Is SO(10) SUSY GUT Falsifiable by LHC and Proton Decay Experiments?

  • Context: Graduate 
  • Thread starter Thread starter bananan
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Proton Susy
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the potential falsifiability of SO(10) supersymmetric grand unified theories (SUSY GUTs) through experiments related to proton decay and the Large Hadron Collider (LHC). Participants explore the implications of proton decay half-lives and superpartner mass predictions on the viability of SO(10) SUSY GUTs, as well as connections to other GUT models like E6SSM.

Discussion Character

  • Debate/contested
  • Exploratory
  • Technical explanation

Main Points Raised

  • Some participants suggest that SO(10) SUSY GUT predicts a proton half-life of 10^36 years and superpartner masses, such as the neutralino, within the range of 200-1000 GeV, which could be observable at the LHC.
  • Others propose that additional discrete R symmetries can circumvent proton decay limits, potentially affecting the falsifiability of GUT theories.
  • A participant notes that attempts to falsify GUT theories have led to significant discoveries, such as neutrino oscillation data.
  • There is a discussion about the relationship between different GUTs, particularly how the standard model relates to SU(5), SO(10), and E6 through Dynkin diagrams, with some participants seeking clarification on the operations involved in these transitions.
  • Concerns are raised about the complexity of evading proton decay bounds through various theoretical constructs, including nonminimal field content and higher order operators.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express differing views on the implications of proton decay experiments for SO(10) SUSY GUTs, with some asserting that it could be falsified while others believe it can be protected by theoretical modifications. The discussion remains unresolved regarding the overall viability of SO(10) SUSY GUT in light of current and future experimental data.

Contextual Notes

Participants reference specific theoretical models and papers, indicating a reliance on various assumptions and definitions that may not be universally accepted. The discussion includes unresolved mathematical steps and the complexity of the theoretical landscape surrounding GUTs.

bananan
Messages
173
Reaction score
0
Since non-SUSY GUT's are in danger of falsification by proton decay experiments, SUSY pushes up the half-lives of protons but even so,

GUT-SUSY SU(5) is falsified by proton decay experiments,

does SO(10) SUSY predict superpartner masses for LHC to see or observe (or alternatively, if LHC does not see superpartners at its energy scales at LHC) & proton decay half-life, how would this effect SO(10) SUSY GUT?

I heard it claimed that SO(10) SUSY GUT predicts proton half-life of 10^36 and superpartners such as the neutrilino around 200-1000GEV (within LHC luminosity) but are there any ARVIX papers to this effect?

Presumably, should experiments rule out SO(10) SUSY GUT, then string theory is pretty much ruled out as well.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
The funny thing here is, were not for the attemps to falsify GUT theories, we had not got the neutrino oscillation data.
 
Severian said:
I rather like the E6SSM which is a GUT based on E6: See http://arxiv.org/abs/hep-ph/0510419 and http://arxiv.org/abs/hep-ph/0511256

We got a nice lecture on E6 yesterday, and there is not need of string-inspiration except than the dimension 26+1 (call it bosonic M-theory if you wish) appears very naturally; it is also mentioned in this abstract. Lecturer protested about putting E4, E5, E6 in the same bag -very different things, it seems- and told that the best notation for the Dynkin diagrams was the one coming... from Bourbaki!
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Arrivero can you explain that please?

The usual neat observation with Dynkin diagrams is that the standard model --> SU(5) --> SO(10) --> E6 -->E7 --> E8 simply by performing the same truncation on the legs of the diagrams.

To go backwards from E6 to E5..., its a different trick/operation. Is this what your lecturer was talking about?

(And yes btw discrete R symmetries can and do evade proton decay bounds, even in SymSU(5) as does nonminimal field content and so forth as well as higher order operators.. A mess to figure out)
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 13 ·
Replies
13
Views
4K
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
2K
  • · Replies 16 ·
Replies
16
Views
4K
  • · Replies 13 ·
Replies
13
Views
4K
  • · Replies 17 ·
Replies
17
Views
6K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 34 ·
2
Replies
34
Views
5K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
4K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 28 ·
Replies
28
Views
5K