Is SUSY theory necessary at this point?

[MichaelMo]

Is SUSY theory "necessary" at this point?

I have a question:

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=beautiful-theory-collides

Based on the presumed energy state of the newly found Higgs Boson, is SUSY theory even necessary or beneficial in terms of explaining particle physics theory anymore? Apparently some of the "simplest" SUSY variations have already been eliminated. As I understand it, the Higgs was also found at an energy that may not even benefit very much from SUSY extensions. Is that actually the case?

 

[LBloom]

The Higgs was found at an energy that was ambiguous for SUSY. If its mass was lower it would almost certainly favor SUSY and SUSY would appear very natural. If it were much higher we could rule out SUSY as being unnatural. Its right in the middle and it could go either way right now.

SUSY is hardly necessary but its still beneficial. It's benefits are well known and include giving us dark matter candidates, stabilizing the Higgs at the weak scale (without susy the SM is terribly fine tuned or the Higgs is much heavier), and it gives gauge coupling unification. Besides that it makes some problems easier to work with in QFT

SUSY may or may not exist, we can't read nature's mind. The SUSY parameter space is large so it will take some time to search through it (not that all of it needs to be searched through!). Matt Strassler has had some good things to say on this. The most natural models have been ruled out, but there could still be SUSY particles below the TeV scale found. Just because we think a model is natural doesn't mean nature has to agree...

 

[marcus]

...
SUSY may or may not exist, we can't read nature's mind. The SUSY parameter space is large so it will take some time to search through it (not that all of it needs to be searched through!). Matt Strassler has had some good things to say on this. The most natural models have been ruled out, but there could still be SUSY particles below the TeV scale found. Just because we think a model is natural doesn't mean nature has to agree...

What you say makes a lot of sense to me. I've found Strassler's blog ("Of Particular Significance") helpful a number of times on various topics. If you have some definite posts of his in mind and provide links I for one would check them out.

Peter Woit gave some interesting background by quoting various prominent particle theorists' earlier statements on SUSY and their reactions to LHC news last year.
http://www.math.columbia.edu/~woit/wordpress/?p=3864 (July)
http://www.math.columbia.edu/~woit/wordpress/?p=3937 (August)
http://www.math.columbia.edu/~woit/wordpress/?p=4065 (October)

 

[MichaelMo]

Thank you both for your responses. I appreciate it.