3-jet and 9-jet events as a further evidence for M89 hadron physics?

Lubos Motl told about slight 3-jet and 9-jet excesses seen by CMS collaboration in LHC data. There is an article about 3-jet excess titled Search for Three-Jet Resonances in pp Collisions at s^1/2 = 7 TeV by CMS collaboration. Figure 3 of the article and also the figure of Lubos blog posting shows what has been found. In 3-jet case the effects exceeds 3-sigma level between 350 GeV and 410 GeV and the center is around 380-390 GeV.

Experimenters see 3-jets as 1.9 sigma evidence for SUSY. It is probably needless to tell that 1.9 sigma evidences come and go and should not be taken seriously. Gluino pair would be produced and each gluino with mass around 385 GeV would decay to three quarks producing three jets. In tri-jet case altogether 3+3=6 jets would be produced in the decays of gluinos. The problem is that there is no missing energy predicted by MSSM scenario without R-parity breaking. Therefore the straightforward proposal of CMS collaboration is that R-parity is broken by a coupling of gluino to 3 quark state so that gluino would effectively have quark number three and gluino can decay to 3 light quarks- say uds.

The basic objection against this idea is that the distribution of 3-jet masses is very wide extending from 75 GeV (slightly below 100 GeV for selected events) to about 700 GeV as one learns from figure 1 of the CMS preprint. Resonance interpretation does not look convincing to me and to my humble opinion this is a noble but desperate attempt to save the standard view about SUSY. After proposing the explanation which follows I realized to my surprise that I had already earlier tried to explain the 390 GeV bump in terms of M₈₉ baryon but found that this explanation failssince the mass is too low to allow this interpretation (see this).

There is also an article about nona-jets titled Has SUSY Gone Undetected in 9-jet Events? A Ten-Fold Enhancement in the LHC Signal Efficiency but I will not discuss this except by noticing that nona-jet events would serve as a unique signature of M₈₉ baryon decays in TGD framework if the proposed model for tri-jets is correct.

Before continuing I want to make clear my motivations for spending time with thinking about this kind events which are probably statistical fluctuations. If I were an opportunist I would concentrate all my efforts to make a maximum noise about the successes of TGD. I am however an explorer rather than career builder and physics is to me a passion- something much more inspiring than personal fame. My urge is to learn what TGD SUSY is and what it predicts and this kind of activity is the best manner to do it.

1. Could one interpret the 3-jet events in terms of TGD SUSY without R-parity breaking?

I already mentioned the very wide range of 3-jet distribution as a basic objection against gluino pair interpretation. But just for curiosity one can also consider a possible interpretation in the framework provided by TGD SUSY.

As I have explained in the article, one could understand the apparent absence of squarks and gluinos in TGD framework in terms of shadronization which would be faster process than the selectro-weak decays of squarks so that the standard signatures of SUSY (jest plus missing energy) would not be produced. The mass scales and even masses of quark and squark could be identical part from a splitting caused by mixing. The decay widths of weak bosons do not however allow light exotic fermions coupling to them and this in the case of ordinary hadron physics this requires that squarks are dark having therefore non-standard value of Planck constant coming as an integer multiple of the ordinary Planck constant (see this). For M₈₉ hadron physics this constraint is not necessary.

One can indeed imagine an explanation for 3-jets in terms of decays of gluino pair in TGD framework without R-parity breaking.

1. Both gluinos would decay as sg→ sq+q^* (or charge conjugate of this) and squark in turn decays as sq → q+ sg. This would give quark pair and two virtual gluinos. Virtual gluinos would transform to a quark pair by an exchange of virtual squark: sg→ q+sq^*. This would give 3 quark jets and 3 anti-quark jets.

2. Why this option possible also in MSSM is not considered by CMS collaboration? Do the bounds on squark masses make the rate quite too low? The very strong lower bounds on squark masses in MSSM type SUSY were indeed known towards the end of August when the article was published. In TGD framework these bounds are not present since squarks could appear with masses of ordinary quarks if they are dark in TGD sense. Gluinos would be however dark and the amplitude for the phase transition transforming gluon to its dark variant decaying to a gluino pair could make the rate too low.

3. If one takes the estimate for the M₈₉ gluino mass seriously and scales to a very naive mass estimate for M₁₀₇ gluino by a factor 1/512, one obtains m(sg₁₀₇)=752 MeV.

As already noticed, I do not take this explanation too seriously: the tri-jet distribution is quite too wide.

2. Could tri-jets be interpreted in terms of decays of M₈₉ quarks to three ordinary quarks?

3+3 jets are observed and they correspond to 3 quarks and antiquarks. If one takes 3-jet excess seriously it seems that one has to assume a fermion decaying to 3 quarks or two quarks and antiquark. All these quarks could be light (u,d,s type quarks).

Could M₈₉ quarks decaying to three M₁₀₇ (ordinary) quarks (q₈₉→ q₁₀₇q₁₀₇q^*₁₀₇) be in question? If this were the case the 9-jets might allow interpretation as decays of M₈₉ proton or neutron with mass which from naive scaling would be 512× .94 GeV ≈ 481 GeV resulting when each quark the nucleon decays to three ordinary quarks. Nona-jets would serve as a unique signature for the production of M₈₉ baryons!

M₈₉ quarks must decay somehow to ordinary quarks.

1. The simplest guess is that the transformation q₈₉ → q₁₀₇q₁₀₇q^*₁₀₇ begins with the decay q₈₉→ q₁₀₇ + g₈₉. Here g₈₉ can be virtual.

2. This would be followed by g₈₉→ q₁₀₇+q^*₁₀₇. The final state would consist of two quarks and one antiquark giving rise to tri-jet. The decay of M₈₉ gluon could produce all quark families democratically apart from phase space factors larger for light quarks. This would produce 3+3 jets with a slight dominance of light quark 3-jets.

There are two options to consider. The first option corresponds to a production of a pair of on mass shell M₈₉ quarks with mass around 385 GeV (resonance option) and second option to a production of a pair of virtual M₈₉ quarks suggested by the wide distribution of tri-jets.

1. Could the resonance interpretation make sense? Can the average 3-jet mass about 385 GeV correspond to the mass of M₈₉ quark? The formulas m(π₈₉)= 2^1/2m(u₈₉) (mass squared is additive) together with m(π₈₉)= 144 GeV would give m(u₈₉) ≈ 101.8 GeV. Unfortunately the mass proposed for the gluino is almost 4 times higher. The naive scaling by factor 512 for charmed quark mass m(c₁₀₇)= 1.29 GeV would give 660.5 GeV, which is quite too high. It seems very difficult to find any reasonable interpretation in terms of decays of on mass shell M₈₉ quarks with mass around 385 GeV.

2. One can however consider completely different interpretation. From figure 1 of the CMS preprint one learns that the distribution of 3-jet masses is very wide beginning around 75 GeV (certainly consistent with 72 GeV, which is one half of the predicted mass 144 GeV of M₈₉ pion) for all triplets and slightly below 100 GeV for selected triplets.

   Could one interpret the situation without selection by assuming that a pair of M₈₉ quarks forming a virtual M₈₉ pion is produced just as the naive expectation that the old-fashioned proton-pion picture could make sense at "low" energies (using of course M₈₉ QCD Λ as a natural mass scale) also for M₈₉ physics. The total mass of M₈₉ quark pair would be above 144 GeV and its decay to virtual M₈₉ quark pair would give quark pair with quark masses above 72 GeV. Could the selected events with total 3-jet mass above 100 GeV correspond to the production of a virtual M₈₉ quark pair?

To sum up, if one takes the indications for 3-jets seriously, the interpretation in terms of M₈₉ hadron physics is the most plausible TGD option. I am unable to say anything about the 9-jet article but 9-jets would serve as a unique and very dramatic signature of M₈₉ baryons: the naive prediction for the mass of M₈₉ nucleon is 481 GeV.

For details and background see the article Is the new boson reported by CDF pion of scaled up variant of hadron physics? and the chapter New particle physics predicted by TGD: part I of "p-Adic Length Scale Hypothesis and Dark Matter Hierarchy".