### First rumors about super partners in LHC

Lubos reports the first rumors from LHC concerning super-partners. The estimates for the masses are 200 GeV for scalar super partner (higgsino) and 160 GeV for fermion superpartner (I guess selectron). Being an incurable optimist I suppose that the rumors from LHC are more trustworthy than the physics blog rumors usually. If so, can one understand these masses in TGD framework and what can one conclude about them? Also this posting has been replaced with a new one since I finally ended up with the understaning of how the TGD based variant of gauge boson massivation could explain how gauge bosons get their longitudinal components and how the ratio of W and Z masses could result in this framework in terms of weak string picture.

Consider first the theoretical background in light p-adic mass calculations, the weak form of electric-magnetic duality, and TGD based view about supersymmetry.

- The simplest possibility is that the p-adic length scale of the super-partner differs from that of partner but the p-adic thermodynamical contributions to the mass squared obey the same formula.
- If the p-adic prime p≈ 2
^{k}of super-partner is smaller than M_{89}=2^{89}-1, the weak length scale must be scaled down and M_{61}=2^{89}-1 is the next Mersenne prime. Scaled up variant of QCD for M_{89}would naturally correspond to M_{61}weak physics and would have hadronic string tension about 2^{18}GeV^{2}by scaling the ordinary hadronic string tension of about 1 GeV^{2}. This scaled up variant of hadronic physics is an old prediction of TGD. As noticed, also weak string tension could have the same value. Quite generally, the pairs of weak and hadronic scales predicted to form a hierarchy could correspond to pairs of subsequent (possibly Gaussian) Mersenne primes. - What happens for k=89? Can the particle topologically condense at the same p-adic scale that characterizes its weak flux tube? Or should one assume that the p-adic prime corresponds to k< 89 assuming that the particle has standard weak interactions. If so then the superpartners of light fermions would have k< 89. This is a strong prediction if superpartners obey the same mass formula as particles. In the case of weak gluinos and
also QCD gluinos the bound would be k≤ 89 and even stronger bound would be k=89 so that the masses of
wino and zino would be same as W and Z.
One must be however very cautious with this kind of arguments since one is dealing with quantum theory. For instance, quarks inside proton have masses in 10 MeV scale and their Compton lengths are much larger than the Compton size of proton and even atomic nucleus. The interpretation is that for the corresponding space-time sheets is in terms of the color magnetic body of quark. These large space-time sheets are essential in the model of the Lamb shift anomaly of muonic hydrogen.

- In TGD framework Higgs and its pseudo-scalar companion define electroweak triplet and singlet and Higgs could be eaten completely by electro-weak gauge bosons if the TGD based mechanism of massivation is correct. The condition of exact Yangian symmetry demands the cancellation of IR divergences requiring a small mass for all gauge bosons and graviton. The twistorially natural assumption that gauge bosons are bound states of massless fermion and antifermion implies that the three-momenta of fermion and antifermion are in opposite directions so that all gauge bosons -even photon- and graviton would be massive. Super-symmetry strongly suggests that gauginos eat Higgsinos as they become massive so that only massive gauge bosons and gauginos and possible pseudoscalar Higgs and its superpartner would remain to be discovered at LHC. Similar mechanism can indeed work also in the case of gluons expected to have colored scalar counterparts. Gluon would be massless below the scale corresponding to QCD Λ and massive above this scale.

What does this picture give when compared with the rumors about super-partners of fermion and scalar. If selectron corresponds to the not necessarily allowed M_{89}=2^{89}-1, and obeys otherwise the same mass formula as electron, the mass should be 250 GeV, which is too large. For k=88 which is the smallest value allowed by the above argument, one would obtain 177 GeV not far from 160 GeV. Therefore the interpretation as selectron could make sense.
In the case of super-partner of scalar one can consider several options.

- The first observation is that 200 GeV mass does not satisfy the proposed upper bound k> 89 for higgsinos and gauginos suggested by the condition that the weak string cannot have p-adic length scale longer than the p-adic length scale at which the particle condensed topologically. Hence neither higgsino nor longitudinal polarization of gaugino can be in question.
- If one gives up the upper bound m
_{Z}=91.2 GeV on mass but takes the twistorially motivated and mathematically beautiful horror scenario for LHC seriously, the 200 GeV particle can only correspond to a longitudinal polarization of Zino or photino.

- If photonic Higgs is not eaten by photon, one would obtain k(Higgs)= k(Higgsino)+n. n=1,2,3 would give Higgs mass equal to (141,100, 71) GeV for m(Higgsino)= 200 GeV. On basis of experimental data mildly suggesting that neutral Higgs appears in two mass scales I have considered the possibility that Higgs indeed appears at two p-adic length scales corresponding to about 130 GeV and 92 GeV related by square root of two factor. 130 GeV would give m(Higgsino)= 184 GeV: I dare guess that this is consistent with the estimate 200 GeV.
- For W and Z
^{0}Higgsinos the mass mass would be p-adically scaled up variant of W or Z^{0}mass and for Z^{0}mass about 91.2 GeV Z^{0}Higgsino mass would be 182.4 GeV for n=2. For W Higgsino the mass would be around 160.8 GeV.

^{0}-gluino to be 131 GeV (just at the upper bound allowed kinematically), 45.6 GeV, and 91.2 GeV (Z

^{0}mass) respectively. The masses are consistent with the bounds predicted by the MSSM inspired model. Selectron mass would be by a factor factor 2

^{-1/2}smaller than 177 GeV and presumably consistent with the 160 GeV rumor. Higgsino mass would be one half of Z

^{0}mass and would satisfy the proposed constraint k< 89. Z

^{0}gluino mass would be equal to Z

^{0}mass also in accordance with the proposed constraint. W gluino is predicted to have same mass as W. In the case of photino the upper bound to the mass would be given by weak boson mass scale. Could it be that the life would be so simple? Could these predictions make it easy to discover super partners at LHC? Well-informed reader might be able to answer these questions.

For background see the new section of p-Adic Mass Calculations: New Physics.

## 13 Comments:

http://www2.warwick.ac.uk/fac/sci/physics/research/epp/seminars/steveking.pdf

Looks interesting.

Perhaps I dare say that the details of Higgs mechanism are now finally understood. Weak strings provided the manner to understand how weak bosons eat the Higgs particles to their longitudinal polarizations.

The surprise was that there are strong twistor motivated arguments in favor of massivation of also photon and other massless particles. Masses would be extremely small. This would however mean that Higgs and its colored variants disappear completely from the spectrum and LHC could find only pseudoscalar counterpart of Higgs and super-parterns of Higgs particles.

If I am right the nightmare of 40 years with Higgs potentials would be over. Also the desperate game with horribly uggly Higgs potentials of inflationary scenario would belong to the horrors of past. The entire GUT philosophy which is also essential for QFT limits of super string models would break down and we could start to do theoretical physics again;-).

Do I hear "historian siipien havinaa"?

Matti,

Very interesting theories here. Lubos suggests even if the Higgs is discovered the effects could not be but infered- surely you expect a more detailed mechanism.

I do not understand what you mean by k=89 here. (I mean something in my lack of education so I ask). I would however imagine it had a very intimate relation to symmetry breaking as the 11th Fibonacci number.

ThePeSla

Olet varmaan kuullut nuo siivet monesti jo :)

The whole GUT theory would break down? That would be a catastrophy, only pieces left...

I just have to 'put it on print' :)

From Lubos blog: John Ellis, the 2nd most cited high-energy physicist, who thinks it would be healthy for physics if the experiments showed that the Higgs boson were just like the luminiferous aether and the physicists have been idiots for 40 years once again:

Pesla,

I have got too accustomed to p-adic length scale hypothesis. p-Adic mass calculations lead to p-adic length scale hypothesis. Particles are characterized by p-adic length scale L_p=sqrt(p)*R, p prime and R the radius of CP_2 of order 10^4 Planck lengths. p-Adic length scale is of order Compton length and characterizes the size of the space-time sheet at which particle topologically condenses.

Physically preferred primes correspond to p= about 2^k, k integer. Mersenne primes p= M_k = 2^k-1,

k also prime but not any prime, are especially preferred ones. For instance, electrion corresponds to M_127, the largest Mersenne which does not correspond to completely super-astrophysical p-adic length scale. Also Gaussian Mersennes (1+i)^k-1 are expected to be very preferred.

Electron, muon, and tau correspond to M_127, Gaussian M_113, and M_107. Hadronic space-time sheets to M_107 and weak gauge bosons to M_89. This inspires the hypothesis that all Mersennes are physically important and that one has a hierarchy of fractally scaled up copies of weak and hadronic physics. In living matter this hierarchy would show up itself in the richest manner since as many as 4 Gaussian Mersennes are in the length scale range 5 nm-2.5 micrometers.

To Ulla,

Higgs is predicted also by TGD but it might really happen that Higgs belongs also the dietary of photon so that nothing would remain to be discovered at LHC. Of course, pseudoscalar companion of Higgs and superpartners of this and of Higgs would remain and rumors suggest that the Higgsino might has bee observed.

What is new is completely new view about Higgs mechanism. No Mexican hats anymore. This means that practially all of the literature written about particle massivation during last 4 decades would go down to the drain. The fate of GUts should have been clear for long time ago. The difficulties in understanding proton mass ratio for instance: in TGD framework new view about QCD color resolves this problem and predicts that quark and lepton numbers are separately conserved. Higgs mechanism is just a parametrization of experimental data about fermion masses (not forgetting its victories: mechanism for how gauge bosons get the additional polarization and the W/Z mass ratio). The absence of experimental support for the extension of standard model gauge group. The fruitless work with inflationary scenarios based on extremely artificial Higgs potentials. All this should have put bells ringing.

Theoretical particle physics has been plagued by extreme conformism and sticking to fashion during last 40 years. Situation was made even worse by super string model revolution leading to the illusion that particle physics is just cheap low energy phenomenology having only marginal interest: that M-theory is not able to make a single prediction at LHC is the outcome of this arrogant attitude.

I hope that the comments of Ellis could make it easier to accept the idea about the return to the roots. Of course, instead of time travel of 40 decades one might consider accepting TGD based view about particle massivation. Easier technically but psychologically extremely difficult for anyone in Harward or CERN.

I must laugh at you. Maybe the time travel is easier :) Maybe things are different after one more decade. Maybe...

There are several things I have difficulties understanding: the assumed inherent symmetry (GUT) that in my opinion is only one half, Heisenberg, Pauli and the superpositions, QCD and its nonperturbative transformations, the Feynmans - especially the top-bottom oscillations with so big difference in mass ...

And there was light...

Maybe you understood me wrong? I laughed in a very good way :) You made my day good. I have a tendency to choose bad words.

Another thing that you maybe have done (almost) right. Look at Keas blog.

http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/1009/1009.5870v1.pdf

Possible Capture of keV Sterile Neutrino Dark Matter on Radioactive beta-decaying Nuclei.

There exists an observed “desert” spanning six orders of magnitude between O(0.5) eV and O(0.5) MeV in the fermion mass spectrum. We argue that it might accommodate one or more keV sterile neutrinos as a natural candidate for warm dark matter(=Life) with extremely long lifetime.

we simply assume that there is one keV sterile neutrino v4 and its flavor eigenstate vs weakly mixes with three active neutrinos. We clarify different active-sterile neutrino mixing factors for the radiative decay of v4 and decays in a self-consistent parametrization.

We carry out an analysis of its signatures in the capture reactions ve+ 3H → 3He+e− and ve+ 106Ru → 106Rh+e− against the beta -decay backgrounds,

You talked of exotic bosons as seen f ex. in the Na, K ions in the nerve pulse (the Josephson conduction/solenoid).

Well, Kea holds my comment, so I put it here for you. I think this what she has and Carl found is something beautiful, but I also think everything isn't just as she says. I don't know if it is technicolor or not.

http://arxiv.org/abs/0808.3283 However, recent work by Barrow and Shaw [12, 13] provides an example of a type of theory in which the Sun could affect both the alpha- and beta-decay rates of terrestrial nuclei. In their theory, the Sun produces a scalar field which would modulate the terrestrial value of the electromagnetic fine structure constant EM. This could, among other effects, lead to a seasonal variation in alpha and beta decay rates. separate scalar fields 1 and 2 couple, respectively, to EM and to the electron-proton mass ratio me/mp. Another interesting possibility is that terrestrial radioactive nuclei are interacting in a novel way with the neutrino flux emitted from the interior of the Sun. This flux also varies with 1/R^2, and the resulting seasonal modulation of the neutrino flux has been observed by Super- Kamiokande [16, 17].

http://arxiv.org/abs/1007.3318 the decay- rate data exhibit frequencies that appear to be related not only to the Sun-Earth distance, but also to solar rotation. (measured count rates)Apart from periodicities due to the solar cycle and to solar rotation, there is one more well known periodicity in solar data. This is the Rieger periodicity discovered in 1984. an r-mode oscillation.

whether a similar oscillation occurs in (or perhaps near) the solar core, indicate that such an oscillation occurs in the solar core, influencing the solar neutrino flux and thereby influencing certain nuclear decay-rates.

The other ones you have. I know somewhat similiar links has been discussed earlier. This is quite fantastic, it prooves you are right :)

Are you too angry? I should go and draw something old and ugly over me.

I could go hibernating maybe? It is so cold here in Finland. Brrr.

This could be the clue also to zero energy ontology. Z_0. If compared to condensed matter physics and Meissner effect?

This could even be a clue to Life. At least to the 'antenna'.

My ethernal monologue...

I made some 'advertisements' on http://www.galaxyzooforum.org/index.php?topic=272147.msg504472#msg504472

Comment if you want. About scalings. This Dm description is interesting.

There has also been new results about the snowball Earth.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/03/100304142228.htm

I have tried to figure out about the asymptotic degrees of freedom a la Toms, Wilczek & Robinson etc.

http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/hep-th/pdf/0509/0509050v2.pdf

We calculate the contribution of graviton exchange to the running of gauge couplings at lowest nontrivial order in perturbation theory. Including this contribution in a theory that features coupling constant unification does not upset this unification,

but rather shifts the unification scale.Whenextrapolated formally, the gravitational correction renders all gauge couplings asymptotically free.

This would allow/require a changing Plancks constant? Also the thesis of Veneziano http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/physics/pdf/0110/0110060v3.pdf Could explain that change? Planck constant has wrongly been regarded a fundamental unit.

http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/1005/1005.1488v1.pdf

"Non-perturbative QEG Corrections

to the Yang-Mills Beta Function"

We discuss the non-perturbative renormalization group evolution of the gauge coupling constant by using a truncated form of the functional flow equation for the effective average action of the Yang-Mills–gravity system.

Lubos did not at all like this trunctation. What is your wiev of it?

Also the wormholes/fluxtubes in TGD and the asymptotic vanishing of degrees, that I asked before.

Beyond the lightcone there is no field? It is unphysical? Like heaven :)

I have seen a chance to show the Planck constant hierarchy, but please tell me your wiev.

Post a Comment

<< Home