Thursday, October 13, 2011

Does shadronization explain the failure to discover SUSY?

In the earlier posting I proposed an explanation of the weird X and Y mesons believed to consist of ccbar pairs in terms of bound states of either color excited c and cbar or corresponding squarks. It is necessary to assume that dark matter in TGD sense is in quesetion so that hbar does not have the standard value. The mathematical structure of these models is apart from minor details exactly the same and at least moment I cannot decide which of them I should prefer.

If dark squarks are in question, the prediction would be that quarks and squarks have the same p-adic mass scale, perhaps even identical masses! This sounds completely non-sensical but could make sense if one believes the arguments of the article Do X and Y mesons provide evidence for color excited quarks or squarks?.

The point is that the usual view about how SUSY manifests itself experimentally could be manifestly wrong. It could quite well be that a strong process which might be called shadronization takes place much faster the the decay of squarks and gluinos to quarks and gluinos and electroweak gauginos (selectro-weak process). Shadrons would in turn decay to ordinary hadrons by gluino exchange. One could also speak about R-parity confinement. No neutralinos (which in TGD framework would correspond to neutrinos) would be produced so that the missing energy and jets would not serve as a signature of SUSY. This would explain why no sign of SUSY was found at LHC nor in all the earlier experiments at low energies. X and Y mesons -actually smesons- would however provide a direct signature of SUSY discovered already 8 years ago!

This picture would lead to a completely new view about detection of squarks and gluinos.

  1. In the standard scenario the basic processes are production of squark and gluino pair. The creation of squark-antisquark pair is followed by the decay of squark (anti-squark) to quark (antiquark) and neutralino or chargino. If R-parity is conserved, the decay chain eventually gives rise to at least two hadron jets and lightest neutralinos identifiable as missing energy. Gluinos in turn decay to quark and anti-squark (squark and antiquark) and squark (anti-squark) in turn to quark (anti-quark) and neutralino or chargino. At least four hadron jets and missing energy is produced. In TGD framework neutralinos would decay eventually to zinos or photinos and right-handed neutrino transforming to ordinary neutrino (R-parity is not conserved). This process might be however slow.

  2. In the recent case quite different scenario relying on color confinement and "shadronization" suggests itself. By definition smesons consist of squarks and antisquark. Sbaryons could consist of two squarks containing right-handed neutrino and its antineutrino ( N=2 SUSY) and one quark and thus have same quantum numbers as baryon.

    Also now dark squark or gluino pair would be produced at the first step. These would shadronize. One can indeed argue that the required emisson of winos and zinos and photinos is too slow a process as compared to shadronization. Shadrons (mostly smesons) would in turn decay to hadrons by the exchange of gluinos between squarks. No neutralinos (missing energy) would be produced. This would explain the failure to detect squarks and gluinos at LHC.

    This mechanism does not however apply to sleptons so that it seems that the p-adic mass scale of sleptons must be much higher for sleptons than that for squarks as I have indeed proposed.

The identification of X and Y as smesons looks like a viable option and M89 shadronization could explains the failure to find SUSY at LHC if shadronization is a fast process as compared to the selectro-weak decays. M89 squarks need not however be dark since intermediate gauge boson decay widths pose not constraints. The option certainly deserves an experimental testing. One could learn a lot about SUSY in TGD sense (or maybe in some other sense!) by just carefully scanning the existing data at lower energies. For instance, one could try to answer the following questions by analyzing the already existing experimental data.

  1. Are X and Y type mesons indeed in 1-1 correspondence with charmonium states? One could develop numerical models allowing to predict the precise masses of scharmonium states and their decay rates to various final states and test the predictions experimentally.

  2. Do bbarb mesons have smesonic counterparts with the same mass scale? What about Bc type smesons containing two heavy squarks?

  3. Do the mesons containing one heavy quark and one light quark have smesonic counterparts? My light-hearted guess that this is not the case is based on the assumption that the general mass scale of the mass squared matrix is defined by the p-adic mass scale of the heavy quark and the non-diagonal elements are proportional to the color coupling strength at p-adic length scale associated with the light quark and therefore very large: as a consequence the second mass eigenstate would be tachyonic.

  4. What implications the strong mixing of light mesons and smesons would have for CP breaking? CP breaking amplitudes would be superpositions of diagrams representing CP breaking for mesons resp. smesons. Could the presence of smesonic contributions perhaps shed light on the poorly understood aspects of CP breaking?

For details and background see the article Do X and Y mesons provide evidence for color excited quarks or squarks? and the chapter The Recent Status of Leptohadron Hypothesis of "p-Adic Length Scale Hypothesis and Dark Matter Hierarchy".

16 Comments:

At 9:22 AM, Blogger Stephen Crowley said...

Any ideas on how the LHC detectors could be upgraded to detect them?

 
At 7:47 PM, Anonymous matpitka@luukku.com said...

No new technology is required. If X and Y are smesons, they have been detected for 8 years ago!
Just the careful scanning of old data could help enormously.

For instance, one should check whether charmonium states and X and Y type states are indeed in 1-1 correspondence. One should develop details models and check whether the predictions for the masses and decay rates of X:s and Y:s are correct.

If the p-adic mass scales of squarks are same as those of squarks, also bbar type smesons should be there. One should try to discover the counterparts of X and Y mesons for them. Much of this would be low energy physics from LHC point of view: just boring botany;-).


For this option an open question is whether smesons containing one heavy squark are there or not. My proposal (the first that comes in mind) is that large mixing of meson and smeson induced by gluino exchange makes the second mass eigen state tachyonic and it disappears from the spectrum.

It must be added that standard view about SUSY predicts that the masses of squark families are inverted as compared to quark families: stop and sbottom are the lightest and su an sd the heaviest. I do not believe this option but it would predict that ttbar type smeson is the lightest one, lighter than X and Y mesons. uubar and ddbar type mesons should be the heaviest ones. Of course also this option deserves testing.

In any case, the basic message (sadly, for empty lecture hall) is that the entire vision about the signatures of SUSY could be completely wrong and explain the failure to find squarks and gluinos and that we already might have direct experimental evidence for this.

 
At 8:00 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

 
At 8:35 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

 
At 8:52 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

 
At 9:25 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

 
At 9:30 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

GEOMETRODYNAMICS?
This blog fucks itself.
GEOLOGIE.
METTETAL.
KARL ROVE.
DI YOUNG.
NATALIE.
MICK JAGGER.
COLORADO SENATORS.
And they got a" COPHYBA"?
For Seals, FF, Rock and Stars?
Double fucked.

 
At 9:36 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

It's all about Guy- Meese- Dassault.
And their ho is Utah with MP.
And their Lears have a ton of DNA with Logbooks.
Nevada- Oklahoma- Washington-
That's with BERRIRO - COULTER.
They got the PRUSHIP- Vermont.
And those senators, all mob , are with Oliver North.
They are the Sky Dolls with Disney and Barbara Canepa.
Mafia pedophiles .
All Aryans hiding their crimes through dynamite.
Who does it belong to?
CONDOLEZZA RICE.
Better known as " HATEFACE".

 
At 9:37 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Dassault....he 's into the SA government.
SS animals.
" New Violence".

 
At 9:41 PM, Anonymous matpitka@luukku.com said...

As the reader can see, a massive blog terror has begun. Just yesterday I told about very strange "Access denied" censorship in Science2.0.

The unavoidable breaktrough of TGD is making some of us totally mad. The comments are utter nonsense and meant to be just a nuisance.

Still I find it l difficult to believe that search for truth can create such hatred in some people. It seems that evil is something very very real.

No one has paid a single coin for me for the work of 33 years. I have worked all these years 7 days a week and paid a hard price for this devotion. I am suffering from serious problems with heart, which can be seen as a natural consequence of this. Of course, the extremely brutal treatment by power holders of science during years could literally kill anyone without an extremely strong motivation to survive.

So why so deep hatred? Do these people behind various forms of terror really believe that terror can prevent the victory of truth?

As you see, while I wrote this comment, our mad friend managed to send three nonsense emails! He is really mad.

 
At 9:55 PM, Blogger Ulla said...

Maybe he has smoked something really bad?

Who are moderators behind Science 2.0? Hank is known, but there are others anon. I asked if maybe Lubos is one of them? No answer. Just a group, was told me. A very bad policy to write science anon. Other blogwriters had to go from there just because of this. See how long Sascha is there. He has began to think by himself?

Science 2.0 is just a shield?

 
At 10:03 PM, Blogger Stephen Crowley said...

Very interesting. I wish I knew enough to be able to create scans thru the data. Are only official members of the projects allowed to see the data, or is there some more public access? I'm aware the datasets are huge. Hang in there.. don't let these lunatics get to you. Perhaps you can disable anonymous comments? In the past I have had people utter very strange comments regarding the heart and act very nervous as if they are concealing information around me and some were under the impression there was some "secret military operation" as a cause of it.. someone even went so far as to mention turing machines and the halting problem in relation to the heart to me in an attempt to "beat around the bush" about phenomena they noticed but were too freaked out to talk about directly. Enough of this talk...I hope your health begins to recover from this point onwards.

 
At 10:04 PM, Blogger Ulla said...

Note too that Lubos has said very little on vixra lately. He said Phil should think about his policy.

The last battle has started? When these kinds of tricks are used it signal weakness, loss. And they can never silence the search for truth. That's what science is about, religion on the other hand is dogma. This is more about religion than science?

 
At 11:14 PM, Anonymous matpitka@luukku.com said...

The purpose of this spam is obvious: to prevent both my work and the communication of the results of my work to web.

The results during last weeks are indeed so strong that the last battle might have started.

We must remember that the professors who have deprived my academic human rights during these years cannot hide anywhere if TGD makes breakthrough. These jerks were absolutely certain that I would not be wrong - and if not, some NAME would steal my work. They could not predict the discovery of web. They of course believed that no one would bother to study what has happened for a crackpot during these years.

I feel no need for a revenge but the situation has got so terrible that there is no other option than to talk
straight. My sincere hope is that particle physics community could manage to handle the situation before it becomes a public scandal.

 
At 3:33 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

http://www.spiritofmaat.com/messages/oct28/hopi.htm :

"This could be a good time!

There is a river flowing now very fast. It is so great and swift that there are those who will be afraid. They will try to hold on to the shore. They will feel they are being torn apart, and they will suffer greatly.

Know the river has its destination. The elders say we must let go of the shore, push off into the middle of the river, keep our eyes open, and our heads above the water. See who is in there with you and celebrate.

At this time in history, we are to take nothing personally. Least of all, ourselves. For the moment that we do, our spiritual growth and journey comes to a halt.

The time of the lone wolf is over. Gather yourselves!

Banish the word struggle from your attitude and your vocabulary.

All that we do now must be done in a sacred manner and in celebration.

We are the ones we've been waiting for."

—The Elders Oraibi
Arizona Hopi Nation

 
At 10:48 PM, Blogger Ulla said...

Sascha Vonghr (right?) is in difficulties. Koelman also rejects him. I bet it is the policy of Science 2.0 editors that are behind.

http://www.science20.com/hammock_physicist/einstein_steroids_dirac_higgs_and_speeding_neutrinos-83856

claim: (This "zig-zag model" is no more than the old light clock argumentation. It cannot be a fundamentally light-velocity-causal model because the cause for turning zig into zag cannot be Einstein local. In fact, this zig-zag (before it was called such) is why others argue for emergent relativity from an ether, which would allow faster than light particles.

Heresy! Heresy! Like in medevial times? Should this sort of opinion be allowed in modern time? No!

But they are so tolerant!

 

Post a Comment

<< Home