Is MSSM Higgs the Key to Understanding the Universe?

[humanino]

Good morning everbody,

very good indeed. Well, tell me what you think :
http://dorigo.wordpress.com/2007/01/19/a-21-sigma-eccess-of-mssm-higgs

 

[vanesch]

160 GeV ? Mmm. Sounds not so super-symmetric

 

[jgraber]

See comments at Lubos Motl's blog for more on this story.
I'm far from an expert, but here's my take:
Bumps like this two sigma thing come and go all the time and mean nothing.
Most of the experts seem to expect a light Higgs,
but a heavy Higgs, eg near 175 Gev,
is predicted by split supersymmetry,
if I understand the experts correctly.

 

[Haelfix]

Split supersymmetry is junk and everyone knows it. It basically abandons any hope of solving the hierarchy problem or naturallness problems and goes with other aesthetic criteria. It explains nothing, and you can move the Higgs mass around a lot.

If they see a Higgs at 175 GeV, and nothing else, the favored models would still likely be a little less minimal SuSy offspring or something a little more contrived (add more degrees of freedom, crank crank crank). One of the nasty consequences is the little hierarchy problem tends to become much more severe and everyone will scramble for a solution to that.

 

[CarlB]

I think that if theory doesn't tell you where your bump is supposed to be, you should look be able to find it pretty much wherever and whenever you want to. If an experimentalists' charts don't have bumps then they don't have the gain turned up enough.

By the way, did you notice the url chosen? "21-sigma" would be a bit more than a bump.

[edit]It appears that D_0 is reporting a deficit where the other guys are reporting a bump.[/edit]

 

[Severian]

This was in a talk by John Conway a few weeks ago at Aspen:
http://www.physics.ucdavis.edu/~conway/talks/Conway-Aspen-2007.pdf

It is only a 2-sigma excess (actually 2.1 - you can't put the point in an url), so nothing to get exicited about, and (as someone already said) the excess is too heavy to be a susy higgs.