Supersymmetry dead?

[ydoaPs]

This post at ScienceBlogs suggests that (if asymptotic safety works) the discovery of the Higgs Boson at the energy it was discovered falsifies all supersymmetric theories.

[Ronald Hyde]

I'm going to make some really off the wall speculative 'predictions'. That the strong interaction does have a 'dual' representation involving Gravity, and it does not

belong on the high energy scale, but the scale of large sizes, which is the natural province of Gravity. Simply put, people are looking in the wrong place and at the

wrong things. There are many, many things to be explained on the large scale, from the shapes of the Galaxies, to the types of Nebulae. How about the 'rings' around

SN1987a for example, or Solar Activity? Just look through any Astronomy catalog for more examples. Gravity and SU(3) have many more roles to play than people can

begin to imagine. How about the so called bi-polar nebulae around many stars? They fit nicely into a symmetry scheme that includes Gravity.

[EquisDeXD]

Super Symmetry wouldn't necessarily be completely wrong, it would just mean it needs to be revised somewhat.

[ydoaPs]

Super Symmetry wouldn't necessarily be completely wrong

 

By Modus Tollens, yes, it would be.

[EquisDeXD]

By Modus Tollens, yes, it would be.

 

N, a lot of properties of particles would still be true. Science doesn't just throw away a previous correct model that was used by the world of science, it builds off of it, or says "it is accurate, but not for situations involving Higg's Bosons". A Higg's boson doesn't seem to have any distinctive counterpart, but that doesn't mean other particles don't.

[ajb]

This post at ScienceBlogs suggests that (if asymptotic safety works) the discovery of the Higgs Boson at the energy it was discovered falsifies all supersymmetric theories.

 

What it could mean is that supersymmetry is not needed to "protect the Higgs mass". Supersymmetry is often invoked to provide a mechanism to stop renormalsation effects "pushing" the Higgs mass to an arbitrarily high value; this is the hierarchy problem. This keeps the GUT scale and the Plank scale separate.

 

I imagine that that one could still have a higher SUSY scale before supersymmetry is restored and cannot play this "stabilising role." This could mean that SUSY is still important at higher energies, thus superstrings could still be okay.

 

I am sure that Severian can tell us more...

[ydoaPs]

Science doesn't just throw away a previous correct model that was used by the world of science

 

Yes, it does. Aristotelian cosmology is indeed in the trash heap.

 

 

A Higg's boson doesn't seem to have any distinctive counterpart, but that doesn't mean other particles don't.

 

Good thing no one is arguing that then.

[MigL]

I posted this a while back regarding the source of dark matter...

 

'Consider heterotic string theory of the E8xE8 symmetry group.

 

In this supersymmetric theory, by Gross of Princeton I believe. each closed string has inherent dimensionality of ten in one direction to describe fermionic fields and sixteen more in the opposite direction ( 26 tootal ) to describe bosonic fields. It does not need renormalization and has gravitons as one of the bosonic field excitations. This E8xE8 symmetry breaks into two E8 symmetry groups, which then breaks to an E6 group and again to the familiar SU(3)xSU(2)xU(1) groups of GUT ( SU(3) ) and standard model Electroweak ( SU(2)xU(1) ). The two E8 symmetry groups are in effect two separate universes connected only by gravity since the other forces only arise after the symmetry break. This second universe s invisible to all other forces except gravity, so we have in effect at least doubled the mass of the universe without any visible other matter, and since the second E8 group does not have to break in the same sequence as the first, it could be composed of heavier particles, like say the supersymmetric equivalents of normal particles, explaning why they have never been observed and will not be until we can reach E8xE8 unification enrgy levels.

 

I don't know enough about string theory to comment on the validity of this approach, maybe AJB can make some comments as he seems to be well versed on the subject."

 

I am familiar with the hierarchy problem, but does this push the susy restoration energy too high ?

[Ronald Hyde]

I posted this a while back regarding the source of dark matter...

 

'Consider heterotic string theory of the E8xE8 symmetry group.

 

In this supersymmetric theory, by Gross of Princeton I believe. each closed string has inherent dimensionality of ten in one direction to describe fermionic fields and sixteen more in the opposite direction ( 26 tootal ) to describe bosonic fields. It does not need renormalization and has gravitons as one of the bosonic field excitations. This E8xE8 symmetry breaks into two E8 symmetry groups, which then breaks to an E6 group and again to the familiar SU(3)xSU(2)xU(1) groups of GUT ( SU(3) ) and standard model Electroweak ( SU(2)xU(1) ). The two E8 symmetry groups are in effect two separate universes connected only by gravity since the other forces only arise after the symmetry break. This second universe s invisible to all other forces except gravity, so we have in effect at least doubled the mass of the universe without any visible other matter, and since the second E8 group does not have to break in the same sequence as the first, it could be composed of heavier particles, like say the supersymmetric equivalents of normal particles, explaning why they have never been observed and will not be until we can reach E8xE8 unification enrgy levels.

 

I don't know enough about string theory to comment on the validity of this approach, maybe AJB can make some comments as he seems to be well versed on the subject."

 

I am familiar with the hierarchy problem, but does this push the susy restoration energy too high ?

 

Crazy but possibly related notion. That the 'barred' portion of a spiral galaxy might be a 'dark companion' spiral that is 'crossed' with the visible spiral.

[ajb]

I don't know enough about string theory to comment on the validity of this approach, maybe AJB can make some comments as he seems to be well versed on the subject."

 

I don't really know enough about string phenomenology to comment in any meaningful way.

 

 

I am familiar with the hierarchy problem, but does this push the susy restoration energy too high ?

 

In the Minimal Supersymmetric Standard Model (MSSM) if the sparticles have masses in the TeV scale, then we have unification of the three gauge theories of the standard model. So I imagine one would not like the masses of the sparticles too high.

 

Also, the original motivation for constructing the MSSM was to stabilise the Higgs mass.

 

If both these were lost, then supersymmetry would seem a little unnecessary.

 

But, I should point out that sting theory needs supersymmetry and this will probably keep supersymmetry in the mind of physicists for a while, what ever happens at the LHC.