Modifying the definition of charges

[jackaraz]

Hi Florian;

For UMSSM; I want to modify the definition of charges so basically I want to define lets say Qqbar = Qq + del*g1/gp where del is an amplifying free parameter. Should I do this in SPheno.m, where I can add such a Qqbar definition for susy scale or should I add it in UMSSM.m where I can change the definition of given Superfield charges, or can I define a internal Qqbar parameter and relate it with couplings and Qq?

Thank you very much

Best regards

Jack

[FStaub]

Hi,

I guess the easiest is, if you do it in SPheno.m.

Cheers
Florian

[jackaraz]

Hi Florian

Thanks for quick response. I modified the SPheno.m to have Qq = Qq + gp/g1*del etc and it worked but since it doesn't go in to the RGE's or tadpole equations, I'm not sure that this is right way to implement. So I modified the model file and created

parameter.m ;
{SinChi, { Description -> "Sin Chi",
LaTeX -> "\\sin\\chi",
Real -> True,
OutputName->SinChi}},

{Qq, { LaTeX -> "Q_q",
Real -> True,
OutputName -> Qq}},

{Qqbar, { LaTeX -> "\\bar{Q}_q",
Dependence -> Qq - (g1/(6*gp))*SinChi,
Real -> True,
OutputName -> Qqbar,
LesHouches -> {XCharge,1}}},

Umssm.m;

SuperFields[[1]] = {q, 3, {uL, dL}, 1/6, 2, 3, Qqbar, RpM};

Note that I also tried DependenceSPheno. The Latex file seems perfectly fine it modified everything with Qqbar but SPheno writes XCharge block as;

Block XCHARGE Q= 1.36222781E+03 # (SUSY Scale)
1 0.00000000E+00 # Qqbar

which can not be true since I'm allowing sinchi only to be 1e-3 right now so Qqbar should be really close to Qq. Also When I check the decays I can see that it really have taken it 0 where there is no decay to quarks for VZp. Can you please help me with the definition of this new parameter?

Thank you very much

Best regards

[FStaub]

Hi,

well, I would need to check at which step the second approach fails, but I still think that the first one is much easier:
you are correct that all vertices and RGEs are expressed in some Q's which appear in the superfield definition. So, you just need to set these Q in the SPheno.m. I don't really see where the problem should be:

Code: Select all

EXTPAR={
 {101,Q1aux},
 {102,Q2aux},
 ...
 {199,delIN}
 };
 
 BoundaryEWSBScale={
 {Q1, Q1aux+delIN*gp/g1},
 {Q2, Q2aux+delIN*gp/g1},
 ..
 
 };

;

where the Qx match the ones in the Superfield definition and the others are just some auxiliary parameters.

Cheers,
Florian

[jackaraz]

Hi Florian;

Thanks for the reply, Yes thats what I did previously, but what worries me is; when it evolves RGE's it will equate charges to this new Qbar at susy scale but when its off the susy scale it will be again Q which I thought might effect the solutions of the tadpole equations and might make RGE solutions harder. With this point of view should I set Qbar in both GUT scale and SUSY scale? Because the ratio between g1 and gp will be different or do you think tadpoles and RGE's wont effect the final result, since at the end of the day I'm only looking at SUSY scale?

Thanks

Best regards

[FStaub]

Hi,

ok, now I see your point. The charges change with the energy scale... hmm. I need to think about that.

Cheers,
Florian

[FStaub]

Well, a quick & dirty solution should be:
1) define the charges as written at the EWSB and SUSY scale. Then all mass matrices and vertices should be correct
2) Open the RGEs_UMSSM.f90 and replace with your editor the Qx by the relation

Cheers,
Florian

[jackaraz]

Hi Florian;

I changed the definition in SPheno.m as follows;

Code: Select all

BoundarySUSYScale = {
...
{Qq,  preQq  - (g1/(6*gp))*SinChi},
...
};

BoundaryEWSBScale ={
{Qq,  preQq  - (g1/(6*gp))*SinChi},
};

and as you said modified RGEs_UMSSM.f90 as

Code: Select all

...
 g3p3 =g3**3
 gpp2 =gp**2
 gpp3 =gp**3
 Qq  = Qq  - (g1/(6*gp))*SinChi
 Qdp2 =Qd**2
 Qep2 =Qe**2
 QHdp2 =QHd**2
...

However it seems didn't work. So I removed the definition in RGEs_UMSSM.f90 but it still doesn't work so I assume that this is due to BoundaryEWSBScale condition that I put in SPheno.m file because before requireing that it was finding some solutions. The error that I'm getting is;

Code: Select all

 
 ErrorLevel, Iname:          -1           7
 The error has occured in the following chain of subroutines:
 LesHouches_Input
 FirstGuess
 runRGE
 odeint
 rkqs
 rge271
 GToParameters271

Which doesn't give me much information other than saying that I'm picking wrong inputs for RGE's but the program is working in MC and it didn't calculate any single point. If I remove BoundaryEWSBScale condition would it be correct?

Thanks

BEst regards

[FStaub]

Hi,

it might be that gp is not known at the beginning of the very first iteration, i.e. 0 is used. You can take a look at the routine FirstGuess in Boundaries_UMSSM.f90 and add some (realistic) initilization value before the definition of your charges.

Cheers
Florian