Run 2 initial LHC @13 TEV Supersymmetry results null

In summary: The LHC is a statistical tool, and when the uncertainty on a measurement is too large, you cannot see whether there is a discrepancy with the predictions. In summary, the recent data from the LHC has shown a significant diphoton excess, indicating the possibility of a new particle. However, the exclusions on SUSY gluino masses up to 1.8 TEV have complicated the situation, making it difficult to make the MSSM or a Higgs doublet model work. This suggests the need for a more complicated model, such as the nMSSM. Additionally, the small amount of data collected so far at 13 TeV is not enough to make a clear discovery, and more data is needed to confirm or
  • #1
kodama
978
132
what are ramifications of exclusions on SUSY gluino mass 1.8 TEV to MSSM and other SUSY-SM and higgs hirearchy?
 
Last edited:
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #3
i am wondering how exclusions affect hiearchy SUSY solution
 
  • #4
The diphoton bumps are much more significant for assessing the situation than the exclusions. The new bumps are consistent with some sort of two Higgs doublet model including but not limited to SUSY, although it is somewhat unexpected from a SUSY perspective for an extra Higgs boson to be the lightest supersymmetric particle.
 
  • Like
Likes kodama
  • #5
with Gluino masses excluded up to 1.8 Tev, can low-energy scale SUSY still stabilize the higgs ?

if SUSY does not stablize the Higgs what does?
 
  • #6
If the diphoton event is indeed pointing to a bonafide new particle (and I am a little skeptical at this point), and we make the additional assumption that the current exclusions on other searches hold, then I think this is pointing to rather complicated new physics, at least if we insist on naturalness and other niceties of model building.

In particular its very hard make the MSSM (in the decoupling limit) work with this data. The existence of this particle would very likely (depending on how the measurement of the width holds up) nearly completely exclude most of its parameter space, and you would need to take extreme limits in order not to damage the existing known standard model like couplings for the regular Higgs. Likely one needs an extension of the MSSM to something like say the nMSSM to have enough model building wriggle room. Similarly its been pointed out to me that it is also difficult to make a Higgs doublet model work for very similar reasons.

Anyway, this is nonminimal enough that it's going to occupy the majority of theorists time for the next year while the experimental situation is worked out.
 
  • #9
Or simply more data. Run 2 just started, with 4/fb the discovery potential is still quite small. If we don't find anything with 50-100/fb, things are more challenging.
 
  • #10
That we could not rediscover any Higgs Boson seems to me a hint.
In all other cases like W or Z Boson we could rediscover every time easily in new rounds with higher energy. In natural sciences we live from reproducing experiments to have a proof of existing a phenomen, we can describe. Here it seems we have the first time running after a ghost.
We will see, what the next rounds will tell. But I think that we have to build a much much bigger particle accelerator to find something in high energy scale. Then we can maybe take away sponatanous symmetrybreaking out of our model. And maybe we can find then an Axion without mass and then without symmetrybreaking and higgsmechanism. But I would guess, that we need then a minimum of 500 km accelerator
 
  • #11
MacRudi said:
That we could not rediscover any Higgs Boson seems to me a hint.

A hint of what exactly?

The amount of data collected at 13 TeV is too small. CMS' position is that it is so small that it's not worth looking at yet. ATLAS looked, and sure enough, CMS was right.
 
  • #12
I looked into the sky and I failed to rediscover Uranus today. I did see the Moon easily. Is Uranus still there? Well, I'm quite sure, but I would need binoculars or a telescope to see it.
A clear Higgs "re-discovery" in 2015 would have been inconsistent with previous measurements.
 
  • Like
Likes 1oldman2

1. What is the Large Hadron Collider (LHC) and why is it important?

The Large Hadron Collider (LHC) is the world's largest and most powerful particle accelerator, located at CERN in Switzerland. It is used to study the fundamental building blocks of matter and the forces that govern them. The LHC is important because it allows scientists to test and confirm theories about the nature of our universe.

2. What is the significance of running the LHC at 13 TeV?

The LHC has the ability to collide particles at different energies. Running the LHC at 13 TeV (teraelectron volts) allows scientists to probe deeper into the realm of particle physics and potentially discover new particles or phenomena that were previously unobserved.

3. What is Supersymmetry and why is it important?

Supersymmetry is a theoretical framework that proposes a symmetry between particles with integer spin (bosons) and particles with half-integer spin (fermions). It is important because it could provide a solution to the hierarchy problem, which is the large discrepancy between the predicted mass of the Higgs boson and its measured mass.

4. What do the initial LHC @13 TeV Supersymmetry results show?

The initial LHC @13 TeV Supersymmetry results show no significant evidence for the existence of supersymmetric particles. This means that the current data does not support the predictions of supersymmetry and further research and analysis is needed to confirm or refute its validity.

5. What implications do these null results have for the field of particle physics?

These null results have significant implications for the field of particle physics. They suggest that the current theories and models, such as supersymmetry, may need to be revised or expanded to better explain the behavior of particles and forces in our universe. It also highlights the need for continued research and experimentation to further our understanding of the fundamental laws of nature.

Similar threads

  • Beyond the Standard Models
Replies
9
Views
2K
  • Beyond the Standard Models
Replies
1
Views
1K
  • Beyond the Standard Models
Replies
13
Views
3K
  • Beyond the Standard Models
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • Beyond the Standard Models
Replies
10
Views
2K
  • Beyond the Standard Models
2
Replies
59
Views
6K
Replies
3
Views
3K
  • Beyond the Standard Models
2
Replies
36
Views
4K
  • Beyond the Standard Models
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • Beyond the Standard Models
Replies
24
Views
3K
Back
Top