Talk:Supersymmetry

Revision of 24 Feb 2006
I know very little about SUSY, but this article needs serious reorganization, so I'm trying it. I think the Motivation and SSM sections need the most work; they contain redundant information organized poorly. Some of the sections of this article could be spun off into their own articles. I've ripped out the following stuff, which appears to be irrelevant trivia; if it's important, then it should be expanded upon.


 * In June 1976, the two researchers famously met at Fenway Park and combined their ideas, yielding the notorious "Fenway Thesis."


 * ATLAS and CMS detectors will be used in this apparatus.

Joshuardavis 14:16, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

Adding graphs to the Coupling Constants Section
In the coupling constants section it seems like it would be worthwhile to add the graphs that show how SUSY fixes the problem of the SM coupling constants not meeting at higher energies. Every talk that I see on SUSY usually includes this, and it is by no means technical. --Zekemurdock 22:58, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Credit where Credit belongs
This morning, I read an article in the New Yorker about wikipedia, and immediately felt compelled to read up on a subject I happen to know a few things about, namely SUSY. I couldn't help but get involved in editing even on my first experience.

Who the h*** (choose your own expletive!) are "Jonathan I Segal of MIT" and "Daniel Laufferty of Tufts"? A search on Google draws a blank on either, and my own memory of writing a computerized bibliography of the subject in the summer of 1982 also draws a blank. That bibliography contained the closure of the coset of all articles with Wess or Zumino as a co-author, plus all articles with "super[-]symmetry" in the title under the operations "refer to" or "be referred by", and contained even then several thousand papers.

I corrected the attributions in the second paragraph to my best knowledge.

--81.179.10.85 14:40, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

3 Oct 2006 Rewrite
I've been eyeing this article a long while and I have been trying to have a plan of attack for it. The major problem with it was that it was a kitchen sink approach to writing. Supersymmetry is a huge topic and not everything can be covered in full depth in the main article. Many other articles have been written on supersymmetry and this article should be a jumping off point to the other more complete articles. There was a lot of disconnected points throughout the article. I have attempted to organise the page into a more logical flow. I have attempted to shorten the subsections by trying to remove the technicalia and hope that the reference articles will take care of that for interested parties.

I also felt it was terribly strange to have CDMS be the visual image for supersymmetry. Everyone I know finds this almost inappropriate -- a nice picture, but not directly related to supersymmetry (as CDMS could find something and have it not be supersymmetry).

The g-2 of the muon is not considered a hint for supersymmetry by the vast majority of the physics community (though not all) -- it's less than 3 sigma off.

I have added a bit aboout extended supersymmetry (which could be expanded upon). This was strangely absent IMHO (it wasn't even referred to).

I have also added a subsection for susy in other dimensions which should be filled in with a little detail and probably referred off to another article.

I have attempted to make this neutral and fact driven.

jay 02:36, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

B_s Mixing is Consistent with the Standard Model
As much as I would like it to be true, B_s mixing does not point to new physics (despite media reports otherwise). There are a tonnes of 3 sigma deviations that eventually go away, and this is not even at that level. While it is not inconsistent with the MSSM, it does not give evidence for it. This article would be completely unwieldily if every ambiguous experimental result was put in this article. jay 13:12, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Pauli ?
Chapter 3 of P. West book says, referring to the cancelation of bosonic and fermionic degrees of freedom, "This fact was noticed time ago by Pauli" but no reference is given.

Hyperbolic extension
Can someone help develop the above article as it pertains to Supersymmetry?--Ludvikus 01:56, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Ambiguous Sentence
The following sentence in the article needs grammatical correction. It's hard to determine if the "if" at the beginning belongs there or not. If the "if" is removed the sentence reads correctly but the meaning is still vague. I have left the sentence as is in the hope that the author will rewrite it. Dr. Morbius 00:38, 20 December 2006 (UTC)


 * "If the Standard Model do not quite meet together at a common energy scale if we run the renormalization group using the Standard Model."

Second paragraph had several errors
I've rewritten it for the following reasons:

“The balance of the universe” means nothing to me, and I doubt others will find it very enlightening either. There aren’t equal numbers of protons and electrons; muons decay into electrons and neutrinos without producing a proton at the same time. Electrons are fundamental particles, they aren’t made up of anything else (as far as we know). Antiparticles are a generic prediction of quantum field theory, predicted and observed long before the development of supersymmetry. Maybe antiparticles shouldn’t be mentioned at all for this reason, but I’ve left that in but made clear they’re not a new prediction of supersymmetry. “and continues for each subatomic particle” is redundant. Hawking radiation has nothing to do with supersymmetry. The matter/antimatter asymmetry in the universe can be resolved with CP violating terms in a supersymmetric theory, so is not a serious problem for supersymmetry. However it is true that it is not known exactly how this problem is resolved, merely that potential ways to solve it are known, but nobody knows which, if any, corresponds to the real universe. In any case, an article on supersymmetry doesn’t really seem the place to go into this. Also, the reader is not informed that there is no direct experimental evidence for supersymmetry until the very end of the article. This seems important enough to mention in the introduction. I’ve removed incorrect or irrelevant stuff, but maybe the whole paragraph should be deleted as it doesn’t add much to what the first paragraph says.

Misleading?
... 'but the ground state of the theory does not respect the symmetry and supersymmetry is broken spontaneously' am I reading it correct as 'but *if* the ground state of the theory does not respect the symmetry and supersymmetry *this* is broken spontaneously'

or

... 'but the ground state of the theory does not respect the symmetry *,* and *thus* supersymmetry is broken spontaneously' —Preceding unsigned comment added by 196.30.31.182 (talk) 20:48, 26 December 2009 (UTC) Scrabby (talk) 17:36, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Adinkras
I removed a mention of a supersymmetry representation called "Adinkras" from the article on the West African Adinkra symbols, but the removal was reverted. From my searching these physics "adinkras" have gained little outside attention, but people here might know better. I don't think this physics concept belongs at all in an article on a protoscript - can anyone suggest a better article for that content, to which a hatnote or other short note could point? Fences &amp;  Windows  21:44, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Can we add any more about LHC results, please?
E.g. "Beautiful theory collides with smashing particle data". nature.com, 28 February 2011 -


 * ... "there is growing anxiety that the theory, however elegant it might be, is wrong. Data from the Large Hadron Collider (LHC), a 27-kilometre proton smasher that straddles the French–Swiss border near Geneva, Switzerland, have shown no sign of the 'super particles' that the theory predicts."

Thanks -- 189.122.29.43 (talk) 00:27, 7 March 2011 (UTC)


 * probably need to pull that "best candidate" para at end of intro too--94.193.225.239 (talk) 09:35, 27 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Should remember that it only rules out some theories of supersymmetry as the headline from the beeb states "Results from the Large Hadron Collider (LHC) have all but killed the simplest version of an enticing theory of sub-atomic physics.". Buit busy at the mo but will have a look buy this evening if it's not added. Cheers Khu  kri  10:43, 27 August 2011 (UTC)


 * I would not rely on the BBC for my analysis of particle physics news... Im not completely convinced editing is necessary at the moment, but if anyone does it, i hope they know what they're talking about and cite primary sources, such as official CMS and ATLAS publications.


 * Here are a couple less formal bits of info from a theorist who can shed some light on these overblown statements Current LHC Data and Supersymmetry; Is Supersymmetry in Trouble?, What do current LHC results (mid-August 2011) imply about supersymmetry? Isocliff (talk) 06:43, 2 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Could whoever marked the article as obsolete point out specific statements that are now factually incorrect? I dont see any... Isocliff (talk) 07:47, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

"The Large Hadron Collider (LHC) has raised awkward questions for theoretical physicists, with experiments so far showing no evidence for the existence of supersymmetry." http://www.abc.net.au/news/2011-09-01/supersymmetry-running-out-of-places-to-hide/2865104 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.149.112.70 (talk) 23:06, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

Requirement of Supersymmetry in (Super)String theories
There is no clear explanation on how exactly (super)string theories require supersymmetry, only "For string theory to be consistent, supersymmetry appears to be required at some level (although it may be a strongly broken symmetry)." Someone please help clarify this point or add a high-quality citation source. Mastertek (talk) 04:22, 28 November 2011 (UTC)


 * This point is covered in textbooks on string theory (for example this free one by David Tong) and probably also the wiki article on string theory. The most glaring reason is that bosonic string theory has tachyons and (seems to) lack any stable ground state. Going into it would be beyond the scope of the susy article. Isocliff (talk) 11:10, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

LHC and the recent discovery of Higgs boson: Supersymmetry Fails Test, Forcing Physics to Seek New Ideas
A really hair-raising scenario. Link Or should we find another mechanism?

Current limits
At the moment we have a "Current limits" section - I would favour the title "Current Status". I also suggest that the "Failure of the Large Hadron Collider to confirm supersymmetry" is removed. It is redundant; there is a more detailed discussion in the preceding "Current limits" section.

Perhaps "Current Status of SUSY" merits its own page; it is a multi-faceted topic, including astro, Higgs, collider and low-energy physics? In any case, I suggest that the section needs more work. It doesn't mention, amongst other things, Bs->mu mu or the potential exclusion/discovery at root(s)=14 TeV, and the information on direct SUSY searches looks slightly out of date.

I'm aware that keeping this page up-to-date could be tricky and that the status of SUSY is a controversial topic.

I'm also aware that it might be a little technical, and perhaps needs to be summarised for a general reader. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lioinnisfree (talk • contribs) 01:49, 29 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the suggestions. You're welcome to edit the article. Just be aware that editors are supposed to reference all the information that they add. TimidGuy (talk) 21:44, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

I have removed this sentence: As of now in 2013, the Higgs Boson that has been confirmed seems not to be a super-higgs, and is completely consistent with the Standard Model. In popular, MSSM-type models, the lightest neutral Higgs (referred to in the above as ?super-higgs? - this is not common nomenclature - it is not a superparticle as it has R-parity +1) is almost always Standard Model-like. i.e. the Higgs observation is consistent with the SM Higgs or with the lightest neutral MSSM Higgs. Technically, this is true in the decoupling limit in which $$m_A \gg m_Z$$ --Lioinnisfree (talk) 15:39, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

Failure
The two sentences regarding the observations indicating supersymmetry failure were all generated only by a persistent blocked editor, who has had a record for misinterpreting sources. Although this edit doesn't appear to be related to any ideological bias, it should be added only if an unblocked editor confirms the sources and interpretation. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 13:18, 19 August 2013 (UTC)


 * I wrote one of those sentences and edited the other. I can confirm the sources and interpretation. The IP editor just added BBC to the ref as far as I can see. Bhny (talk) 14:33, 19 August 2013 (UTC)thos

Attention from an expert nomination
More details can be found at the WikiProject Physics talk page. The elegant SUSY has become an overgrown monster article. Alma (talk) 17:38, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

Superpartners to Bosons
I feel this aricle would benefit by somewhere listing the names of the superpartners of the non-SUSY bosons, and showing the correspondence between the bosons of the Standard Model + gravity and SUSY. 70.247.175.236 (talk) 22:42, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

current status rewrite
I think the current status section needs a tidy up and update in light of more LHC data.

It should be made clear that particular models eg MSSM are under constraint, rather than supersymmetry in general. It should be made clear that DM experiments constrain SUSY iff DM is assumed to be eg LSP.

The naturalness argument should be made clearer. SUSY could be near the Planck scale, it doesn't have to solve the hierarchy problem, some SUSY is better than no SUSY! Although of course hierarchy favors light sparticlea.

It should say SUSY itself without extra assumptions could only be checked by looking at whole spectrum of fermions and bosons up to the Planck scale. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 37.233.96.136 (talk) 19:24, 27 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Agreed. I edited the intro a bit to help imply this. I tried to be fair... KagakuKyouju (talk) 22:18, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

serious rewriting or deleting
i really don't know shit about susy, but i do quite a lot about non-relativistic QM. In the intro: "But when the occupation numbers become large, quantum physics approaches the classical limit. This means that while bosons also exist in classical physics, fermions do not. That makes it difficult to expect that bosons, if at all, possess the same quantum numbers as fermions.[4]" These sentences are hilariously wrong (and the last one, nonsensical). Someone who knows about susy should take a deep look at this article otherwise i think it should just be deleted, it is a shame for a physics article.

Claim about EWSB under "Motivations"
In the "Motivations" section of the article, there is a claim that supersymmetry "provides a natural mechanism for electroweak symmetry breaking." However, I'm pretty sure the Higgs mechanism explains electroweak symmetry breaking entirely independently of supersymmetry. There is the remaining question of why electroweak symmetry is broken at such a "low" scale (compared to GUTs, etc), but this is thoroughly covered by the short summary of the hierarchy problem in the same section. I'm going to put a citation needed tag up for now, and unless someone can provide some references, I think this sentence should probably be removed in the near future. Natsirtguy (talk) 18:28, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

CMS Collaboration
here is the complete citation for the "CMS Collaboration" paper, with over 2000 authors. note that the journal just displays 'CMS Collaboration + first author + et al', we should do the same?

198.102.153.2 (talk) 23:53, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

Hypothesized Theory
Shouldn't the first sentence not explicitly say that SUSY is a hypothesized physical theory?

It is very hard these days for a non expert to clearly draw the line between an observed model and a hypothesized theory. This is curious because the decision criteria is very simple: At least a confirmed observation and no observed contradiction.

The German article explicitly says this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 37.120.62.102 (talk) 15:46, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

Vandalism Dec 8 2015
I think these edits should be reverted:

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Supersymmetry&diff=prev&oldid=694383421

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Supersymmetry&diff=cur&oldid=694383421

Sources for possible Higgsino/Gluino/Top Squark energies?
Do we actually have any verifiable primary sources that state in the final paragraph of the lead the fact that "supersymmetry can comfortably fit into energies as high as 100-300 GeV for the higgsino, and up to 3 TeV and 5 TeV for the top squark and gluino respectively", and/or similar statements in the final paragraph of this article? Because to me it seems to be a whole lot of WP:OR. If not, I'll delete the statements because of WP:OR 130.126.255.11 (talk) 21:17, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

External links modified (January 2018)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Supersymmetry. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added tag to http://www.cambridge.org/uk/catalogue/catalogue.asp?isbn=0521857864
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20061102131608/http://www.cosmosmagazine.com/node/714 to http://www.cosmosmagazine.com/node/714

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 21:59, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

Help
I have a BS in Physics and the most recent theories in the field are quite frankly still very blurry to me. I am assuming that as an Encyclopedia, articles like this should at least make sense to the general reader in the summary that opens the article. In my opinion, a person that can read this article and can understand any of it it has no reason to read this article. I think I can safely say that most people would find the definition of supersymetry in this article to be totally incomprehensable. I have read that because of supersymetry physicists can deduce the existance of particles not yeat discovered, that through supersymetry the unification fo the 4 fundimental forces is possible, or that because of supersymetry there are 11 dimensions or so. This is off the top of my head, so there is a good possiblity I have said something incredibly dumb. But my point is, supersymetry appears all over the place- if the article could perhaps list the problems it solves- perhaps the ones I mentioned, maybe not, and explain how the theory can do this in these specifice instances, the general reader might get a better grasp of what it is. It would help the general public, and also the lesser physics students that probably exist like (ahem) me. As I would see a more ideal article, the first half anyone could read, the second half, all the super brains can have at it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1700:A0B0:1E70:1DB4:E5E1:3D5A:98A8 (talk) 00:04, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

Misreported Result
Physics PhD student on ATLAS checking in- I'm fairly certain the ATLAS paper cited here doesn't show the result stated. SUSY searches thus far have been shown to be consistent with the Standard Model; no significant excesses were seen in the paper quoted. This section should be changed to reflect the fact that higgsino production has not been observed. I am removing the sentence that indicates this.

Applications in finance??? I don't believe it.
The article says that there are applications outside physics, including finance - but then a note has been inserted asking for citation(s). I'm an investment banker and a CPA, and I don't believe that. NEVER heard of that. I think it is nonsense and made-up. I ask for at least one citation - if we are not given one, then I support removing this reference to it being applicable to finance. I think it is laughable. And if supersymmetry is applicable to finance, then you would at least think that Einstein's basic theory of relativity would be applicable - never heard of that either. Duh. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.6.127.73 (talk) 19:51, 19 February 2022 (UTC)