Tevatron Run II Workshop on Supersymmetry and Higgs )

One way to suppress flavor changing neutral currents or CP violating processes in supersymmetry is to make at least some of the first two generations’ scalars superheavy (above ∼ 20TeV). We summarize the motivations and challenges, theoretically and phenomenologically, for superheavy supersymmetry. We then argue for more viable alternatives on the superheavy theme and are led to models where the heavy spectrum follows a pattern of masses similar to what arises from gauge-mediation or with a “hybrid” spectrum of light and heavy masses based on each particle’s transformation under a global SU(5). In the end, despite the differences between the competing ideas, a self-consistent natural theory with superheavy masses seems to prefer low-energy supersymmetry breaking with possible correlations among the light sparticle masses. The resulting light gravitino and its coupling to matter could also impact the discovery capabilities and analyses of these models at Tevatron Run II. In addition, we comment on how the presence of superheavy states may influence the light spectrum, and how this may help efforts to distinguish between theories post-discovery. (Tevatron Run II Workshop on Supersymmetry and Higgs) In the vast space of all viable physics theories, supersymmetry (SUSY) is not a point. Any theory can be “supersymmetrized” almost trivially, and the infinite array of choices for spontaneous SUSY breaking just increases the scope of possibilities in the real world. One thing that appears necessary, if SUSY has anything to do with nature, is superpartners for the standard model particles that we already know about: leptons, neutrinos, quarks, and gauge bosons. These superpartners must feel SUSY breaking and a priori can have arbitrary masses as a result. Phenomenologically, the masses cannot be arbitrary. There are several measurements that have been performed that effectively limit what the SUSY masses can be. First, there are direct limits on Z → SUSY, for example, that essentially require all superpartners to be above mZ/2. Beyond this, collider physics limits become model dependent, and it is not easy to state results simply in terms of the mass of each particle. Second, comparing softly broken SUSY model calculations with flavor changing neutral current (FCNC) measurements implies that superpartner masses cannot be light and arbitrary. And finally, requiring that the Z boson mass not result from a fine-tuned cancellation of big numbers requires some of the particles masses be near mZ (less than about 1TeV, say). Numerous explanations for how the above criteria can be satisfied have been considered. Universality of masses, alignment of flavor matrices, flavor symmetries, superheavy supersymmetry, etc., have all been incorporated to define a more or less phenomenologically viable explanation of a softly broken SUSY description of nature. In this contribution, we would like to summarize some of the basic collider physics implications of superheavy supersymmetry (SHS) at the Tevatron. Our understanding is that analyses of all the specific processes that are mentioned here in principle are being pursued within other subgroups. Therefore, our goal in this submission is to succinctly explain what SHS is and how some of the observables being studied within other contexts could be crucial to SHS. We also hope that by enumerating some of the variations of this approach that this contribution could help us anticipate and interpret results after discovery of SUSY, and help distinguish between theories. The idea we are discussing goes under several names including “decoupling supersymmetry”, “more minimal supersymmetry”, “effective supersymmetry”, “superheavy supersymmetry”, etc. The core principle [1] is that very heavy superpartners do not contribute to low-energy FCNC or CP violating processes and therefore cannot cause problems. Furthermore, no fancy symmetries need be postulated to keep experimental predictions for them under control. On the surface, it appears that decoupling superpartners is completely irrelevant for the