Search FQXi


If you have an idea for a blog post or a new forum thread, then please contact us at forums@fqxi.org, with a summary of the topic and its source (e.g., an academic paper, conference talk, external blog post or news item).
Forum Home
Introduction
Terms of Use

Order posts by:
 chronological order
 most recent first

Posts by the blogger are highlighted in orange; posts by FQXi Members are highlighted in blue.

By using the FQXi Forum, you acknowledge reading and agree to abide by the Terms of Use

 RSS feed | RSS help
RECENT POSTS IN THIS TOPIC

Jamahl Peavey: on 1/14/13 at 18:40pm UTC, wrote Interesting

Fred Diether: on 11/22/12 at 20:01pm UTC, wrote Hi Ben, Yep, every year that passes SUSY loses more and more ground. ...

Ben Still: on 11/21/12 at 21:17pm UTC, wrote The LHCb experiment at CERN recently announced results that put the theory...


RECENT FORUM POSTS

Anonymous: "In science, it is fairly predictable that most major advances will not be..." in How risky is too risky?...

Lorraine Ford: "Rob, There is NO “process that causes . . . consciousness”, where..." in Measuring Consciousness...

Lorraine Ford: "Rob, Stefan, You, and physicists, and most other people who contribute..." in Measuring Consciousness...

Anthony Aguirre: "Rob & Lorraine, That's exactly why I chose that terminology -- because..." in How risky is too risky?...

Pentcho Valev: ""The rumour is that it's a whopping big signal, in other words, it's..." in LIGO to Make a...

Steve Dufourny: "I see a member when we write Fqxi on LinkedIn,apparently there is a..." in LIGO to Make a...

Nicholas I Hosein: "In the past couple months I've witnessed God a number of times. He is the..." in The Quantum Reality...


RECENT ARTICLES
click titles to read articles

The Quantum Reality Paradox
How the search for God’s limits led to the discovery of quantum contextuality—a weird phenomenon that could provide the 'magic' needed for super-fast computing.

Quantum Cybernetics
The quest for a meta-theory of quantum control that could one day explain physical systems, certain biological phenomena—and maybe even politics.

Video Article: Solar-System-Sized Experiment to Put Time to the Test
Is quantum theory or relativity right about the nature of time? Bouncing radar beams off the moons of Jupiter just might help sort things out.

Conjuring a Neutron Star from a Nanowire
Using tiny mechanical devices to create accelerations equivalent to 100 million times the Earth’s gravitational field—mimicking the arena of quantum gravity in the lab.

Inferring the Limits on Reality (that Even the Gods Must Obey)
The fuzziness of the quantum realm could arise from mathematical restrictions on what can ever be known.


FQXi BLOGS
February 13, 2016

CATEGORY: Blog [back]
TOPIC: Bad News for Supersymmetry? [refresh]
Bookmark and Share
Login or create account to post reply or comment.

Blogger Ben Still wrote on Nov. 21, 2012 @ 21:17 GMT
The LHCb experiment at CERN recently announced results that put the theory of Supersymmetry into ever growing doubt.

Our current picture of the Universe at the smallest scale is wrapped up in the mathematics of the Standard Model of particle physics, with 12 building blocks (6 quarks and 6 leptons), four force carrying particles and the Higgs boson (see image, right). It can be used to predict the ways in which the twelve building blocks of Nature interact through the exchange of the four force carrying particles. Then there is the Higgs boson, which gives mass to all of these particles. It is known that this model isn’t the final word in our understanding of Nature and there are a number of theories which try to answer the questions the Standard Model can’t.

Supersymmetry is the poster boy of these “new physics” theories. In brief it states that every building block and force carrying particle has a supersymmetric partner called a sparticle. These sparticles have not been seen yet because they are believed to have a large mass, so you need large energies to create them because, as Einstein told us, E=mc2. It is hoped that the record-breaking energies of the Large Hadron Collider (LHC) will be enough to create sparticles and confirm that supersymmetry can go from theory to fact.

The LHCb experiment is designed to look for rare decay of heavy particles called B-mesons. B-mesons are pairs of quarks and anti-quarks where at least one is a bottom quark. The latest results are interested in the decay of Bs mesons; an anti-beauty and a strange quark. The result published by the experiment last week talks about the rare decay where a Bs forms a two particles called Muons (μ).

Following the rules of the Standard Model there are a limited number of ways in which a Bs can decay into two Muons; we can draw these as Feynman diagrams (image right). When the numbers are plugged into the maths it is calculated that if we have just the standard model routes available, those in black, then a decay of Bs -> μμ should happen about 3 times for every billion deaths of a Bs. If, however, supersymmetry were to exist then this number would be higher because with sparticles (marked in red/green) around there are more routes to take to get from a Bs to two Muons.

The result published by LHCb shows a high level of agreement with the standard model result of 3 parts per billion. This suggests it is unlikely that there are “new physics” routes to get from a Bs to two. This could be because LHCb have been unlucky and through nothing but pure chance seen fewer Bs -> μμ than it should have; more time and data will be the test of this. Another possible reason for the result is the current 8TeV energy of the LHC machine is not high enough to create sparticles; the good news here is the LHC will be increasing its energy to around 13TeV in 2014. Or it could be that supersymmetry is not the right route to explaining the shortcomings of the Standard Model. Either way supersymmetry still remains a theory and the standard model stands strong but time and energy may yet change all that.

--

Ben Still is a particle physicist at Queen Mary, University of London, UK.

this post has been edited by the author since its original submission

report post as inappropriate


Fred Diether wrote on Nov. 22, 2012 @ 20:01 GMT
Hi Ben,

Yep, every year that passes SUSY loses more and more ground. IMHO, a nice theory Nature choose not to do. If we take the viewpoint that the quantum "vacuum" is a relativistic medium of fermionic pairs, then all elementary gauge bosons are merely "wavicles" of the medium. So there can't be any kind of supersymmetry between fermions and bosons. For a different perspective see my essay.

Best,

Fred

report post as inappropriate


Jamahl A. Peavey wrote on Jan. 14, 2013 @ 18:40 GMT
Interesting

report post as inappropriate


Login or create account to post reply or comment.

Please enter your e-mail address:

And select the letter between 'P' and 'R':


Note: Joining the FQXi mailing list does not give you a login account or constitute membership in the organization.