Run 2 initial LHC @13 TEV Supersymmetry results null

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the implications of recent exclusions on supersymmetry (SUSY) models, particularly concerning gluino mass limits and their effects on the Higgs hierarchy problem. Participants explore various theoretical frameworks and the potential need for new physics in light of current experimental results from the LHC.

Discussion Character

  • Debate/contested
  • Exploratory
  • Technical explanation
  • Mathematical reasoning

Main Points Raised

  • Some participants inquire about the ramifications of excluding gluino masses up to 1.8 TeV on the Minimal Supersymmetric Standard Model (MSSM) and other SUSY-related theories.
  • Others argue that recent diphoton bumps may provide more significant insights than exclusion limits, suggesting they could align with a two Higgs doublet model.
  • A participant questions whether low-energy scale SUSY can still stabilize the Higgs given the exclusion limits, raising concerns about alternative mechanisms if SUSY fails to do so.
  • One participant expresses skepticism about the diphoton event indicating a new particle, suggesting that if current exclusions hold, it complicates the MSSM framework and may necessitate extensions like the nMSSM.
  • Another participant notes the existence of numerous theory papers emerging in response to the new findings, indicating active research in the field.
  • Some express disappointment over the lack of new discoveries in the latest LHC run, suggesting that a larger accelerator may be necessary to explore high-energy SUSY.
  • Concerns are raised about the inability to rediscover the Higgs boson, with some participants interpreting this as a hint towards the need for a more powerful particle accelerator.
  • A later reply emphasizes that the data collected at 13 TeV is still too limited to draw definitive conclusions about the Higgs boson or SUSY.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants generally express a lack of consensus regarding the implications of the current data on SUSY and the Higgs hierarchy. Multiple competing views remain, particularly concerning the significance of the diphoton bumps and the future of SUSY research.

Contextual Notes

Limitations include the small amount of data collected at 13 TeV, which some participants argue is insufficient for making strong claims about the existence of new particles or the validity of current models. There are also unresolved questions about the implications of the exclusion limits on various SUSY frameworks.

kodama
Messages
1,088
Reaction score
144
what are ramifications of exclusions on SUSY gluino mass 1.8 TEV to MSSM and other SUSY-SM and higgs hirearchy?
 
Last edited:
Physics news on Phys.org
i am wondering how exclusions affect hiearchy SUSY solution
 
The diphoton bumps are much more significant for assessing the situation than the exclusions. The new bumps are consistent with some sort of two Higgs doublet model including but not limited to SUSY, although it is somewhat unexpected from a SUSY perspective for an extra Higgs boson to be the lightest supersymmetric particle.
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: kodama
with Gluino masses excluded up to 1.8 Tev, can low-energy scale SUSY still stabilize the higgs ?

if SUSY does not stablize the Higgs what does?
 
If the diphoton event is indeed pointing to a bonafide new particle (and I am a little skeptical at this point), and we make the additional assumption that the current exclusions on other searches hold, then I think this is pointing to rather complicated new physics, at least if we insist on naturalness and other niceties of model building.

In particular its very hard make the MSSM (in the decoupling limit) work with this data. The existence of this particle would very likely (depending on how the measurement of the width holds up) nearly completely exclude most of its parameter space, and you would need to take extreme limits in order not to damage the existing known standard model like couplings for the regular Higgs. Likely one needs an extension of the MSSM to something like say the nMSSM to have enough model building wriggle room. Similarly its been pointed out to me that it is also difficult to make a Higgs doublet model work for very similar reasons.

Anyway, this is nonminimal enough that it's going to occupy the majority of theorists time for the next year while the experimental situation is worked out.
 
Or simply more data. Run 2 just started, with 4/fb the discovery potential is still quite small. If we don't find anything with 50-100/fb, things are more challenging.
 
  • #10
That we could not rediscover any Higgs Boson seems to me a hint.
In all other cases like W or Z Boson we could rediscover every time easily in new rounds with higher energy. In natural sciences we live from reproducing experiments to have a proof of existing a phenomen, we can describe. Here it seems we have the first time running after a ghost.
We will see, what the next rounds will tell. But I think that we have to build a much much bigger particle accelerator to find something in high energy scale. Then we can maybe take away sponatanous symmetrybreaking out of our model. And maybe we can find then an Axion without mass and then without symmetrybreaking and higgsmechanism. But I would guess, that we need then a minimum of 500 km accelerator
 
  • #11
MacRudi said:
That we could not rediscover any Higgs Boson seems to me a hint.

A hint of what exactly?

The amount of data collected at 13 TeV is too small. CMS' position is that it is so small that it's not worth looking at yet. ATLAS looked, and sure enough, CMS was right.
 
  • #12
I looked into the sky and I failed to rediscover Uranus today. I did see the Moon easily. Is Uranus still there? Well, I'm quite sure, but I would need binoculars or a telescope to see it.
A clear Higgs "re-discovery" in 2015 would have been inconsistent with previous measurements.
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: 1oldman2

Similar threads

  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
3K
  • · Replies 13 ·
Replies
13
Views
4K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
3K
  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
3K
  • · Replies 59 ·
2
Replies
59
Views
7K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
3K
  • · Replies 36 ·
2
Replies
36
Views
5K
  • · Replies 24 ·
Replies
24
Views
4K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
4K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
3K