The Theory, Significance and Precise Calculation of Gluino Mass

By: Sean Sheeter
Submitted: 2008-07-28 17:10:48
Print this article | Tell a friend | For publisher |

Rating:

 

This year the Large Hadron Collider at CERN in Geneva will commence operations. It’s generally expected the LHC, as the world’s most powerful machine, is capable of producing supersymmetric particles, otherwise known as sparticles.

While most sparticles are confined to a lesser energy, any evidence of squarks will at least require a mass-energy equivalent to a gluino g^ = 6.388355 TeV. Similarly, the first LHC runs may create a light Higgs boson, as evidenced by CERN’s electron collider before the upgrade. So,though such confirmation will be ballyhooed as a major discovery of the 'standard model Higgs boson,' it'd be foolish if finding that was the only point of building the LHC. But it’s certainly vindicated by the lack of evidence of sparticles to date.

Likewise, the lepton collider was incapable of producing the raft of states encompassing the 'minimal supersymmetric Higgs mechanism,' the heaviest of which imparts mass to the gluino. One can then be rest assured the real interesting physics won’t occur until the accelerator reaches higher relativistic energies of focused proton-antiproton collisions. 

In fact, it's probably impossible to generate not just squarks, but the lightest sparticle - the fermi-equivalent of a Higgs boson better known as a neutralino that constitutes the proportion of galactic 'WIMP dark-mass' - without first producing a gluino. For what is referred to above as "the real interesting physics" reduces to a chain of transformational decays that further accounts for the observed dominance of fermion matter over anti-matter in baryogenesis: the creation of material baryons. precursors of protons and neutrons. In all these senses, I therefore believe the gluino represents the most important, yet presently misunderstood, state of the sparticle-particle spectrum.

For there is more to super-symmetry than just the idea of a sparticle as an opposing spin state of a lighter 'fundamental particle.' For example, a quark carries a fractional charge whose nature as a fermion demands the existence of an anti-quark of opposite charge. A squark, on the other hand, is a boson of integer spin whose charge is ultimately determined by the 'first generation' of the +2/3-Up or –1e/3-Down 'family' to which it belongs. And while the up is the lightest quark, the 'sUp' is the heaviest squark owing to an 'inverted flavor hierarchy' where the heaviest top quark corresponds to the lightest 'stop' squark, a nuance of SUSY that’s not fully addressable as just a function of Fermi-Bose spin-inversion. Yet just as importantly, it's the bose nature of squarks that reinforces the absence of an identifiable fermi-like state of antimatter: a –2e/3-charged squark is simply not allowed.

A neutral gluino must then strongly decay into a either a U-squark with two lighter sBottoms, or two D-squarks with, say, a sCharm. It's therefore rather easy to imagine how a fixed squark charge from gluino decay is a prerequisite for material baryogenesis. There’s much more to this conclusion of course, but the explanation here conveys its essence encapsulated in simple language. And though a few ‘models’ have been proposed which seem in accord or amendable with the above conclusions, there is little evidence that any argument has effectively challenged the notoriously inadequate means of addressing baryogenesis in other terms than the some variant of the 'standard model' of CP [or CPT] 'symmetry violations' from basically a high-energy meson-like quark-antiquark/gluon plasma - hardly a 'stable material state.' For theorists to collectively acknowledge neutralino dark-mass, but not baryon-matter, as representing the ‘purpose of SUSY’ - creating a viable physical world corresponding to the one we live in – is beyond comprehension.

But then, more experimentally-minded physicists believe SUSY is speculation barring empirical evidence otherwise, as if their new toy won’t test that assumption soon enough. Anyway, I awaits these results with no less interest than anyone else. Still, it's fair to question 1: what justifies criticiziing established precedents of better mathematical theorists beyond 2: merely making unconfirmed 'claims' of calculating gluino mass. In regards to the former issue, one can only say no other "authority" provides an effective explanation for baryon-creation. For the '241-model' further predicts a precise percentage of baryons relative to the total 'critical universal mass' that’s in fine accord with observational evidence; a supposedly mere "coincidence" otherwise.

Yet it’s critique-2 that demands greater emphasis as a follow-up to a preceding report (see resource box) about some central discoveries. In this regard, the gluino mass is one of four examples of Sample Data and Proofs on 241's website, which are also given after the preface of the text "241-Mumbers." Two of these other samples effectively constitute "pudding proofs" that empirically, as well as theoretically, verify the calculation for the precise mass of the down and up quarks, as well as the strange and bottom, in the latter case also confirming the ‘Higgs vacuum minimum.’ While the gluino mass will lack full LHC-verification beyond 2008; it entails a hard proof nonetheless, but rather purely mathematical,as well as experiential. For just giving the mass-value means to urge serious readers to “eat the pudding for themselves" as the first of two 'hands-on tasks.' Which is to formulate three dimensionless equations for it as ratios to other masses in an abbreviated particle table following an introductory chapter.

For the point of the preceding essay is that establishing a dimensionless system of ratios between metric parameters is in itself insufficient and meaningless unless one is able to Write a 'pure' numerical equation. If three independent equations exist as dimensionless ratios to the gluino mass, surely any cogent being would conclude that it is the only possible answer even without experimental data to "back the 'claim." But in this proof, the bowl of pudding is in your hands – and after six years that this material has been on the web – everyone tested has flunked, no one has supplied one equation, let alone three. Nobody’s seemingly wants, let alone is willing to buy, real information anyway – everyone's too busy trying to convince each other that they are a real authority. In fact, too few are willing to test their mettle for free and presently certified information.

Article source: Expert Articles