No SUSY at ICHEP, Limits on gluino masses now up 1.9 TeV

[kodama]

pdf link here
https://indico.cern.ch/event/432527...Miller_ICHEP2016_AllHadronicSUSY_4Aug2016.pdf

Given that they found no SUSY gluinos squarks with this years data set of 18-19 fb-1 + 2-4 fb-1 from last year what are the prospects for natural SUSY at LHC? since they have not found any hints of SUSY in the first 20+ fb-1, @ 13TEV what are the propsects for SUSY as LHC hopes to accumulate 3000 fb-1what are the implications for MSSM and nMSSM of all the null results thus far, including also LUX dark matter searches and rare b decays and electron EDM ACME.

it appears based on the combination of the above results that natural SUSY is strongly disfavored, does this mean what stabilizes the Higgs is conformal invariance?

i.e 4 BSM explanations for hierarchy problem
1 SUSY 2 technicolor 3 extra dimensions 4 conformal invariance

LHC found no evidence for 1-3 so
4 conformal invariance.

 

[ohwilleke]

pdf link here
https://indico.cern.ch/event/432527...Miller_ICHEP2016_AllHadronicSUSY_4Aug2016.pdf

Given that they found no SUSY gluinos squarks with this years data set of 18-19 fb-1 + 2-4 fb-1 from last year what are the prospects for natural SUSY at LHC? since they have not found any hints of SUSY in the first 20+ fb-1, @ 13TEV what are the propsects for SUSY as LHC hopes to accumulate 3000 fb-1what are the implications for MSSM and nMSSM of all the null results thus far, including also LUX dark matter searches and rare b decays and electron EDM ACME.

it appears based on the combination of the above results that natural SUSY is strongly disfavored, does this mean what stabilizes the Higgs is conformal invariance?

i.e 4 BSM explanations for hierarchy problem
1 SUSY 2 technicolor 3 extra dimensions 4 conformal invariance

LHC found no evidence for 1-3 so
4 conformal invariance.

I'm still holding out for 5 "none of the above".

 

[kodama]

I'm still holding out for 5 "none of the above".

what is your 5?

 

[ohwilleke]

Nothing in particular, just something else that might be out there already or might not yet be formulated.

 

[kodama]

Nothing in particular, just something else that might be out there already or might not yet be formulated.

what do you think of the latest LHC results on SUSY, and in combination with other results like LUX PandaX etc?

 

[ohwilleke]

SUSY's prospects are ever more bleak and less well motivated.

 

[kodama]

SUSY's prospects are ever more bleak and less well motivated.

The data analysis was 12.9 fb-1. how many fb-1 does LHC atlas cms need to accumulate to make a definitive statement?

 

[ohwilleke]

The LHC (as some supersymmetry advocates has long noted) is incapable of ever ruling out all versions of SUSY. It can only increase the mass scales at which SUSY sparticles and other parameters are excluded. LHC can probably eventually push those exclusions to the mid-single digit TeV range. But, it probably can't push those exclusions very far (if at all) into the double digit TeV range. This certainly is enough to exclude "natural" SUSY scenarios, but not all SUSY scenarios.

 

[mfb]

Black hole searches and other gravity-related things are probably the only direct searches that can go beyond 10 TeV (edit: with the LHC). Everything else is too rare with the combination of proton PDFs and hard process.

 

[fresh_42]

Black hole searches and other gravity-related things are probably the only direct searches that can go beyond 10 TeV. Everything else is too rare with the combination of proton PDFs and hard process.

Don't the Chinese dream of 100 TeV?

 

[mfb]

A 100 TeV concept is studied by CERN, and would probably use the LHC (with modifications) as preaccelerator. Not before 2040, if it gets funded at all.

The Chinese aim at a lower energy, something like 50-70 TeV. Timescale: 2035+ if it gets funded at all.

My previous post was about the LHC, with 13-14 TeV collision energy.

 

[kodama]

The LHC (as some supersymmetry advocates has long noted) is incapable of ever ruling out all versions of SUSY. It can only increase the mass scales at which SUSY sparticles and other parameters are excluded. LHC can probably eventually push those exclusions to the mid-single digit TeV range. But, it probably can't push those exclusions very far (if at all) into the double digit TeV range. This certainly is enough to exclude "natural" SUSY scenarios, but not all SUSY scenarios.

when i said susy natural susy. which if ruled out by lhc, and nothing new is found, what accounts for the hierarchy problem which susy was supposed to address.

current bounds from electron edm would suggest a mass scale for susy, it exists at all, much above 100TEV+

 

[kodama]

A 100 TeV concept is studied by CERN, and would probably use the LHC (with modifications) as preaccelerator. Not before 2040, if it gets funded at all.

The Chinese aim at a lower energy, something like 50-70 TeV. Timescale: 2035+ if it gets funded at all.

My previous post was about the LHC, with 13-14 TeV collision energy.

International Linear Collider

there is proposed International Linear Collider

 

[mfb]

Yes, but that is an electron/positron collider, with an energy of at most 1 TeV. It won't find particles (directly) that are too heavy for the LHC, and it will certainly not produce particles heavier than 10 TeV.

 

[kodama]

Yes, but that is an electron/positron collider, with an energy of at most 1 TeV. It won't find particles (directly) that are too heavy for the LHC, and it will certainly not produce particles heavier than 10 TeV.

the popular news says that the chinese pp collider will be 7 times the energy of lhc around 100tev

 

[mfb]

How is that related to the post you quoted?
I already mentioned the Chinese collider concept as one that would surpass the LHC energy. The energy is planned to be 50-70 TeV: Source. I don't know which "popular news" you read, but 50-70 is not 7 times 13 or 14. And they give 2042+ as timescale for proton-proton collisions.

The 100 TeV concept is one studied by CERN, with CERN as most likely site for its construction.

 

[kodama]

How is that related to the post you quoted?
I already mentioned the Chinese collider concept as one that would surpass the LHC energy. The energy is planned to be 50-70 TeV: Source. I don't know which "popular news" you read, but 50-70 is not 7 times 13 or 14. And they give 2042+ as timescale for proton-proton collisions.

The 100 TeV concept is one studied by CERN, with CERN as most likely site for its construction.

an example of a news article

http://www.digitaltrends.com/cool-tech/china-particle-collider/

Not one to be outdone by the West, China is reportedly preparing to build a super-sized particle collider that’ll dwarf the existing Large Hadron Collider operated by CERN. Chinese scientists will use its proposed Circular Electron Positron Collider (CEPC) to study Higgs boson particles, with the goal of learning more about the so called “God Particle” and possibly dark matter, which makes up most of the universe.

The CEPC collider will measure between 50 and 100 kilometers (31 to 60 miles) in circumference, which is significantly larger than the LHC, which measures just 27 kilometers (about 17 miles) around. It will generate seven times the energy of the LHC, allowing scientists to potentially create millions of Higgs boson particles in a single go.Read more: http://www.digitaltrends.com/cool-tech/china-particle-collider/#ixzz4GlClhHNf
Follow us: @digitaltrends on Twitter | digitaltrendsftw on Facebook

 

[mfb]

Well, now you have to decide which source to trust:

- the scientists planning the thing (see my link)
- someone with a background in microbiology, Adobe Flash and Macromedia Director, writing about "god particles", getting the number of Higgs bosons wrong by 6 orders of magnitude in one instance and 4 orders of magnitude (but in the opposite direction) one sentence later, mixing the energies of the proposed proton-proton collisions with the electron-positron operation, and so on.

 

[kodama]

is a proton-proton collider with an unprecedented center-of-mass energy of 50 – 70 TeV worth several billion dollars to build, over 14 TEV for LHC? if you're going to spend tens of billions of dollars on a proton-proton collider shouldn't the improvement be an order of magnitude over 14 TEV?

 

[mfb]

is a proton-proton collider with an unprecedented center-of-mass energy of 50 – 70 TeV worth several billion dollars to build, over 14 TEV for LHC?

That is something the funding agencies have to decide.
An order of magnitude is an arbitrary goal, there is nothing special about the number 10. Tunnels are expensive and mass-production improvements don't get much better after some point, so for these large colliders costs will go up faster than the square root of the energy which was a good approximation for earlier accelerators.

It is not just energy, a higher luminosity and better detectors help as well.

 

[kodama]

That is something the funding agencies have to decide.
An order of magnitude is an arbitrary goal, there is nothing special about the number 10. Tunnels are expensive and mass-production improvements don't get much better after some point, so for these large colliders costs will go up faster than the square root of the energy which was a good approximation for earlier accelerators.

It is not just energy, a higher luminosity and better detectors help as well.

if SUSY does not show up at 14 TEV, after collecting 3000 fb-1, what are the prospects SUSY or new physics will show up at 50 – 70 TeV? and if no new physics shows up at 50 – 70 TeV, is there much of a need for an even more powerful collider?

 

[mfb]

There could be particles too heavy to find with 14 TeV but within the range of a 50-70 TeV collider. There could also be particles which would need even more powerful colliders. We don't know - that is the whole point of building the colliders and experiments in the first place.
SUSY becomes less natural the higher the particle masses get.

 

[kodama]

if the Chinese build this ep then pp collider, would there be any need to spend money upgrading the LHC to HE LHC or building a new hadron collider at CERN ? it seems they will both do the same thing at similar energies.

 

[mfb]

No one here has a crystal ball... and it will also depend on what the LHC finds in the next 20 years, it will depend on whether the ILC gets funded and not, and whatever.

 

[nikkkom]

Colliders and supersymmetry are not the only way.

I understand that supersymmetry is nice and many physicists had hoped it will be found, solving several problems in the theory.

But if this is not to be, there are other directions to look into.

On experimental side:
Dark matter particle still needs to be detected and its properties investigated.
CKM and PMNS matrix values need to be measured much better than they are today.
Neutrino masses need to be measured.
Heavy particles' masses measurements need much improvement.

In theory:
Neutrino masses need explaining. Are they Majorana? Or are there right-handed neutrinos?
Measured masses show several relations: Koide relation, M(fermions) ~= M(bosons) ~= 1/2 Higgs VEV. If they won't be disproved by more precise measurements, this needs explaining. IIUC not a lot of thinking was done yet into this (partly because Higgs boson mass was not known until very recently).