# Naturally Unnatural

1. Aug 4, 2013

### Jimmy84

I recently read the blog of Philip Gibbs, it seems to have some interesting arguments.

http://blog.vixra.org/2013/07/18/naturally-unnatural/

My question is what is the range of energies in which SUSY particles are predicted or expected to be found? can a 13 Tev range energy debunk Supersymmetry?

What do you think about that?

2. Aug 4, 2013

### phinds

I think that the funding for a 100TV collider is completely impossible in anything like the near term.

3. Aug 5, 2013

### tom.stoer

Is there a precise relation between energy scale and cost?

4. Aug 5, 2013

### phinds

I wouldn't know, but at 10X the power of the LHC, you've got to believe that the price tag would be WAY beyond anything that is politically acceptable to spend on something that unlikely to have any short term practical benefit.

5. Aug 5, 2013

### tom.stoer

I fully agree.

Nevertheless it would be interesting to know something like

$\text{cost}_\text{construction} = f(E)$

$\text{cost}_\text{operation} = g(E)$

6. Aug 5, 2013

### DimReg

f and g are also (mostly decreasing) functions of time, so I think that's a very difficult question to answer. You could approximate it by taking the cost of the LHC and dividing by 14 TeV, which (using wikipedia data, which only tells me total budget) gives you $4.4 billion / 14 TeV ~$300 Million / TeV. That doesn't include the cost of the experiments, but is the total projected cost for the collider itself. Per year, that's less than $30 Million/Tev Year. Compare that to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Northrop_Grumman_B-2_Spirit, which costs ~$700 Million per plane. For the total cost of that project, a 140 TeV (if f(E) is to be trusted at all) collider could have been constructed. By this I mean to point out that even though the LHC was expensive, its cost really wasn't that high on the scale of government expenditures. (Another costly USA military project for comparison https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/F-22_Raptor).

7. Aug 7, 2013

### Harry Wilson

Wasn't the SSC meant to be 40 TeV? I know that's less than half what's being asked, but I think it shows that the idea isn't that crazy. The LHC was built on top of preexisting facilities, so its energy was limited by old hardware which I suppose makes it difficult to compare to a hypothetical brand-new collider.