## Sunday, June 03, 2012 ... //

### Bobby Acharya's talk in Stony Brook

This is a somewhat technical talk that Bobby Acharya gave in Stony Brook 5-6 weeks ago.

Talk via Flash player, MP4 file direct link (75 minutes)
The talk is about his generic string/M models with Gordy Kane and others.

Bobby is not only a full-fledged and stellar formal string theorist and a full-fledged ATLAS experimenter but also a smooth speaker who may make you love the imperial English accent and – as the initial frame of the video above shows – an Olympic sprinter who likes to train in the Long Island classrooms.

In the talk - one of many talks at the recent string phenomenology workshop – he clearly defines the assumption and strategy of their approach to make generic predictions of string theory and discusses the high-energy physics of those models as well as their observable cosmological and collider consequences.

The gluino could be near a TeV, producing spectacular four-top i.e. 12-particle events (all of which have a high energy), the Fermi 130 GeV line could be due to the 145 GeV wino, the WIMP miracle must be made non-thermal. The most surprising thing for me that Bobby decided – based on the M-theoretical evidence in particular – is that the slow-roll=new inflation, while a great model, is a crap theory. I would like to see how he or they explain the flatness and other things without inflation. I see, he says that: he wants to resurrect the old inflation (Guth's supercooled model – before Linde et al. – which needed tunneling and collisions and didn't reheat properly unless there were bubble collisions but they seemed rare).

Thanks to a guest of San Francisco.

#### snail feedback (3) :

Is this the paper you are talking about: http://arxiv.org/abs/1204.2795 ?

reader Luboš Motl said...

Hi, the paper you linked to is a review which means that it presents results that were originally found in other, earlier papers. These authors have written many partially overlapping papers. But morally speaking Yes, this is one of them and a representative one.

reader Dimension10 (Abhimanyu PS) said...

I see, that explains the strange structure of the paper. I didn't notice the "Invited Review for Intrenational Journal of Modern Physics A". : )

(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','//www.google-analytics.com/analytics.js','ga'); ga('create', 'UA-1828728-1', 'auto'); ga('send', 'pageview');