Saturday, April 02, 2005 ... Deutsch/Español/Related posts from blogosphere

Supersplit supersymmetry

This paper by eight phenomenologists

is well done. You have to read the abstract - or the paper - quite carefully to become sure that it is an April fool's day hoax. Alternatively, you must know that some of the 8 authors are known to dislike supersymmetry.

What do these guys do? They take the models of split supersymmetry and improve it a little bit so that all remaining superpartners are sent to the Planck scale. This solves about 15 different problems of SUSY breaking - such as the gaugino decay problem, the flavor changing neutral currents, and so on. :-) The resulting model may resemble a model by Glashow, Salam, Weinberg at low (sub-Planckian) energies, but their motivation was not quite correct, the present authors say.

I think that such form of criticism is healthy, and despite my belief that SUSY is beautiful, realistic, and worth considering, I sympathize with many points of their paper. Let's hope that Nima and Savas won't be too upset. ;-) Let's also emphasize that the supersplit supersymmetry fails to reproduce some successes of split (and other) supersymmetry - at least one of them, namely the gauge coupling unification.

Add to Digg this Add to reddit

snail feedback (8) :

reader Quantoken said...

Lubos, that's a good one. I never realized that it was a paper specifically written for April Fools day, until after I read your above comments.

No, that's NOT because I did not realize it was a joke. I DO fully realize the paper was a joke at first glanz. So when some one on Peter's blog refered the paper as a joke, I agreed and did not think more. The problem is I did NOT realize that the authors were MEANT to make a joke, which is a bit un-usual, instead of the more common cases where the authors thought they published something serious but it was just jokes.

Seriously, it's no longer april 1st, the sad fact is 99% of publications on ARXIV these days are all jokes. So it is sometimes hard to determine whether the author intend to make a joke, or are they un-intentionally making themselves a joke.


reader Quantoken said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

reader Quantoken said...


Want to comment on recent discovery of a extra-solar planet by direct photon detection?

First confirmed picture of a planet beyond the solar system

It is also reported on CNN, too Astronomers capture photo of extrasolar planet

How many people are skeptical about this discovery?


reader Anonymous said...

Quantoken's word unification: "glanz" stands equally well for glance as for glands. The latter in turn may be the core of the problem. A hyperactive thyroid gland can cause strange behaviour and psychiatric problems, like Quantoken's. So please, Quantoken, go to a doctor and have hime have a glanz at your glanz, will you!?

reader Anonymous said...

If he spells "glance" as "glanz", it mostly likely means he has an accent. "glance" is pronounced with an 's', not a 'z'.

reader Anonymous said...

This reminds me of a favorite model building tactic:

1. Come up with a model which gives rise to an MSSM or SM spectrum at low energies.

2. Tweak the field content and/or parameters of the model so that new physics only occurs at high enough energy scales.

3. Compute the phenomenological constraints. A low proton decay lifetime? Tweak, tweak, tweak. A doublet-triplet splitting problem? Tweak, tweak, tweak. Too large a CKM mixing angle? Tweak, tweak, tweak. Monoples and cosmic strings? Oh, they'll be inflated away; don't worry.

4. In most models, there is often a region in parameter space which satisfies these constraints. It corresponds to the case where the model looks like MSSM/SM up to some arbitrarily high scale, and that scale can always be pushed higher if needed.

5. So, having satisfied the constraints, write up yet a paper.

reader torbjorn said...

Are these models a 'tweak category' (or is it too late for April's Fooling around? :-)?

reader Anonymous said...

Gauge coupling strength unification is no big deal especially when we don't even have any evidence for Grand Unification (what a silly name). Even if there is Grand Unification, who knows about threshold effects? And besides, with the orbifold theories all in rage nowadays, we can always add a brane localized term to "correct" for (oops, did I say correct? I meant "fit") any mismatches.

(function(i,s,o,g,r,a,m){i['GoogleAnalyticsObject']=r;i[r]=i[r]||function(){ (i[r].q=i[r].q||[]).push(arguments)},i[r].l=1*new Date();a=s.createElement(o), m=s.getElementsByTagName(o)[0];a.async=1;a.src=g;m.parentNode.insertBefore(a,m) })(window,document,'script','//','ga'); ga('create', 'UA-1828728-1', 'auto'); ga('send', 'pageview');