Search FQXi


If you are aware of an interesting new academic paper (that has been published in a peer-reviewed journal or has appeared on the arXiv), a conference talk (at an official professional scientific meeting), an external blog post (by a professional scientist) or a news item (in the mainstream news media), which you think might make an interesting topic for an FQXi blog post, then please contact us at forums@fqxi.org with a link to the original source and a sentence about why you think that the work is worthy of discussion. Please note that we receive many such suggestions and while we endeavour to respond to them, we may not be able to reply to all suggestions.

Please also note that we do not accept unsolicited posts and we cannot review, or open new threads for, unsolicited articles or papers. Requests to review or post such materials will not be answered. If you have your own novel physics theory or model, which you would like to post for further discussion among then FQXi community, then please add them directly to the "Alternative Models of Reality" thread, or to the "Alternative Models of Cosmology" thread. Thank you.

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

Joe Fisher: on 4/5/18 at 15:07pm UTC, wrote Dear Members of Cern, Irrefutable evidence exists that conclusively proves...

Terence Mallet: on 4/5/18 at 6:22am UTC, wrote Seems like the Standard Model is quite exciting. We can also conclude that...

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

Jim Snowdon: "Of course, the stars would, very slowly, move across the sky as the Earth..." in The Nature of Time

Georgina Woodward: ""The motion of the solar system, and the orientation of the plane of the..." in Why Time Might Not Be an...

Jim Snowdon: "On the permanently dark side of the Earth, the stars would appear to stay..." in The Nature of Time

Georgina Woodward: "Hi Jorma, some thoughts; You mention mutual EM connection. I think you..." in Why Time Might Not Be an...

Joe Fisher: "Dear Dr. Kuhn, Today’s Closer To Truth Facebook page contained this..." in Can Time Be Saved From...

Joe Fisher: "Dear Dr. Kuhn, Today’s Closer To Truth Facebook page contained this..." in Can Time Be Saved From...

akash hasan: "Some students have an interest in researching and space exploration. I..." in Announcing Physics of the...

Michael Jordan: "Excellent site. Plenty of helpful information here. I am sending it to some..." in Review of "Foundations of...


RECENT ARTICLES
click titles to read articles

Can Time Be Saved From Physics?
Philosophers, physicists and neuroscientists discuss how our sense of time’s flow might arise through our interactions with external stimuli—despite suggestions from Einstein's relativity that our perception of the passage of time is an illusion.

Thermo-Demonics
A devilish new framework of thermodynamics that focuses on how we observe information could help illuminate our understanding of probability and rewrite quantum theory.

Gravity's Residue
An unusual approach to unifying the laws of physics could solve Hawking's black-hole information paradox—and its predicted gravitational "memory effect" could be picked up by LIGO.

Could Mind Forge the Universe?
Objective reality, and the laws of physics themselves, emerge from our observations, according to a new framework that turns what we think of as fundamental on its head.

Dissolving Quantum Paradoxes
The impossibility of building a perfect clock could help explain away microscale weirdness.


FQXi BLOGS
May 27, 2019

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.

Bookmark and Share
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

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


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

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Terence Mallet wrote on Apr. 5, 2018 @ 06:22 GMT
Seems like the Standard Model is quite exciting. We can also conclude that the fractional-rational methods considered in one of the Updates (and on the official website section CERN results) deal with one-step methods of solving ordinary differential equations, since for the calculation of the value of a function at the next point, information is obtained only for one preceding point.

Used methods:

- numerical methods of algebra;

- numerical methods of analysis;

- numerical methods for solving ordinary differential equations;

- numerical methods for solving differential equations with partial derivatives;

- numerical methods of mathematical statistics;

- mathematical programming.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Joe Fisher wrote on Apr. 5, 2018 @ 15:07 GMT
Dear Members of Cern,

Irrefutable evidence exists that conclusively proves that the earth had a real VISIBLE surface for millions of regular Gregorian calendar years before y’all decided to conduct your finite LHCb experiment at CERN that recently announced results that put the theory of (finite invisible) Supersymmetry into ever growing doubt.

It logically follows that Nature must have designed the only REAL VISIBLE structure of the real planet earth, and the real VISIBLE Universe the real VISIBLE earth am contained in, obtainable.

The real Universe consists only of one real single unified VISIBLE infinite surface eternally occurring in one single infinite dimension that am always mostly illuminated by finite non-surface light.

Joe Fisher, ORCID ID 0000-0003-3988-8687. Unaffiliated

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Login or create account to post reply or comment.

Please enter your e-mail address:
Note: Joining the FQXi mailing list does not give you a login account or constitute membership in the organization.