Friday, February 04, 2011

Good bye large extra dimensions and MSSM

New results giving strong constraints on large extra dimensions and on the parameters of minimally supersymmetric standard model (MSSM) have come from LHC and one might say that both larger extra dimensions and MSSM are experimentally excluded.

The problems of MSSM

According to the article The fine-tuning price of the early LHC by A. Strumia the results from LHC reduce the parameter space of MSSM dramatically. Recall that the king idea of MSSM is that the presence of super partners tends to cancel the loop corrections from ordinary particles giving to Higgs mass much larger correction that the mass itself. Unfortunately, the experimental lower bounds on masses of superpartners are so high and the upper bound on Higgs mass so low that the superpartners cannot give rise to large enough compensating corrections. The means need for fine-tuning even in MSSM known as little hierarchy problem.

Also the article Search for supersymmetry using final states with onelepton, jets, and missing transverse momentum with the ATLAS detector in s1/2 = 7 TeV pp collisions by ATLAS collaboration at LHC poses strong limits on the parameters of MSSM implying that the mass of gluino is above 700 GeV in the case that gluino mass is same as that of squark. The essential assumption is that R-parity is an exact symmetry so that the lightest superpartner is stable. The signature of SUSY is indeed missing energy resulting in the decay chain beginning with the decay of gluino to chargino and quark pair followed by the decay of chargino to W boson and neutralino representing missing energy.

A theorists with a modest amount of aesthetic sense would have made the unavoidable conclusions long time ago but the fight of theory against facts has continued. Maybe some corner of the parameter might give what one wants?! This has been the hope. The results from LHC however do not leave much about this dream. One must try something else.

The difficulties of large extra dimensions

One example of this something else are large extra dimensions implying massive graviton, which could provide a new mechanism for massivation based on the idea that massive particle in Minkowski space are massless particles in higher dimensional space (also essential element of TGD). This could perhaps the little hierachy problem if the mass of Kaluza-Klein graviton is in TeV range.

The article LHC bounds on large extra dimensions by A. Strumia and collaborators poses very strong constraints on large extra dimensions and mass and effective coupling constant parameter of massive graviton. Kaluza-Klein graviton would appear in exchange diagrams and loop diagrams for 2-jet production and could become visible in higher energy proton-proton collisions at LHC. KK graviton would be also produced as invisible KK-graviton energy in proton-proton collisions. The general conclusion from data gathered hitherto shrinks dramatically the allowed parameter space for the KK-graviton. I must say that for me the idea of large dimensions is so ugly that the results are not astonishing. Aether hypothesis was a beauty compared with this beast.

Could TGD approach save super-symmetry?

What is left? Should we follow the example of landscapeologists and just accept anthropic principle giving up all attempts to understand electroweak symmetry breaking?

Not at all! In TGD framework -which of course represents bad theoretical physics from the point of view of hegemony- the situation is not at all so desolate. Due to the differences between the induced spinor structure and ordinary spinors, Higgs corresponds to SU(2) triplet and singlet in TGD framework rather than complex doublet. The recent view about particles as bound states of massless wormhole throats forced by twistorial considerations and emergence of physical particles as bound states of wormhole contacts carrying fermion number and vibrational degrees of freedom strongly suggests- I do not quite dare to say "implies"- that also photon and gluons become massive and eat their Higgs partners to get longitudinal polarization they need. No Higgs- no fine tuning of Higgs mass- no hierarchy problems.

Note that super-symmetry is not given up in TGD but differs in many essential respects from that of MSSM. In particular, super-symmetry breaking and breaking of R-parity are automatically present from the beginning and relate very closely to the massivation. Therefore neutralino is unstable against decay to neutrino-antineutrino pair if the mass of the neutralino is larger than twice the mass of neutrino. The decay of the neutralino must also take place with high enough rate. The rate is determined by the rate with which right handed neutrino transforms to a left handed one. The rate is dictated by the mixing of M4 and CP2 gamma matrices.

  1. If the gamma matrices were induced gamma matrices, the mixing would be large by the light-likeness of wormhole throats carrying the quantum numbers. Induced gamma matrices are however excluded by internal consistency requiring modified gamma matrices obtained as contractions of canonical momentum densities with imbedding space gamma matrices. Induced gamma matrices would require the replacement of Kähler action with 4-volume and this is unphysical option.

  2. In the interior Kähler action defines the canonical momentum densities and near wormhole throats the mixing is large: one should note that the condition that the modified gamma matrices multiplied by square root of metric determinant must be finite. One should show that the weak form of electric-magnetic duality guarantees this: it could even imply the vanishing of the limiting values of these quantities with the interpretation that the space-time surfaces becomes the analog of Abelian instanton with Minkowski signature having vanishing energy momentum tensor near the wormhole throats. If this is the case, Euclidian and Minkowskian regions of space-time surface could provide dual descriptions of physics in terms of generalized Feynman diagrams and fields.

  3. At wormhole throats Abelian Chern-Simons-Kähler action with the constraint term guaranteeing the weak form of electric-magnetic duality defines the modified gamma matrices. Without the constraint term Chern-Simons gammas would involve only CP2 gamma matrices and no mixing of M4 chiralities would occur. The constraint term transforming TGD from topological QFT to almost topological QFT by bringing in M4 part to the modified gamma matrices however induces a mixing proportional to Lagrange multiplier. It is difficult to say anything precise about the strength of the constraint force density but one expect that the mixing is large since it is also large in the nearby interior.

If the mixing of the modified gamma matrices is indeed large, the transformation of the right-handed neutrino to its left handed companion should take place rapidly. If this is the case, the decay signatures of spartners are dramatically changed as will be found and the bounds on the masses of squarks and gluinos derived for MSSM do not apply in TGD framework.

In TGD framework p-adic length scale hypothesis (see this and this) allows to predict the masses of sleptons and squarks modulo scaling by a powers 21/2 determined by the p-adic length scale by using information coming from CKM mixing induced by topological mixing of particle families in TGD framework.

  1. If one assumes that the mass scale of SUSY corresponds to Mersenne prime M89 assigned with intermediate gauge bosons one obtains unique predictions for the various masses apart from uncertainties due to the mixing of quarks and neutrinos.

  2. In first order the p-adic mass formulas reads as

    mF=(nF/5)1/2 2(127-kF)/2me ,

    nL= (5,14,65), nν= (4,24,64) , nU=(5,6,58), nD=(4,6,59).

    Here kF is the integer characterizing p-adic mass scale of fermion via p≈ 2kF. The values of kF are not listed here since they are not needed now. Note that electroweak symmetry breaking distinguish U and D type fermions is very small when one uses p-adic length scale as unit.

    By assuming kF=89 for super-partners one obtains in good approximation (the first calculation contained erranous scaling factor)

    msL/GeV = (262, 439, 945) ,

    m/GeV = (235, 423, 938) ,

    msU/GeV = (262, 287, 893) ,

    msD/GeV = (235, 287, 900) .

  3. The simplest possibility is that also electroweak gauginos are characterized by k=89 and have same masses as W and Z in good approximation. Therefore sW could be the lightest super-symmetric particle and could be observed directly if the neutrino mixing is not too fast and allowing the decay sW+ν. Also gluinos could be characterized by M89 and have mass of order intermediate gauge boson mass. For this option to be discussed below the decay scenario of MSSM changes considerably. Also Higgsino (note that entire Higgs would be eaten by the massivation of all electroweak gauge bosons in the simpleset scenario) could be produced in the decay and would naturally have electroweak mass scale.

  4. It should be noticed that the single strange event reported 1995 (see the previous posting) gave for the mass of selectron the estimate 131 GeV which corresponds to M91 instead of M89. This event allowed also to estimate the masses of Zino and corresponding Higgsino. The results are summarized by the following table:

    m(se)=131 GeV , m(sZ0)=91.2 GeV , m(sh)=45.6 GeV .

    If one takes these results at face value one must conclude either that M89 hypothesis is too strong or MSUSY corresponds to M91 or that M89 is correct identification but also sfermions can appear in several p-adic mass scales.

The decay cascades searched for in LHC are initiated by the decay q→ sq+sg and g→ sq+ sqc. Consider first R-parity conserving decays. Gluino could decay in R-parity conserving manner via sg→ sq+ q. Squark in turn could decay via sq→ q1+sW or via sq→ q+sZ0. Also Higgsino could occur in the final states. For the proposed first guess about masses the decay sW→ νe+se or sZ0→ νe+sνe would not be possible on mass shell.

If the mixing of right-handed and left-handed neutrinos is fast enough, R-parity is not conserved and the decays sg→ g+ν and sq→ q+ν could take place by the mixing νR→ νL following by electroweak interaction between νL quark or antiquark appearing as composite of gluon. The decay signature in this case would be pair of jets (quark and antiquark or gluon gluon jet both containing a lonely neutrino not accompanied by a charged lepton required by electroweak decays. Also the decays of electroweak gauginos and sleptons could produce similar lonely neutrinos.

The lower bound to quark masses from LHC is about 600 GeV and 800 GeV for gluon masses assuming light neutralino is slightly above the proposed masses of lightest squarks (see this). These masses are allowed for R-parity conserving option if the decay rate producing the chargino is reduced by the large mass of chargino the bounds become weaker. If the decay via R-parity breaking is fast enough no bounds on masses of squarks and gluinos are obtained in TGD framework but jets with neutrino unbalanced by a charged lepton should be observed.

The anomalous magnetic moment of muon as a constraint on SUSY

The anomalous magnetic moment aμ== (g-2)/2 of muon has been used as a further constraint on SUSY. The measured value of aμ is aμexp=11659208.0(6.3)× 10−10. The theoretical prediction decomposes to a sum of reliably calculable contributions and hadronic contribution for which the low energy photon appearing as vertex correction decays to virtual hadrons. This contribution is not easy to calculate since non-perturbative regime of QCD is involved. The deviation between prediction and experimental value is Δ aμ(exp-SM)= 23.9(9.9)× 10-10 giving Δ aμ(exp-SM/)/aμ= 2× 10-6. The hadronic contribution is estimated to be 692.3× 10-10 so that the anomaly is 3 per cent from the hadronic contribution. This suggests that the uncertainties due to the non-perturbative effects could explain the anomaly.

It has been proposed that the loops involving superpartners could explain the anomaly. In order to get some idea of the situation one can just assume that QFT calculation makes sense as an approximation also in TGD framework and try to identify the TGD counterparts and also the values of the parameters appearing in MSSM calculation.

In one-loop order one would have the processes μ→ sμ+ sZ0 and μ → sμμ+ sZ0. The situation is complicated by the possible mixing of the gauginos and Higgsinos and in MSSM this mixing is described by the mixing matrices called X and Y.

  1. The basic outcome is that the mixing is proportional to the factor mμ2/mSUSY2. One expects that in the recent situation mSUSY=mW is a reasonable guess so that the mixing is large and could explain the anomaly. Second guess is as M89 p-adic mass scale.

  2. In MSSM the mixing is also proportional to tan(β) factor where the angle β characterizes the ratio of mass scales of U and D type fermions fixed by the ratio of Higgs expectations for the two complex Higgs doublets (see the reference). The value of the parameter tan(β) also characterizes in MSSM the ratio of vacuum expectation values of two Higgses and cannot be fixed from this criterion since in TGD framework one has one scalar Higgs and pseudoscalar Higgs decomposing to triplet and singlet under SU(2). One can however use the fact that β also characterizes the mixing of sW and charged Higgsino parametrized as by a matrix whose rows are given by

    X1 = (M2, MW21/2cos(β)) ,

    X2 =(MW21/2cos(β) , μ) .

    This parameterization makes sense in TGD framework with M2 and μ identified as masses of wino and charged Higgsino before mixing giving rise to their physical masses (note that the sign of μ can be negative). The first guess is that apart from p-adic mass scale same has M2=-μ= m: this guarantees identical masses for the mixed states in accordance with the ideas that different masses for particles and sparticles result from the different p-adic length scale. For cos(β)=1/21/2 this would give mass matrix with eigen values

    (M,-M), M= (m2+mW2)1/2,

    so that the masses of the mixed states would be identical and above mW mass for p=M89. Symmetry breaking by the increase of the p-adic length scale could however reduce the mass of the other state by a power of 21/2.

  3. In MSSM 4× 4 matrix is needed to describe the mixing of neutral gauginos and two kinds of neutral Higgsinos. In TGD framework second Higgs (if it exists at all) is pseudo-scalar and does not contribute and the 2× 2 matrices describe the mixing also now.

    1. Since Higss and Higgsino have representation content 3+1 with respect to electroweak SU(2) in TGD framework, one can speak about shB, B= W,Z,γ. An attractive assumption is that Weinberg angle characterizes also the mixing giving rise to sZ and sγ on one hand and shγ and shZ on the other hand. This would reduce the mixing matrix to two 2× 2 matrices: the first one for sγ and shγ and the second one for sZ and shZ.

    2. A further attractive assumption is that the mass matrices describing mixing of gauginos and corresponding Higgsinos are in some sense universal with respect to electroweak interactions. The form of the mixing matrix would be essentially same for all cases. This would suggest that MW is replaced in the above formula with the mass of Z0 and photon in these matrices (recall that it is assumed that photon gets small mass by eating the neutral Higgs). Note that for photino and corresponding Higgsino the mixing would be small. The guess is M2=-μ= mZ. For photino one can guess that M2 corresponds to M89 mass scale.

    These assumptions of course define only the first maximally symmetric guess and the simplest modification that one can imagine is due to the different p-adic mass scales. If the above discussed values for zino and neutralino masses deduced from the 1995 event are taken at face value, the eigenvalues would be +/- (M_Z^2+m^2)1/2 with m=M_2=-μ for sZ-shZ-mixing and the other state would have p-adic length scale k=91 rather than k=89. M and μ would have opposite signs as required by the correct sign for the g-2 anomaly for muon assuming that smuons correspond to k=M89 as will be found.

  4. If one accepts the MSSM formula (see the reference)

    mμ2= msL2+MZ2cos(2β)/2 ,

    and uses the fact the masses of sneutrinos and sleptons are very near to each other, the natural guess is β=+/- π/4 so that one would have tan(β)=1. This corresponds to the lower bound of allowed values of tan(β) and small mass scale for weak gauginos. In MSSM tan(β)>2 is required and this is due to the large value of the mSUSY.

By using the formulas 56-58 of the reference one obtains for the charged loop the expression

Δ aμ+/-=-(21g22/32π2)× (mμ/mW)2× sign(μ M2) .

For neutral contribution the expression is more difficult to deduce. As physical intuition suggests, the expression inversely proportional to 1/mW2 since mW corresponds now mSUSY although this is not obvious on the basis of the general formulas suggesting the proportionality toi 1/mμ2. The p-adic mass scale corresponding to M89 is the natural guess for MSUSY and would give MSUSY= 104.9 GeV. The correction has positive sign, which requires that μ and M2 have opposite signs unlike in MSSM. The sign factor is opposite to that in MSSM because sfermion mass scales are assumed to be much higher than weak gaugino mass scale.

The ratio of the correction to the lowest QED estimate aμ,0=α/2π can be written as

Δ aμ+/aμ,0= (21/4)× (1/sin2W))× (mμ/mSUSY)2≈2.73× 10-5 .

which is roughly 10 times larger than the observed correction (the first calculation contained an error). The contribution Δ aμ0 should reduce this contribution and certainly does. At this moment I am however not yet able to transform the formula for it to TGD context. Also the scaling up of the mSUSY=mW by a factor of order 23/2 could reduce the correction.

(tan(β)=1,MSUSY=100 GeV) corresponds to the boundary of the region allowed by the LHC data and g-2 anomaly is marginally consistent with these parameter values (see figure 16 of this). The reason is that in the recent case the mass of lightest Higgs particle does not pose any restrictions (the brown region in the figure). Due to the different mixing pattern of gauginos and higgsinos in neutral sector TGD prediction need not be identidal with MSSM prediction.

The proposed estimate is certainly poor man's estimate since it is not clear how near the proposed twistorial approach relying on zero energy ontology is to QFT approach. It is however encouraging that the simplest possible scenario might work and that this is essentially due to the p-adic length scale hypothesis

Also M-theorists admit that there are reasons for the skepticism

Lubos gives a link to the talk Supersymmetry From the Top Down by Michael Dine, who admits that there are strong reasons for skepticism. Dine emphasizes that the hierarchy problem related to the in-stablity of Higgs mass due to the radiative corrections is the main experimental motivation for SUSY but that little hierarchy problem remains the greatest challenge of the approach. As noticed, in TGD this problem is absent. The same basic vision based on zero energy ontology and twistors predicts among other things

  • the cancellation of UV and IR infinities in generalized Feynman (or more like twistor-) diagrammatics,
  • predicts that in the electroweak scale the stringy character of particles identifiable as magnetically charged wormhole flux tubes should begin to make itself manifest,
  • particles regarded usually as massless eat all Higgs like particles accompanying them (here "predict" is perhaps too strong a statement),
  • also pseudo-scalar counterparts of Higgs-like particles which avoid the fate of their scalar variants (there already exist indications for pseudo-scalar gluons).
Combined with the powerful predictions of p-adic thermodynamics for particle masses these qualitative successes make TGD a respectable candidate for the follower of string theory.

For a more details see the chapter p-Adic Particle Massivation: New Physics of "p-Adic Length Scale Hypothesis and Dark Matter Hierarchy".


Ulla said...

Finally, a long waited result. What would they turn up with now? They cannot start with TGD after all what they have said, can they?

And no hierarchy problem? The sand castle collapses quite fast now, all ad hoc assumptions. Maybe they start look for the answers in the reality - in biology? But it is only decoherent complexity, isn't it, Lubos?

This is such a good news.

Cheers Matti.

Ulla said...

That first isironic if supersymmetry remains in TGD, but is excluded elsewhere. I must grin at it :)

Matti Pitkänen said...

To Ulla:

Sooner or later they must take TGD seriously but it takes time. Particle physicists in Harward and CERN and other big places regard them as Masters of the Universe. This attitude has long history starting atomic bomb and amplified by the successes of the standard model.

With this amount of hubris it is extremely painful to make a return to the roots and admit that the hegemony has been more that 30 years on wrong track. Equally difficult it is to admit that the field theory paradigm and string theory or less dual to it are somehow badly wrong.

Even more humiliating it is for the Masters of the Universe to confess that some funny TGD guy living with unemployment money got it right for more than three decades ago;-).

A further obstacle for progress is that in theoretical physics new generation can learn the many tricks of trade only from the older one, and this is possible only if the student swallows the paradigm of the professor. This is the reason also for the isolation of people like me from the academic community.

Much more than particle physics is involved with the paradigm shift: super string model was meant to be the final jewel in the crown of materialistic and reductionistic world view. This world view is collapsing as the accumulation of anomalies in all scales demonstrates on daily basis. Discoveries in biology are challenging the quantum mechanics itself. Note that this reductionistic hierarchy from cosmology to Planck scale has also sociological counterpart ranging from Masters of the Universe down to some TGD guy.

I am still waiting for the posting of Lubos: I guess that the results must have a lot of meaning for him;-).

Ulla said...

Cool, Matti:)

I looked yesterday but he was as silent as dead.

This is the reason there are matters called LIVING.

It is a shame they have kept you so long poor. It is too late to change that, but also new 'stars' coming with uncomfortable theories that really explain something are treated as bad. For how long?

And Kea is also meeting the same nonchalance with citing her thesis, from her opponent. Claims he didnot knew of her work. Incredible arrogance.

In fact, when I have read about this supersymmetry ala TGD MUST be true :) Two diamond meeting each other.

Luboš Motl said...

Dear Matti, yours is a very sloppy reasoning. Unless one can eliminate the whole moduli space, one can't say anything.

Of course that the fraction of the surviving region is reduced to a tiny percentage because there are many parameters. For many parameters, you may take each of them to have allowed values that is 90% of the whole a priori interval - and the product may still be 0.90^N = tiny.

It's a flawed reasoning if you think that the fact of excluding 99% of the volume means that SUSY is excluded at a 99% level. Just try to make this argument more complete and you will see that it will fail.

Of course that the data mean that most of the parameter space has been ruled out, so you might think it requires a "good luck" for the real world to be in the remaining region.

However, this "good luck" exists regardless of the existence of low-energy SUSY! Even in the right model (SM or whatever it is), you may just do the calculations that are normally done for SUSY, but you just neglect its direct physical relevance. And you will still find, even in the SM, that the existing data display "good luck" because they exactly managed to eliminate 99% but keep 1%.

So this small number - 1% - says nothing about the validity of SUSY. To say otherwise would be equivalent to saying that the top quark wouldn't be there because we know that it's not lighter than 170 GeV and it's not heavier than 175 GeV. Well, sure, most of the parameter space gets eliminated if we learn more accurate facts about Nature.

A difference is that top-quark has already been observed - but it was also observed long after its existence at many masses was excluded. It's because finding something is always tougher than excluding something in some interval only. Finding something, among other things, also implies the exclusion of the something everywhere else - so it's obviously a more demanding goal.

The surviving regions of the SUSY parameter spaces are not awkward in any way, so unless you eliminate them, you can't say anything about the validity of SUSY.


Matti Pitkänen said...

Dear Lubos,

thank you for the comments. I admit that I exaggerated a little bit and added some emotional spice: this is the basic right of blogger;-).

I am by no means claiming that space-time supersymmetry as such would be excluded. I believe firmly on supersymmetry but in different form in which its breaking is not based on ad hoc constructions as in standard realization. Right handed neutrino is the crux of the matter.

The weakness of my arguments is that I cannot calculate. Developing the needed machinery would require a collective effort of many brilliant minds.

Ulla said...

Oh, see Lubos.

""good luck" exists regardless of the existence of low-energy SUSY!"

Sure. SUSY is not needed.

Who talked of the final victory of LHC, that they would show SUSY?

Good luck, Lubos. I just wish Matti could do his job, and have the money to do it too. Is that too much to demand? What do you think?

L. Riofrio said...

Many SUSY lovers held an uppity attitude, that only they held the secrets of physics and other theories were subject to ridicule. Time for SUSY lovers to get a real girlfriend.

Anonymous said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Ulla said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Anonymous said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Ulla said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Ulla said...

Happy Valentine’s Day everyone… well, unless you were expecting hints for supersymmetry (SUSY) at the LHC.

Last night the ATLAS collaboration posted the results for one of its supersymmetry searches to the arXiv. They corroborate last month’s results from CMS on a similar type of search. No SUSY.

Matti Pitkänen said...

Dear Anonymous and Ulla,

I spend one week at travel (birthday gift from my children) and was not able to make comments. I removed the postings discussing psychotherapy since they were rather remotely related to supersymmetry;-)

Ulla said...

You are right. Maybe it cannot make things better:) I tried to say that as politely as I could when you was silent.

They have removed your blog from

Nice with vacations. Brain needs not to think sometimes too :)

Matti Pitkänen said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Ulla said...

The most astonishing is Lubos silence. He should find SOMETHING to say about it. Silence speaks more than words in this case?

Matti Pitkänen said...

Lubos mentions the 700 GeV lower bound on gluino mass from MSSM. What is surprising that Lubos wants to identify SUSY with MSSM: maybe he was not cautious enough and made this identification in his bet. Gambling is dangerous business;-).

Matti Pitkänen said...

To Ulla:

I checked the and found that my blog is not removed. I would not be however surprised if this would take place.

Ulla said...

I have checked it in several days now, and no TGD after this post. Until now. Maybe they have a good explanation.

Sorry if I caused some inconvinience.

Luboš Motl said...

Hi Matti,
again, this article of yours is complete nonsense, like others.

MSSM hasn't been killed in any way. Constraints don't mean "good bye". Quite on the contrary, the analysis of newer results has sharpened the prediction. The probability that squarks are between 800 and 1000 GeV and will be soon this year has increased, and the mass of squarks that is most likely has actually decreased by 100 GeV or so. See the paper by Allanach and others I discussed on my blog.

If you think that SUSY won't be found by the end of 2012 and you're sure about it, I offer you a 1:100 rate for a bet. I would pay $100, you would pay $10,000. Is that OK?

Best wishes

Matti Pitkänen said...

Dear Lubos,

your claim as some other claims by you are complete nonsense. MSSM is dead but SUSY a la TGD is more alive than ever and developing rapidly as data emerge from LHC. See the posting to see the outcome of this day.

p-Adic mass calculations assuming Mersenne prime M_89 for all sparticlesso that electroweak scale is SUSY scale allow exact prediction of fermion masses and they range from 460 GeV to TeV. Not too bad.

SUSY mass scale is intermediate boson mass scale and the anomaly of anomalous magnetic moment of muon comes out correctly with very reasonable assumptions about remaining parameters.

The high bounds to squark masses could be a problem but also this problem can be solved by the breaking of R-symmetry. The new element is annihilation of sparticle to particle plus neutrino since right handed neutrino defining the super-symmetry can transform to left.handed one. If this takes place rapidly enough the bounds on quark masses are loosened. The unique signature of spartner is a jet with lonely neutrino instead of neutrinos accompanied by charged leptons.

SUSY will certainly be found but in TGD sense. Your bet is unfair. I cannot afford gambling but I am ready to gamble for TGD SUSY with $100 if you put $10,000 for MSSM to the game;-). Isn't this fair;-)?

Ulla said...

Is this a jazzy soprano? Somehow I hear beautiful music in my ears :) Or is it disharmony?

May I dare to post my comment on Lubos blog here? Maybe not. I strongly suspect it isn't there so long. He has started deleting again.

BTW, the number comments of Anonymous Heroes has rapidly increased lately, for some reasons.

Wrong way, said Resonaances :)