E}`$ is the electric field strength, $`\mathrm{\Delta }E_\mathrm{L}`$ is the Lamb shift between $`2s`$ and $`2p`$ states. Accordingly, we can replace the intermediate $`2s`$ state in the graph in Fig. 2 by the state $`2s^{}=2s+\xi _\mathrm{S}2p`$. The resonant cross-section corresponding to the Feynman graph of Fig. 2 is determined by

$$\sigma _{\mathrm{res}}=\frac{1}{2\pi }\frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }_{2s,2\gamma }\xi _\mathrm{S}^2\mathrm{\Gamma }_{2p,1\gamma }}{(E_{2s}+\mathrm{\Delta }E_s^{(2)}E_{1s}2\omega )^2+\frac{1}{4}\xi _\mathrm{S}^4\mathrm{\Gamma }_{2p,1\gamma }^2}.$$
(6)
Here $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{2p,1\gamma }`$ denotes the Lyman-$`\alpha `$ width and $`\mathrm{\Delta }E_s^{(2)}`$ is the second-order Stark shift for the $`2s`$ state. The Stark shift for the $`1s`$ state can be neglected for ”small” electric fields. However, in the real experiment  the excitation region is separated spatially from the detection region. Therefore the Stark shift does not contribute to the excitation condition: $`2\omega =E_{2s}E_{1s}`$. Moreover, the width of the resonance is defined by the time delay $`t_D`$, which is necessary for the atom to reach the detection region: for $`\xi _\mathrm{S}0.1`$ the decay time in the electric field is $`(\xi _\mathrm{S}^2\mathrm{\Gamma }_{2p,1\gamma })^110^7`$ s. This is very small time compared to $`t_D`$: the characteristic atomic velocities are $`10^4`$ cm/s and the space separation of the excitation and detection regions is $`13`$ cm . Then $`t_D10^3`$ s what corresponds to the experimental width of the resonance $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\mathrm{exp}}1`$ kHz. Then Eq. (6) should be replaced by

$$\sigma _{\mathrm{res}}=\frac{1}{2\pi }\frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }_{2s,2\gamma }\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\mathrm{exp}}}{(E_{2s}E_{1s}2\omega )^2+\frac{1}{4}\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\mathrm{exp}}^2}.$$
(7)
The major nonresonant contribution arises from the closely lying $`2p`$ level

$$\sigma _{\mathrm{NR}}=\frac{1}{2\pi }\frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }_{2p,2\gamma }\mathrm{\Gamma }_{2p,1\gamma }}{(E_{2p}E_{1s}2\omega )^2+\frac{1}{4}\mathrm{\Gamma }_{2p,1\gamma }^2}$$
(8)
where $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{2p,2\gamma }`$ is the two-photon width of the $`2p`$ level. The interference term between $`\sigma _{\mathrm{res}}`$ and $`\sigma _{\mathrm{NR}}`$ is absent in the total cross section, but may be present in the differential cross section.

To find the NR correction we employ the same idea as in , i.e. we determine the position of the maximum for the function $`\sigma (\omega )`$.

In the case in which the total cross section is measured we obtain

$$\delta =\frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }_{2p,2\gamma }\mathrm{\Gamma }_{2p,1\gamma }}{\mathrm{\Gamma }_{2s,2\gamma }\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\mathrm{exp}}}\frac{(\frac{1}{2}\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\mathrm{exp}})^4}{\mathrm{\Delta }E_\mathrm{L}^3}$$
(9)
Here we assumed that $`\mathrm{\Delta }E_\mathrm{L}\mathrm{\Gamma }_{2p,1\gamma }`$ where $`\mathrm{\Delta }E_\mathrm{L}=E_{2s}E_{2p}`$ is the Lamb shift. The corresponding expressions (in relativistic units) are: $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{2p,1\gamma }=\left(\frac{2}{3}\right)^8m\alpha (\alpha Z)^4=0.04m\alpha (\alpha Z)^4`$ and $`\mathrm{\Delta }E_\mathrm{L}=0.4m\alpha (\alpha Z)^4`$. Taking into account that $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{2p,2\gamma }`$ is defined by the E1M1 transition and $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{2s,2\gamma }`$ corresponds to the 2E1 transition, we have $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{2p,2\gamma }/\mathrm{\Gamma }_{2s,2\gamma }(\alpha Z)^2`$. Insertion of these quantities into Eq. (9) leads to the negligible NR correction. The NR correction to the differential cross-section is much larger. In this case the formula of the type of Eq. (3) for differential cross section should be used:

$$|\delta |=\frac{1}{2}\left(\frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }_{2p,2\gamma }\mathrm{\Gamma }_{2p,1\gamma }}{\mathrm{\Gamma }_{2s,2\gamma }\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\mathrm{exp}}}\right)^{\frac{1}{2}}\frac{(\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\mathrm{exp}})^2}{\mathrm{\Delta }E_\mathrm{L}}10^3\mathrm{Hz}.$$
(10)
This limit for the experimental accuracy turns out to be many orders of magnitude larger than the corresponding value obtained from (5). It is the value (10) which should be compared with the projected experimental accuracy of about $`10^1`$ Hz .

Acknowledgements

The work of L.L. and D.S. was supported by the RFBR Grant $`No.`$ 99-02-18526 and by the Minobrazovanie grant $`No.`$ E00-3.1.-7. G. P. and G. S. acknowledge financial support from BMBF, DFG and GSI.


text:
# High-Mass Supersymmetry with High Energy Hadron Colliders

## I Introduction

If supersymmetry is connected to the hierarchy problem, it is expected fine-tuning  that sparticles will be sufficiently light that at least some of them will be observable at the Large Hadron Collder (LHC) or even at the Tevatron. However it is not possible to set a rigorous bound on the sparticle masses. As the sparticle masses rise, the fine tuning problem of the standard model reappears and the sparticle masses become large enough so that they are difficult to observe at LHC.

It is also possible that SUSY is also the solution to the dark matter problem BB , the stable, lightest supersymmetric particle (LSP) being the particle that pervades the universe. This constraint can be applied to the minimal SUGRA sugra  model and used to constrain the masses of the other sparticles. Recently sets of paramters in the minimal SUGRA model have been proposed Battaglia:2001zp  that satisfy existing constraints, including the dark matter constraint and the one from the observed anomaly in the magnetic moment of the muon g-2 , but do not impose any fine tuning requirements. This set of points is not a random sampling of the available parameter space but is rather intended to illustrate the possible experimental consequences. These points and their mass spectra are shown in Table 1. Most of the allowed parameter space corresponds to the case where the sparticles have masses less than 1 TeV or so and is accessible to LHC. Indeed some of these points are quite similar to ones studied in earlier LHC simulations cmssusy AtlasPhysTDR . Points A, B, C, D, E, G, J and L fall into this category. As the masses of the sparticles are increased, the LSP contribution to dark matter rises and typically violates the experimental constraints. However there are certain regions of parameter space where the annihilation rates for the LSP can be increased and the relic density of LSP’s lowered sufficiently. In these narrow regions, the sparticle masses can be much larger. Points F, K, H and M illustrate these regions. This paper considers Point K, H and M at the LHC with a luminosity upgrade to $`1000\mathrm{fb}^1`$ per year, (SLHC) and at a possible higher energy hadron collider (VLHC). We assume an energy of $`40\mathrm{TeV}`$ for the VLHC and use the identical analysis for both machines. Point F has similar pheonomenology to Point K except that the squark and slepton masses are much larger and consequently more difficult to observe. For the purposes of this simulation, the detector performance at $`10^{35}\mathrm{cm}^2\mathrm{s}^1`$ and at the VLHC is assumed to be the same as that of ATLAS for at the LHC design luminosity. In particular, the additional pileup present at higher luminosity is taken into account only by raising some of the cuts. Isajet 7.54ISAJET  is used for the event generation. Backgrounds from $`t\overline{t}`$, gauge boson pairs, large $`p_T`$ gauge boson production and QCD jets are included.

## II Point K

Point K has $`M_A2M_{\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^0}`$ and gluino and squark masses above $`2\mathrm{TeV}`$. The strong production is dominated by valance squarks, which have the characteristic decays $`\stackrel{~}{q}_L\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^\pm q,\stackrel{~}{\chi }_2^0q`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{q}_R\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^0q`$. The signal can be observed in the inclusive effective mass distribution. Events are selected with hadronic jets and missing $`E_T`$ and the following scalar quantity formed

$$M_{eff}=\text{ / }E_T+\underset{jets}{}E_{T,jet}+\underset{leptons}{}E_{T,lepton}$$

where the sum runs over all jets with $`E_T>50`$ GeV and $`\left|\eta \right|<5.0`$ and isolated leptons with $`E_T>15`$ GeV and$`\left|\eta \right|<2.5`$ . The following further selection was then made: events were selected with at least two jets with $`p_T>0.1M_{\mathrm{eff}}`$, $`\text{ / }E_T>0.3M_{\mathrm{eff}}`$, $`\mathrm{\Delta }\varphi (j_0,\text{ / }E_T)<\pi 0.2`$, and $`\mathrm{\Delta }\varphi (j_0,j_1)<2\pi /3`$. These cuts help to optimize the signal to background ratio. The distributions in $`M_{eff}`$ for signal and background are shown in Figure 1. It can be seen that the signal emerges from the background at large values of $`M_{eff}`$. The LHC with 3000 $`\mathrm{fb}^1`$ of integrated luminosity has a signal of 510 events on a background of 108 for $`M_{\mathrm{eff}}>4000\mathrm{GeV}`$. These rates are sufficiently large so that a discovery could be made with the standard integrated luminosity of 300 $`\mathrm{fb}^1`$. However the limited data samples available will restrict detailed studies.

Production of $`\stackrel{~}{q}_R\stackrel{~}{q}_R`$ followed by the decay of each squark to $`q\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^0`$ gives a dijet signal accompanied by missing $`E_T`$. In order to extract this from the standard model background, hard cuts on the jets and $`\text{ / }E_T`$ are needed. Events were required to have two jets with $`p_T>700\mathrm{GeV}`$, $`\text{ / }E_T>600\mathrm{GeV}`$, and $`\mathrm{\Delta }\varphi (j_1,j_2)<0.8\pi `$. The resulting distributions are shown in Figure 2. Only a few events survive at the LHC with 3000 $`\mathrm{fb}^1`$. The transverse momentum of the hardest jet is sensitive to the $`\stackrel{~}{q}_R`$ massAtlasPhysTDR . The mass determination will be limited by the available statistics.

The decay $`\stackrel{~}{\chi }_2^0\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^0h`$ is dominant so we should expect to see Higgs particles in the decay of $`\stackrel{~}{q}_L`$ ($`\stackrel{~}{q}_L\stackrel{~}{\chi }_2^0q\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^0hq`$). The Higgs signal can be observed as a peak in the $`b\overline{b}`$ mass distributions. In order to do this, it is essential that $`b`$jets can be tagged with good efficiency and excellent rejection against light quark jets. There is a large background from $`t\overline{t}`$ that must be overcome using topological cuts. Events were selected to have at least three jets with $`p_T>600,300,100\mathrm{GeV}`$, $`\text{ / }E_T>400\mathrm{GeV}`$, $`M_{\mathrm{eff}}>2500\mathrm{GeV}`$, $`\mathrm{\Delta }\varphi (j_1,\text{ / }E_T)<0.9\pi `$, and $`\mathrm{\Delta }\varphi (j_1,j_2)<0.6\pi `$. The distributions are shown in Figure 3 assuming the same $`b`$-tagging performance as for standard luminosity, i.e., that shown in Figure 9-31 of Ref. AtlasPhysTDR  which corresponds to an efficiency of 60% and a rejection factor against light quark jets of $`100`$. This $`b`$tagging performance may be optimistic in the very high luminosity environment. However our event selection is only $`10\%`$ efficient at SLHC and might be improved. There is much less standard model background at VLHC. However, there is significant SUSY background from $`\stackrel{~}{g}\stackrel{~}{b}_i\overline{b},\stackrel{~}{t}_1\overline{t}`$ which becomes more important at the higher energy. At the VLHC and possibly a the SLHC, it should be possible to extract information on the mass of $`\stackrel{~}{q}_l`$ by combining the Higgs with a jet and probing the decay chain $`\stackrel{~}{q}_L\stackrel{~}{\chi }_2^0qqh\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^0`$ (see e.g. precise ).

## III Point M

Point M has squark and gluino masses around 3.5 TeV and is beyond the reach of the standard LHC. Only 375 SUSY events of all types are produced for $`1000\mathrm{fb}^1`$ at LHC, mainly valence squarks ($`\stackrel{~}{u}_L,\stackrel{~}{d}_L,\stackrel{~}{u}_R,\stackrel{~}{d}_R`$) and gauginos ($`\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^\pm ,\stackrel{~}{\chi }_2^0`$). The VLHC cross section is a factor of 200 larger. About half of the SLHC SUSY events are from electro weak gaugino pair production mostly $`\stackrel{~}{\chi }_2^0`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^\pm `$ . The dominant decays of these are $`\stackrel{~}{\chi }_2^0\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^0h`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^\pm \stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^0W^\pm `$. Rates are so small that no signal close to the Standard Model backgrounds coul be found for the SLHC.

The effective mass distributions for Point M at SLHC and VLHC are shown in Figure 4 using the same cuts as for Point K. As expected, the SLHC signal is very marginal: there are only 20 signal events with 10 background events for $`M_{\mathrm{eff}}>5000\mathrm{GeV}`$ and $`3000\mathrm{f}\mathrm{b}^1`$. Several attempts to optimize the cuts did not give any improvement. Requiring a lepton, a hadronic $`\tau `$, or a tagged $`b`$ jet did not help. We are forced to conclude than it is unlikely that a signal of any type could be observed. The VLHC signal is clearly visible and could be further optimized.

The dilepton rates are shown in Fig 5. Events are selected that have $`M_{eff}>3000\mathrm{G}\mathrm{e}\mathrm{V}`$ $`\text{ / }E_T>0.2M_{eff}`$ and two isolated leptons with $`p_T>15\mathrm{G}\mathrm{e}\mathrm{V}`$ and the mass distribution of the dilepton pair shown. As expected, nothing is visible at SLHC. The distribution at VLHC is dominated by two independent decays (e.g. $`\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^\pm \stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^{}\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^0\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^0W^{}`$), so that $`e^+e^{}+\mu ^+\mu ^{}`$ and $`e^\pm \mu ^{}`$ rates are almost identical except for the $`Z`$ peak in the former which arises mainly from $`\stackrel{~}{q}q\stackrel{~}{\chi }_2^\pm q\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^\pm Z`$.

On the basis of this preliminary, study it seems unlikely that Point M can be detected at $`14\mathrm{TeV}`$ even with $`3000\mathrm{fb}^1`$. Higher energy would be required.

## IV Point H

Point H is able to accommodate very heavy sparticles without overclosing the universe as the destruction rate for the $`\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^0`$ is enhanced by coannihilation with a stau. This implies a very small splitting between the $`\stackrel{~}{\tau }_1`$ and the $`\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^0`$. In this particular case, $`\stackrel{~}{\tau }_1\to ̸\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^0\tau `$, so it must decay by second order weak processes, $`\stackrel{~}{\tau }_1\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^0e\overline{\nu }_e\nu _\tau `$, giving it a long lifetime. The dominant SUSY rates arise from the strong production of valance squarks, with $`\stackrel{~}{q}_L\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^\pm q,\stackrel{~}{\chi }_2^0q`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{q}_R\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^0`$. The stau which are produced from cascade decays of these squarks, then exit the detector with a signal similar to a “heavy muon”.

The $`p_T`$ spectrum of these quasi-stable $`\stackrel{~}{\tau }_1`$ for $`1000\mathrm{fb}^1`$ is shown in Figure 6. The ATLAS muon system AtlasPhysTDR  has a time resolution of about 0.7 ns for time of flight over a cylinder of radius 10 m and half-length 20 m. The spectrum with a time delay $`\mathrm{\Delta }t>10\sigma (7\mathrm{ns})`$ is also shown. Notice that this signal could be observed at the LHC with $`300\mathrm{fb}^1`$. Triggering on a slow $`\stackrel{~}{\tau }_1`$ may be a problem since the time-window for the trigger chambers is limited. However, the $`\text{ / }E_T`$ in SUSY events as measured by the calorimeter is quite large as shown in Figure 7. It probably is possible to trigger just on jets plus $`\text{ / }E_T`$, the distribution for which is shown in Figure 7. The mass of the stable stau can be measured by exploiting the time of flight measurements in the muon measurement system. Studies of such quasi stable particles at somewhat smaller masses carried out or the ATLAS detector showed a mass resolution of approximately 3% given sufficient statistics (see Section 20.3.4.2 of Ref AtlasPhysTDR ). A precision of this order should be achievable with 3000 $`\mathrm{fb}^1`$ at either the LHC or VLHC. One can then build on the stable stau to reconstruct the decay chain using techniques similar to those used for the GMSB studies AtlasPhysTDR Hinchliffe:1999ys . This is not pursued here.

The stable $`\tau _1`$ signature is somewhat exceptional so we explore other signatures that do not require it and would be present if the stau decayed inside the detector. For such high masses the strong production is mainly of $`\stackrel{~}{u}`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{d}`$. Events are selected with hadronic jets and missing $`E_T`$ and the effective mass formed as in the case of Point K. To optimize this signature, events were further selected with at least two jets with $`p_T>0.1M_{\mathrm{eff}}`$, $`\text{ / }E_T>0.3M_{\mathrm{eff}}`$, $`\mathrm{\Delta }\varphi (j_0,\text{ / }E_T)<\pi 0.2`$, and $`\mathrm{\Delta }\varphi (j_0,j_1)<2\pi /3`$. The $`M_{\mathrm{eff}}`$ distributions after these cuts for the SLHC and the VLHC are shown in Fig 8. Note that at the SLHC the number of events in the region where $`S/B>1`$ is very small. Given the uncertainties in the modeling of the standard model backgrounds the shower Monte Carlo, it is not possible to claim that the SLHC could see a signal using this global variable. The VLHC should have no difficulty as there are several thousand events for $`M_{eff}>5`$ TeV.

Dileptons arise from the cascade $`\stackrel{~}{q}_Lq\stackrel{~}{\chi }_2^0q\mathrm{}^+\mathrm{}^{}\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^0`$, The dilepton mass distributions should have a kinematic endpoint corresponding to this decay. Figure 9 shows the distribution for same flavor and different flavor lepton pairs. Events were required to have $`M_{\mathrm{eff}}>3000\mathrm{GeV}`$ and $`\text{ / }E_T>0.2M_{\mathrm{eff}}`$ and to have two isolated opposite sign leptons with $`E_T>15`$ GeV and $`\left|\eta \right|<2.5`$. The structure at the VLHC is clear; the edge comes mainly from $`\stackrel{~}{\chi }_2^0\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{}}_L^\pm \mathrm{}^{}`$, which has a branching ratio of 15% per flavor. This gives an endpoint at

$$\sqrt{\frac{(M_{\stackrel{~}{\chi }_2^0}^2M_{\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{}}_L}^2)(M_{\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{}}_L}^2M_{\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^0}^2)}{M_{\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{}}_L}^2}}=447.3\mathrm{GeV}$$

consistent with the observed endpoint in Figure 9. Of course this plot does not distinguish $`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{}}_L`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{}}_R`$. In the case of the upgraded LHC, the signal may be observable, but it should be noted that the background is uncertain as only three generated events passed the cuts.

If the stable stau is used then the situation improves considerably. The dilepton mass for events containing a $`\stackrel{~}{\tau }_1`$ with a time delay $`7<\mathrm{\Delta }t<21.5\mathrm{ns}`$ is shown in Figure 10. Since $`\mathrm{\Delta }t>10\sigma `$, the standard model background is expected to be negligible. The SLHC signal is improved and a measurement should be possible. The acceptance for VLHC is somewhat worse than the inclusive sample, but having the correlation of the dileptons with the $`\stackrel{~}{\tau }_1`$ should be useful.

The VLHC gives a gain of $`100`$ in statistics over the LHC for the same luminosity at this point, which is at the limit of observability at the LHC. If the VLHC luminosity were substantially lower, the improvement provided by it would be rather marginal. The cross section increases by another factor of $`100`$ at $`200\mathrm{TeV}`$.

## V Conclusions

We have surveyed the signals at hadron colliders for the SUGRA models proposed by Battaglia:2001zp  concentrating on the cases where the sparticle masses are very large. While the masses of the sparticles at Point K are such that SUSY would be discovered at the baseline LHC, the event rates are small and detailed SUSY studies will not be possible. The reach of the LHC for would be improved by higher luminosity where the extraction of specific final states will become possible. The cross section at a $`40\mathrm{TeV}`$ VLHC is approximately $`100`$ times larger than that at LHC. This leads to a substantial gain, but it is important to emphasize that this gain requires luminosity at least as large as that ultimately reached by the LHC and detectors capable of exploiting it. Point H has a special feature in that the stau is quasi-stable. This feature would enable a signal to be extracted at SLHC. If the tau mass were raised slightly so that its lifetime were short, then only the VLHC could observe it. The masses in the case of Point M are so large that the VLHC would be required for discovery. Point F has a gluino mass of order 2 TeV and should be observable at the LHC exploiting the production of gluinos followed by the decays to $`\stackrel{~}{\chi }_i`$ and hence to leptons.

The Points A, B, C, D, G, I, and L which are much less fine tuned have similar phenomenology to the “Point 5” or “Point 6” analysis of AtlasPhysTDR  in that lepton structure from the decay $`\stackrel{~}{\chi }_2^0\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{}}_R\mathrm{}\mathrm{}^+\mathrm{}^{}\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^0`$ and/or $`\stackrel{~}{\chi }_2^0\stackrel{~}{tau}\tau \tau ^+\tau ^{}\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^0`$ is present. In most cases decay $`\stackrel{~}{\chi }_2^0\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{}}_L\mathrm{}`$ is also allowed, so that a more complicated dilepton mass spectrum is observable. This should enable the extraction of $`m_\mathrm{}_L`$ in addition (for an example see Fig 20-53 of AtlasPhysTDR ). Points A, D and L have higher squark/gluino masses and will require more integrated luminosity. Nevertheless one can have confidence that the baseline LHC will make many measurements in all of these cases.

The work was supported in part by the Director, Office of Energy Research, Office of High Energy and Nuclear Physics of the U.S. Department of Energy under Contracts DE–AC03–76SF00098 and DE-AC02-98CH10886. Accordingly, the U.S. Government retains a nonexclusive, royalty-free license to publish or reproduce the published form of this contribution, or allow others to do so, for U.S. Government purposes.