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

A LHC - absence of supersymmetric particles

  1. Jun 22, 2017 #21

    Vanadium 50

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Education Advisor

    I looked it up. This is the eighteenth time you have brought this up. Eighteen.
     
  2. Jun 22, 2017 #22

    mfb

    User Avatar
    2016 Award

    Staff: Mentor

  3. Jun 22, 2017 #23

    Vanadium 50

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Education Advisor

    Now we know, given mfb's link. They make multiple predictions, sometimes with a wide range: 150 +/- 24 GeV.
     
  4. Jun 22, 2017 #24
    is there a hierarchy problem in S&W theory, one that does not use SUSY
     
  5. Jun 23, 2017 #25

    Vanadium 50

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Education Advisor

    No idea. You're the one who keeps pushing this paper. Maybe you should read it.
     
  6. Jun 23, 2017 #26
    In my opinion that paper absolutely deserves attention (and it has over 200 citations), and I say that even though I favor string theory. I also have to say that the prediction which predicted the Higgs mass was narrow and based on simple hypotheses (asymptotic safety of gravity, a desert above the Fermi scale, a positive gravitational contribution to the anomalous dimension of the Higgs quartic coupling).

    Anyway, I have created a thread specifically for the question of whether and how the hierarchy problem exists for this theory.
     
    Last edited: Jun 23, 2017
  7. Jun 23, 2017 #27
    which other predictions do you think are also worth serious considerations?

    to narrow the field, they get close to 126 GEV value with a range range is plus or minus 6 GEV and have not been ruled out or consistent with other known facts with current LHC data set
     
  8. Jun 27, 2017 #28

    ohwilleke

    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    See, for example:

    Belle Collaboration, "Lepton-Flavor-Dependent Angular Analysis of B→K∗ℓ+ℓ−" (December 15, 2016).

    See also a recent review pre-print on the subject https://arxiv.org/abs/1706.07808

    A number of more recent results have cast doubt on these anomalies, however. Such as https://arxiv.org/abs/1705.05802.

    The branching fraction and effective lifetime of B0(s)→μ+μ− at LHCb with Run 1 and Run 2 data Mick Mulder, for the LHCb Collaboration (Submitted on 9 May 2017)

    <Moderator's note: Some links have been removed in accordance to our rules and policy.>
     
    Last edited by a moderator: Jun 27, 2017
  9. Jun 27, 2017 #29
    Was there a theoretical reason to have expected B0 decays to be in excess? I am at (or beyond) the limits of my understanding for this, but isn't the starting mass of the B0 the determining factor for the predicted decays?
     
  10. Jun 27, 2017 #30

    mfb

    User Avatar
    2016 Award

    Staff: Mentor

    Excess relative to the SM prediction? Various BSM models change the rate relative to the SM, and typically they lead to a larger rate.
    What do you mean by "starting mass"?
     
  11. Jun 28, 2017 #31
    From what I gather, the "universality" of the three varieties of leptons is the real problem here. They are lumped together as a single type of entity when they each have their own composition and therefore variances in the mass each type starts out with. To expect them to all decay similarly seems quite curious. You can fire three bullets of different masses from the same rifle but you certainly would not expect all three to land at exactly the same location downrange. The "violations" would seem to be inherent due to the false assumption that they were all the same in the beginning.
     
  12. Jun 28, 2017 #32

    mfb

    User Avatar
    2016 Award

    Staff: Mentor

    That doesn't make any sense.
     
Know someone interested in this topic? Share this thread via Reddit, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook

Have something to add?
Draft saved Draft deleted



Similar Discussions: LHC - absence of supersymmetric particles
Loading...