Dismiss Notice
Join Physics Forums Today!
The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

Cern: First evidence for the decay Bs → μ+μ−

  1. Nov 12, 2012 #1
    BBC News reported this

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-20300100
    Here's the actual paper

    https://cdsweb.cern.ch/record/1493302/files/PAPER-2012-043.pdf [Broken]
    What does this actually mean for Susy etc?
     
    Last edited by a moderator: May 6, 2017
  2. jcsd
  3. Nov 12, 2012 #2
  4. Nov 12, 2012 #3

    PAllen

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    I notice the following:

    - Dorrigo makes no claim re. supersymmetry
    - Matt Strassler , in his blog, also makes no such claim; only that SM survives another test.
    - The actual paper does not mention Susy

    Gordon Kane, comments below that that the result is not unexpected for SUSY/string.


    http://motls.blogspot.com/2012/11/superstringy-compactifications.html#more


    Is there any source for the 'contradictions' besides BBC?
     
  5. Nov 12, 2012 #4
    As always, SUSY can evade these things just by having the superpartners be heavy enough to not to contribute much to these processes. These flavour constraints eat up various chunks of parameter space that are different to direct searches and dark matter constraints etc. though, so they are still important.
     
  6. Nov 13, 2012 #5

    MathematicalPhysicist

    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    @kurros, then how can you test supersymmetry if there's no strict prediction on the sizes of the masses?
    (even a range of the predicted masses).
     
  7. Nov 13, 2012 #6
    Well the most awesome way would be if the LHC sees the superpartners directly one of these days. Aside from that, you can only get an idea of what sorts of masses they should have through these indirect measurements. With Bs->mu+mu- for instance, if it had been observed to occur at a rate somewhat higher than the SM predicts, then you would be able to compute what superparter masses can give you this correct value (there would be a lot of possible combinations but it would be narrowed down). Presumably there would follow the observation of other processes also deviating from the SM predictions and together this would let you narrow it down further. Maybe you would get some information from dark matter searches at some point. If the Higgs decay to two photons persists as being too frequent then that too gives you information. There is also the muon anomalous magnetic moment, which seems to deviate from the SM prediction, but which people still argue somewhat over what the SM prediction actually is (they have trouble computing it due to QCD effects).

    But none of these things tell you as much as actually observing superpartners and measuring their masses directly.
     
  8. Nov 13, 2012 #7

    MathematicalPhysicist

    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    And what will make people abandon supersymmetry? Or nobody thinks of this option?
     
  9. Nov 13, 2012 #8
    They will only abandon it when some new phenomenon that is wildly incompatible with it is observed. Say we get good evidence for dark matter scattering in these underground detectors, and it is totally irreconcilable with SUSY, or likewise if some new particles start appearing at the LHC which in no way could possibly be SUSY particles. Or perhaps the most likely way is if upon continued investigation of the Higgs sector we discover that there is some complicated stuff going on there that cannot be explained by SUSY.

    As long as we continue to see everything compatible with the standard model, SUSY cannot be killed. SUSY predictions can always be made to be exactly the same as the SM predictions for sufficiently decoupled superpartners.

    It is basically an Occams razor thing. In general, the community will assume everything is going according to the Standard Model plan until forced to concede otherwise. Next SUSY is the simplest (arguably) choice, so they will try to cram any observations into that framework. Only once SUSY really definitely cannot explain something will they turn to other ideas (although of course there are people working on other ideas all the time, I just mean those will not become mainstream until the previous mainstream ideas are really unworkable).
     
    Last edited: Nov 13, 2012
  10. Nov 13, 2012 #9
    Dorigo says
    The BBC's quote was
     
  11. Nov 13, 2012 #10

    bcrowell

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    But if SUSY doesn't exist at the electroweak unification scale, then it loses its theoretical motivation. Nobody would have proposed it if they had already known that it wasn't going to operate at the electroweak scale.
     
  12. Nov 13, 2012 #11

    Haelfix

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor

    That's not true at all. Supersymmetry is widely used in cosmological model building, for applications in Baryogenesis and Leptogenesis, as well as the theory of inflation. It serves many purposes as well in GUT model building.

    It also seems vital for quantum gravity for any number of theoretical reasons, many of which are general arguments involving black holes etc

    The reason it is still so popular in electroweak model building is precisely because there is a distinct lack of credible alternatives for so many pressing questions that really must be answered.

    So I agree with the poster above. It won't disappear as a credible idea unless some other new physics is observed or invented, that explains away all those problems in a simpler more elegant and natural fashion. Until that time, all that the LHC is doing is eating up parameter space.
     
  13. Nov 13, 2012 #12
    SUSY is not going anywhere as a theory in general. But if it is ruled out as a solution to the hierarchy problem then it loses the motivation for it to be at the EW scale.

    SUSY is very popular for many reasons. One of the major reasons is that it is within many physicists confort zones. I think it would be better for physics if the LHC finds something non-perturbative to push the community to understand strongly coupled theories.
     
  14. Nov 14, 2012 #13
    So it has no agreed on effect on supersymmetry, but it does strengthen the standard model?
     
  15. Nov 14, 2012 #14

    PAllen

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    That is how I would describe it.
     
Know someone interested in this topic? Share this thread via Reddit, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook




Similar Discussions: Cern: First evidence for the decay Bs → μ+μ−
  1. Baby Elephant - Cern (Replies: 14)

  2. Is there evidence of (Replies: 1)

  3. Is supersymetry dead? (Replies: 19)

Loading...