The Standard Model (SM) of particle physics is one of the greatest human achievements. Yet, we all know that SM is incomplete, as it lacks a proven “mass rising” mechanism for elementary particles and a way of contacting to gravity. Thus, Supersymmetry arose as a theory goes beyond the Standard Model.
Yet, data released from LHC this summer have ruled out some key models of Supersymmetry. Thus, many Supersymmetry theorists were scrambling for finding a Lifeline for Supersymmetry. The recent report (about two weeks ago) from CMS on “Multileptonic SUSY searches, at least three leptons is presented” (http://cdsweb.cern.ch/record/1393719 ), which observed a very small excess of the tri-lepton events, was viewed as such a lifeline for Supersymmetry. However, many prominent physicists disagreed.
Peter Woit (a theorist) wrote in his blog,
“You may have seen by now claims from various sources about evidence for SUSY coming from CMS, for instance, Hints of New Physics Crop Up at LHC, A Lifeline for Supersymmetry?, and CMS sees SUSY-like trilepton excesses. This nonsense is all due to …, who for some reason thought it was a good idea to post a blog entry
“ Something Curious at the Large Hadron Collider”
that starts off:
“Finally, something at the Large Hadron Collider (LHC) that does not seem to agree that well with the predictions of the equations of the Standard Model of particle physics.”
followed by various caveats, which include the advice:
“But this is clearly something to watch closely over the coming months.”
As one could easily have predicted, this got picked up by the media and various blogs, mostly dropping the caveats. In a later more detailed posting, Matt carefully three times in italicized red explains that ‘The excess will probably disappear’.”
Luboš Motl wrote in his blog, “Even if this signal grew and became a discovery, it wouldn't prove that R-parity-violating supersymmetric physics is the cause: there could be other explanations as well although theorists would probably believe that the R-parity-violating SUSY would be the most likely explanation.”
Tommaso Dorigo (an experimental particle physicist) wrote, “Since Supersymmetry is not a physics model but an infinite set of physics models, …
And since the SUSY parameter space has over 100 dimensions, it is utterly impossible to compare your data to all of these hypotheses one by one. What ATLAS does -in line with the other experiments- is to select a subset of the theories, which can be specified by the value of much fewer parameters. In the so-called "mSUGRA model", for instance, you need to specify no more than five of them. Further, choose two among the most relevant ones -be it the mass of scalars and fermions at the grand-unification scale- and you can construct a two-dimensional plot, each point of which is a different theory.”
Although many physicists above are not in favor of the interpretation of the above CMS data as a new lifeline for Supersymmetry, science, after all, is not an opinion poll. We should give some concrete reasons for why SUSY is a very bad idea.
As our Universe is a result of a symmetry breaking, there must be a symmetry before that breaking act. Thus, the yearning for a supersymmetry is correct. But, the point is that what this supersymmetry was. The current Supersymmetry model(s) construct a symmetry by giving all known elementary particles a symmetry partner, and this is a very bad idea as it creates a too cumbersome universe. Let me explain this with one analogy.
For a circle (a disk), it is a good symmetry. This disk symmetry is broken if a chunk of disk’s edge is broken off. And, this broken chunk is the symmetry partner of this broken disk. From this simple symmetry breaking process, two issues arise.
One, can we find the broken chunk by searching the broken disk? Everyone knows the answer. Of course, we cannot. Then, how can we find the symmetry partner of this Universe in this Universe? Can the dance of LHC go out of this Universe to find its symmetry partner? Of course, it cannot. Thus, even if those Supersymmetry models were not wrong, there is no chance to find the symmetry partner of this Universe in this Universe.
Two, if the only way for our Universe came into being is by a symmetry breaking, it should choose the easiest way to do it. Instead of breaking out a big chunk, it is enough for just breaking a “point”. When a “point” was broken off from the circumference of the above disk, that symmetry was broken. There is no symmetry breaking process which can be easier and more economical than this one. If our Universe could come into being with this “one point” symmetry breaking process, why should it bother with all those s-particles?
In fact, this “one-point” symmetry breaking process is the foundation for “Super Unified Theory”. The detail of this “one-point” symmetry breaking process was described in the article “The Rise of Gravity and Electric Charge” (http://www.prequark.org/Gravity.htm ).
With the reasons above, I will predict that all Supersymmetry models will be ruled out eventually, sooner or later.
Tienzen (Jeh-Tween) Gong
Fictitious Universe physics (http://prebabel.blogspot.com/2011/10/super-unified-theory-via-new.html )
The book “Super Unified Theory” (ISBN 0-916713-02-4, Copyright # TX 1-323-231, Library of Congress Catalog Card Number 84-90325)