http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/guest-blog/2011/08/23/a-higgs-setback-did-stephen-hawking-just-win-the-most-outrageous-bet-in-physics-history/

the tevatron had some significant event at around 140gev, earlier this year, but I have no idea if it’s a z-prime or higgs or what, so to see the LHC exclude events above 145gev sounds correct for the higgs to exist. There’s some sort of standard model prediction for the higgs at 142.

I’m trying to make head or tail of this paper by alves, izaguirre and wacker, “Higgs, Binos and Gluinos Split Susy within reach”  http://www.phygg.com/phygg/story.php?title=higgs-binos-and-gluinos-split-susy-within-reach-arxiv1108-3390v1-hep-ph

The best sentence by the way in the alves paper is this one: “. . .if this excess continues to hold, then it gives strong evidence against natural low scale supersymmetry . . . models with high scale supersymmetry breaking and high scale R-symmetry breaking dubbed “Supersplit Supersymmetry” predict heavy gauginos and higgsinos and thus the low energy spectrum consists solely of the standard model.”

Supersplit supersymmetry was invented in 2005 as an April Fool’s joke as a parody of a theory which didn’t predict anything new.  What a joke it will be on us if it turns out that in fact . . . the actual basis of physics the world and everything is indeed super split susy after all.

Here’s the wiki for a split susy

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Split_supersymmetry

Particles are called the gluino, the wino the bino and higgsino, cute names.

But if this theory is true then we should see some long lived gluinos already like with a lifetime seconds long, but nothing yet, so I dunno.

The string theories (and all the supersymmetric theories) have all these exotic particles and predictions none of which have shown up. Long live the standard model, the string theory is now unofficially dead.

But I would be surprised if any theory about modern physics is correct to be honest. Maybe we are looking in the wrong place?

btw, the main objection to split susy as I see it is there are problems of naturalness, anthropic principles and also a hierarchy problem.

Right now the only way to interpret these results is to ignore the mainstream press results and go read your copy of “The Standard Model and Beyond” by Langacker and interpret the resarch papers yourself. Or wait until one of the researchers involved in this writes something a lay person can understand. Aczel from the sci american is not a physicist but a mathematician so I dont think he understands anything.

It’s an exciting time right now for particle physics.

— Eric

Advertisements