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 FORUM POSTS

Peter Jackson: "Judy, I think Richard was being 'tongue-in-cheek', but your description is..." in Classical Spheres,...

Akinbo Ojo: "Dear All, I submitted a paper to the CPEM 2014. Paper was not accepted. ..." in Q&A with David Rideout:...

Jason Wolfe: "The only reason the laws of physics even work is because they are imprinted..." in Ripping Apart Einstein

Judy Nabb: "Richard, Do please leave that straw alone and pay attention. You make me..." in Classical Spheres,...

Pentcho Valev: "The False Absolute of Relativity What Is Relativity?: An Intuitive..." in Ripping Apart Einstein

Gbenga Ogungbuyi: "Considering the ejaculation of great ideas generated from this forum, is it..." in How Should Humanity Steer...

Karl Coryat: "If you are talking about a creator within the universe/multiverse, then you..." in Reality's NeverEnding...


RECENT ARTICLES
click titles to read articles

Reality's NeverEnding Story
A quantum version of Darwinian natural selection could enable the universe to write itself into being.

The Quantum Dictionary
Mark Van Raamsdonk is re-writing how we define the shape of our universe. Can such translations help to unite quantum theory and gravity?

Q&A with Paul Davies: What is Time?
Where does time come from? Why does it seem to flow?

Quantum Computers Get Real
Fighting decoherence to scale up quantum technologies.

Q&A with David Rideout: Testing Reality in Space
Satellite experiments could soon investigate the boundaries of quantum physics and relativity.


FQXi BLOGS
April 24, 2014

CATEGORY: Blog [back]
TOPIC: Bad News for Supersymmetry? [refresh]
Bookmark and Share

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



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.