# The wrong turn of string theory: our world is SUSY at low energies

by arivero
Tags: energies, string, susy, theory, turn, world
 PF Gold P: 2,921 As for the relationship between the above folding and the S4 generalisation of Koide, I find that they are two solutions of the eight S4 simultaneus equations that seem relevant: $$\begin{array}{|ll|} \hline 3.64098 & 0 \\ 1.69854 & 1.69854 \\ 0.12195 & 0.12195 \\ \hline \end{array} \dots \begin{array}{|ll|} \hline b & u \\ d & c \\ s & t \\ \hline \end{array} \dots \begin{array}{|ll|} \hline 3.640 & 3.640 \\ 1.698 & 1.698 \\ 0.1219 & 174.1 \\ \hline \end{array}$$ The one on the left appears when looking for zero'ed solutions; the one on the right appears in the resolvent of the system when looking for zero-less solutions; so both of them are singled-out very specifically even if, being doubly degenerated, they are hidden under the carpet of a continuous spectrum of solutions. To be more specific: a S4-Koide system on the above "folded" quark pairings should be a set of eight simultaneous Koide equations, for all the possible combinations: bds, bdt, bcs, bct, uds, udt, ucs, uct. A double degenerated solution of such S4-Koide system lives naturally inside a continuum: the equation K(M1,M2,x)=0, with M1 and M2 being the degenerated masses, has multiple solutions for x, and any two of them can be used to build the non-degenerated pair of the folding. The solution in the left is one of the possible solutions having at least a zero; up to an scale factor, there are only four of them. I have scaled it to match with the solution in the right. The solution in the right is one of the solutions obtained by using the method of polynomial resolvents to solve the system of eight equations (actually, we fix a mass and then solve the four equations containing such fixed mass). It is scaled so that its higher mass coincides with the top mass. For details on the calculation of the solutions, please refer to the thread on Koide.
 P: 755 Some recent thoughts: As with mainstream supersymmetry, I see the sbootstrap's situation as still being one where there is such a multitude of possibilities that it is hard even to systematically enumerate them. The difference is that a mainstream susy model consists of a definite equation and a resulting parameter space that then gets squeezed by experiment, whereas a sbootstrap "possibility" consists of a list of numerical or structural patterns in known physics which are posited to have a cause, and then an "idea for a model" that could cause them. It may be that some part of sbootstrap lore is eventually realized within a genuinely well-defined model that will then make predictions for MSSM objects like gluinos, or it may be that it will be a "minimalist" model that is more like SM than MSSM. (As for the Koide waterfall, that is such a tight structure, it seems that any rigorous model that can reproduce it is going to be sharply predictive - but there may still be several, or even many, such models.) Today I want to report just another "idea for a model". It's really just a wacky "what if"; I don't know that such a model exists mathematically; but I'd never even look for it if I didn't have the schematic idea. The idea is just that there might be a brane model in which the top yukawa is close to 1 both in the far UV and in the far IR, and that this is due to a stringy "UV/IR connection". The reason to think about this is as follows. The discussion of whether the Higgs mass might be in a narrow metastable zone, has yielded the perspective that it might be worth considering the top yukawa and the Higgs quartic coupling at the same time. The latter goes to 0 in the UV, the latter goes very close to 1 in the IR. But Rodejohann and Zhang have observed that with massive neutrinos, the top yukawa can approach 1 at high energies as well (see pages 14 and 15; the minimum is roughly 0.5, reached at about 10^15 GeV). And high energies are where a coupling might naturally take a simple value like 1. So what if there's a brane model where the top yukawa is 1 in the far UV, for some relatively simple reason, and then it is also near 1 in the far IR, because of a UV/IR relation that we don't understand yet? String theory contains UV/IR relations (scroll halfway down for the discussion); none of them appear to be immediately applicable to this scenario; but such relations are far from being fully understood. At the same time, I think of Christopher Hill's recent papers (1 2, it's basically the same paper twice), in which he first restricts the SM to just the top and the Higgs, and then considers a novel symmetry transformation, which he likens to a degenerate form of susy. At high scales he ends up with the relation that the Higgs quartic equals half of the square of the top yukawa - which is not what I'm looking for. Then again, he also ends up with Higgs mass equals top mass, with the difference to be produced by higher-order corrections. So perhaps his model, already twisted away from ordinary supersymmetry, can be twisted a little further to yield a Rodejohann-Zhang RG flow for the top yukawa, as well as a Shaposhnikov-Wetterich boundary condition for the Higgs quartic. One might want to see whether this can all be embedded in something like the "minimal quiver standard model" (MQSM), which is not yet a brane model, but it is a sort of field theory that can arise as the low-energy limit of a brane model; and the MQSM is the simplest quiver model containing the SM. Finally, to round things out, one might seek to realize the sbootstrap's own deviant "version of susy" here too, perhaps by using one of the brane-based "ideas for a model" already discussed in this thread.
 P: 755 Krolikowski has some preon musings (relegated to gen-ph) which resemble the sBootstrap. He wants to get the color-triplet SM quarks and color-singlet SM leptons by combining color-triplet preons; but he has to suppose that the preons are a fermion and a scalar boson, in order for the composite to be a fermion, whereas the sBootstrap combines two fermions and then supposes that the phenomenological fermions are superpartners of the resulting composites. Curiously, in an attempt to explain the up-down mass ratio, he inadvertently provides a new perspective on the Koide-Brannen phase: 2/9 = (1/3)2 + (1/3)2. He is squaring the electromagnetic charges of the preons for an up quark, on the hypothesis that the mass is a self-energy effect. (The analogous quantity for down is then 5/9, then leading to an up:down mass ratio of 2:5, not too far from the observed 1:2; but he acknowledges that the argument then doesn't work for all the other fermion masses...) I wonder if this completely elementary formula could be motivated in some other context, to explain the Koide-Brannen phase for e,μ,τ?
 PF Gold P: 2,921 For a different turn... what about the SO(8) in the representations of elementary states of superstring theory? It seems unvoidable because it comes from taking lorentz group SO(9,1) and decomposing to SO(8)xSO(1,1). So once the worldsheet takes the (1,1) part, the rest must be SO(8). In fact, it seems unrelated to the 7-sphere nor octonions nor other Kaluza Klein thingies. Could it be posible to have still a "8" representation but under a different group? Of course I am thinking SO(5)xSO(4) or even better, SU(3)xSO(4).
 P: 755 There is another installment from Bruno Machet (previously discussed at #149, #172). Machet wants to build the Higgs sector entirely from meson VEVs, with no additional fundamental scalars. John Moffat tried to do the same (#169), and probably there is older literature. On this thread, #150 forward, there was some discussion of the conventional perspective: without a Higgs, the qqbar condensate will still add mass to W and Z, but they will be MeV-scale, not GeV-scale. Such works are potentially complementary to the sBootstrap. In the sBootstrap we start with five light quarks, and get all the SM fermions as "superpartners" of the resulting diquarks and mesons, with the uu-type diquarks left over, playing no role in this correspondence, and also no theory of what the Higgs is. I think I see four possibilities: 1) The Higgs originates outside the sBootstrap combinatorics, e.g. it really is an independent elementary scalar. 2) The uu-type diquarks make up the Higgs field. This is Alejandro's often-expressed dream, but it has the problem that the +4/3 charge has to be mysteriously screened somehow. 3) The Higgs comes from the scalar sector being explored by Machet and Moffat. 4) We could seek inspiration in the recently observed Zc(3900): perhaps the Higgs is a tetraquark! - of the form u u ubar ubar.
 P: 755 Some recent papers: 1) A new proposal for quark-lepton unification which resembles Pati-Salam, but with different relations between the mass matrices. 2) The latest from Harald Fritzsch, on making H, W, Z from preons he calls "haplons". It seems unlikely; but what if we thought of the haplons as branes, and the composites as strings ending on them? 3) New d=4 non-susy vacua from F-theory. As Lubos mentions, susy appears if you compactify further, to d=3, so this is a case of hidden supersymmetry; which is why it is relevant to this thread... Also see these old musings by Witten 1 2. 4) Via arivero elsewhere, I have learned of Alejandro Cabo, who wants to get the quark masses from the top quark, via a cascade effect involving condensates; again a theme already explored in this thread. Some of the relevant papers have two "Alejandro Cabo"s as authors, so I am not sure who's in charge, but if you just go to arxiv and look through all the papers with author:cabo, you will find them. Apart from the obvious (titles which refer to quark masses), anything about "modified QCD" would also be part of the program. Especially interesting from the Koide perspective is the appearance of the democratic matrix, e.g. on page 5 here. A. Cabo has also given two talks at pirsa.org on this subject.
PF Gold
P: 1,961
 Quote by mitchell porter 4) Via arivero elsewhere, I have learned of Alejandro Cabo, who wants to get the quark masses from the top quark, via a cascade effect involving condensates; again a theme already explored in this thread. Some of the relevant papers have two "Alejandro Cabo"s as authors, so I am not sure who's in charge, but if you just go to arxiv and look through all the papers with author:cabo, you will find them. Apart from the obvious (titles which refer to quark masses), anything about "modified QCD" would also be part of the program. Especially interesting from the Koide perspective is the appearance of the democratic matrix, e.g. on page 5 here. A. Cabo has also given two talks at pirsa.org on this subject.
Talking about Koide relations, do you know Jay Yablon?

http://vixra.org/author/jay_r_yablon

His results are insanely precise for a rather simple method. I'd not say theory though. He calculates stuff differently and get it all too exactly to be good.
 P: 755 I have seen his work. The papers which provide formulas for nuclear binding energies in terms of quark masses are a new frontier for physics numerology... What I thought was interesting, is that it is possible at all - e.g. (his starting point) the fact that the deuteron binding energy, and the mass of the up quark, are of the same order of magnitude. In reality, that binding energy ought to be some function of m_u, m_d, m_s, and alpha_strong, that we would currently need lattice QCD techniques to estimate. But I wonder if there is some heuristic argument that apriori it should be within an order of magnitude of the first-generation quark masses? That might be a good question for Physics Stack Exchange or for the HEP forum here... Incidentally, these binding energies also occasionally get mentioned by Arkani-Hamed (and I assume others) as evidence for finetuning in nature - if you look at the effective field theory of nucleons, apparently the parameters are finetuned to several orders of magnitude.
PF Gold
P: 1,961
 Quote by mitchell porter 3) [URL="http://arxiv.org/abs/1307.5858"]New d=4 non-susy vacua from F-theory. Susy appears if you compactify further, to d=3, so this is a case of hidden supersymmetry; which is why it is relevant to this thread... Also see these old musings by Witten 1 2.
Don't you think it is a nice finding? That is, in the real world, SUSY does not exist, other than a math trick, and string theory is fine with that?
PF Gold
P: 1,961
 Quote by mitchell porter The papers which provide formulas for nuclear binding energies in terms of quark masses are a new frontier for physics numerology...
He justifies his treatment in lengthy papers from standard theory, like QCD. I don't think that is not numerology at all. You have to see if his approximation arguments for QCD are OK. Certainly, it yields results that are OK.
P: 755
 Quote by MTd2 Don't you think it is a nice finding? That is, in the real world, SUSY does not exist, other than a math trick, and string theory is fine with that?
String theory has many neglected and disputed corners without supersymmetry. One thing that's interesting here, is that this is F-theory and very mainstream. But in these vacua, SUSY is still there at the highest energies i.e. the compactification scale. It's just different from the usual model-building in string phenomenology, which is to look for something whose low-energy limit has an N=1 supersymmetry that is then broken. Here even that is bypassed, and SUSY is solely a high-scale phenomenon (if I understand correctly).
 Quote by MTd2 He justifies his treatment in lengthy papers from standard theory, like QCD. I don't think that is not numerology at all. You have to see if his approximation arguments for QCD are OK. Certainly, it yields results that are OK.
It has only the barest of connections to QCD that I can see. He hardly considers the quantum theory at all, piles guess upon guess (ansatz upon ansatz), freely introduces extra quantities like the Higgs VEV and the CKM matrix into his formulae...
PF Gold
P: 1,961
 Quote by mitchell porter In reality, that binding energy ought to be some function of m_u, m_d, m_s, and alpha_strong, that we would currently need lattice QCD techniques to estimate. But I wonder if there is some heuristic argument that apriori it should be within an order of magnitude of the first-generation quark masses?
He is making a new paper due many requests on further enlightenment. So, if you want to ask question, that's the time!

http://vixra.org/abs/1307.0135
P: 450
 Quote by MTd2 He is making a new paper due many requests on further enlightenment. So, if you want to ask question, that's the time! http://vixra.org/abs/1307.0135
Since that thread is discussing string theory and SUSY in a kind of fictive and positive competition, I would like to bring a modest contribution in the actual debate and directly ask if the documents pointed here can help the scientific community:
http://www.vixra.org/author/thierry_periat
In a kind of constructive emulation, I would also appreciate any feedback. So far my understanding, a discussion about the vacuum is probably concerning regions with low energies (this is at least the classical and well accepted vision - coming into the debate from the "theory of relativity" viewpoint side). Except if errors (calculations) have been done in one of the proposed documents, the concept of string is not in opposition with the one of vacuum (consequently with the existence of regions with a low energy level). The embarassing consequence is the necessity to accept a dynamical vision for these regions but as far I am well-informed, the 2013 recent analysis of the data coming from the Planck satellite allows a dynamical dark energy...
HW Helper
PF Gold
P: 2,602
 Quote by MTd2 He justifies his treatment in lengthy papers from standard theory, like QCD. I don't think that is not numerology at all. You have to see if his approximation arguments for QCD are OK. Certainly, it yields results that are OK.
Referring to the paper in the Hadronic Journal (which is full of crackpot papers, sorry to say), he bases the whole numerics on postulating that the quark wavefunctions are Gaussian with a width equal to their reduced Compton wavelength. For the up quark, using ##m_u\sim 2.3~\mathrm{MeV}## as Yablon does, the reduced Compton wavelength is ##\lambda_u \sim 0.012~\mathrm{fm}##. However, the proton charge radius is ##\sim 0.88~\mathrm{fm}##, so the quark ansatze has nothing whatsoever to do with reality.

It's unilluminating to further sift through his classical manipulations or try to point to the large quantum corrections that he waves his hands around (current quark masses are set by the weak scale and unnaturally small Yukawa couplings, whereas the hadronic masses are set by the QCD scale). Instead it suffices to see that the picture of the nucleon that he sets as an input is completely different from what we observe.

 Quote by mitchell porter I have seen his work. The papers which provide formulas for nuclear binding energies in terms of quark masses are a new frontier for physics numerology... What I thought was interesting, is that it is possible at all - e.g. (his starting point) the fact that the deuteron binding energy, and the mass of the up quark, are of the same order of magnitude. In reality, that binding energy ought to be some function of m_u, m_d, m_s, and alpha_strong, that we would currently need lattice QCD techniques to estimate. But I wonder if there is some heuristic argument that apriori it should be within an order of magnitude of the first-generation quark masses? That might be a good question for Physics Stack Exchange or for the HEP forum here... Incidentally, these binding energies also occasionally get mentioned by Arkani-Hamed (and I assume others) as evidence for finetuning in nature - if you look at the effective field theory of nucleons, apparently the parameters are finetuned to several orders of magnitude.
As I mentioned above, the current masses of the quarks are set by the EW scale (with a huge fine-tuning) and have nothing to do with strong physics. There should be no heuristic argument why properties of the deuteron should be closely related to the current masses.
 P: 755 The basic coincidence here is that the QCD scale and the electroweak scale are within an order of magnitude or two of each other. I believe I've seen attempts to explain this anthropically. One theme of this thread is that the weak interactions and the leptonic sector might be emergent from a strongly coupled supersymmetric theory. There, the benchmark of success might be, to explain the coincidence of scales causally and naturally. Finally, Koide aficionados have noticed that the basic mass scale in Carl Brannen's reformulation of the Koide formula, is very close to the "constituent" masses of the first-generation quarks. A Brannen-style formulation of Koide's relation, derives particle masses from a common mass scale, and an angle. So it's rather amazing that arivero gets the s,c,b masses by applying Brannen's formula for e,mu,tau, but tripling both the mass scale and the angle. Tripling these parameters might have some rationale involved in working with color triplets (quarks) rather than color singlets (leptons); and then there's the simple fact that three times the constituent quark mass scale, gives you the nucleon mass scale! So I consider it very rational to at least entertain the possibility that these relations derive from some sort of super-QCD or extended QCD that underlies the standard model... though even if that's true, proving it might have to await future advances in QCD itself, that would make it transparent why quantities such as the nucleon mass and the pion mass have the values they do.
HW Helper
PF Gold
P: 2,602
 Quote by mitchell porter The basic coincidence here is that the QCD scale and the electroweak scale are within an order of magnitude or two of each other. I believe I've seen attempts to explain this anthropically.
The QCD scale depends most strongly on the coefficient of the one-loop beta function, which only depends on the number of colors and flavors. Quark masses are a very small effect, but would be the leading way for the EW scale to feed into the QCD scale. I can imagine that it's possible to set anthropic bounds, but I'm not sure that the ratio of the QCD and EW scales is the most important consideration when compared to the fine-structure constant, for example.

 One theme of this thread is that the weak interactions and the leptonic sector might be emergent from a strongly coupled supersymmetric theory. There, the benchmark of success might be, to explain the coincidence of scales causally and naturally. Finally, Koide aficionados have noticed that the basic mass scale in Carl Brannen's reformulation of the Koide formula, is very close to the "constituent" masses of the first-generation quarks. A Brannen-style formulation of Koide's relation, derives particle masses from a common mass scale, and an angle. So it's rather amazing that arivero gets the s,c,b masses by applying Brannen's formula for e,mu,tau, but tripling both the mass scale and the angle. Tripling these parameters might have some rationale involved in working with color triplets (quarks) rather than color singlets (leptons); and then there's the simple fact that three times the constituent quark mass scale, gives you the nucleon mass scale!
This is also numerology. These particles interact, so any dynamical relationship between masses should involve their values at the same energy scale. The Koide-type relations are between pole masses, which have no logical reason to be directly related to one another by a consistent dynamical formula. The difference between pole masses and ##\overline{\mathrm{MS}}## masses might be small for the leptons, but it is not for the up quarks.

I suspect that these are just as coincidental as the fact that the running fine-structure constant is numerically the same as the Higgs mass to within a % or so: ##\alpha^{-1}(m_H) \approx m_H/\mathrm{GeV}##.
PF Gold
P: 1,961
 Quote by fzero These particles interact, so any dynamical relationship between masses should involve their values at the same energy scale. The Koide-type relations are between pole masses, which have no logical reason to be directly related to one another by a consistent dynamical formula.
Is nature logical?
P: 450
 Quote by fzero ... These particles interact, so any dynamical relationship between masses should involve their values at the same energy scale. The Koide-type relations are between pole masses, which have no logical reason to be directly related to one another by a consistent dynamical formula...
But as indicated in arXiv:hep-ph 0505220v1 25 May 2005 (end of page 1 and at the begining of page 2), these pole masses are co-related in such a way that an angle can be introduced between two vectors: (1, 1, 1) and (m1, m2, m3). This motivates the vision of what one is encouraged to call "directional masses" (masses defining a spatial direction) and at the end this is suggestively asking for the existence of a link between these masses (taken all together) and some underlying geometrical structure... Since the geometrical structure is dynamic within the theory of relativity (Einstein)...

 Related Discussions Beyond the Standard Model 0 Beyond the Standard Model 8 Special & General Relativity 0 Beyond the Standard Model 1 Beyond the Standard Model 2