Talk:Minimal Supersymmetric Standard Model

Should superpartner link to sparticle? My own knowledge here is minimal, but it seems to be appropriate... Isomorphic 05:42, 20 Apr 2004 (UTC)

I've had some problems editing this page - in the right hand symbol column, i couldn't work out how to put a tilda above greek letters - nu, mu, tau and gamma, so i've either written in the romanised form of the letter with a tilda above, or used T and v in the case of tau and nu. If anyone could sort this out, that would be very helpful. In the higgs and higgsino column, the H^+/- should have a proper plusminus symbol instead of the +/-, but i couldn't work out how to do this either.

Superparticles and antimatter

It is said in this article that "if the superparticles are found, it is analogous to discovering antimatter." Does this make any sense or is it mistaken for antiparticles?Mastertek (talk) 09:47, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

Nonanalytic (soft) SUSY breaking terms

Disputed paragraph:

*The following couplings are often neglected (that is, set to zero) because most realistic SUSY breaking models (but not all)
 only induce tiny couplings. They are mentioned in this article for completeness.

<math>\mathcal{L} \supset C h_d^* q u^c + C h_u^* q d^c + C h_u^* l e^c + h.c.</math>

where the lowercase field names are the scalars of a given supermultiplet. The <math>C</math> terms are <math>3 \times 3</math> complex matrices.

These nonanalytic SUSY breaking terms will only fail to be soft (i.e. stabilize the Higgs mass from quadratically divergent radiative corrections) if we have a a chiral multiplet in addition to MSSM which is neutral under the Standard Model gauge group, but then, this means that we are no longer working with MSSM but NMSSM. In the MSSM itself (as opposed to NMSSM) the previous terms are indeed soft. QFT 22:55, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

The C-terms are generally not included because in no (non-contrived) susy breaking scenario does one generate (any significant) non-holomorphic tri-linears. Also depending on the susy breaking sector, they can reintroduce quadratic divergences. They also exacerbate flavour and CP problems (24 flavour violating parameters, 27 phases). I personally feel this is safely outside the realm of

wikipedia. -- jay 23:05, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

Also, to be consistent with the notation in the article, there should be tilde's over the superpartners, ie q is a quark doublet and $\tilde{q}$ is a squark doublet. -- jay 23:09, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

Awkward Sentence

"There are theoretical reasons to believe that the superparticles will be discovered by the 2010." makes me think that the theory says the universe will somehow change by 2010, revealing supersymmetric particles. I suppose this is not correct. Perhaps the author was referring to the LHC?

I think you're right. It also assumes (indirectly) that it will be easy to tell superparticles from, say, Kaluza-Klein excited states, which it won't. I rewrote the sentence. -- SCZenz 17:47, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

First Paragraph

If the superparticles are found, it is analogous to discovering antimatter and depending on the details of what is found, it could provide evidence for grand unification and might even in principle provide hints as to how string theory describes nature.

That string theory describes nature is far from certain; I propose this be changed to "might describe nature".

92.233.254.54 (talk) 02:31, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

N=1?

I presume this N=1 supersymmetry? The article does not say. -- cheers, Michael C. Price ^talk 22:39, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

CMSSM and other variants

Could we add a small section on the other variants like Constrained MSSM, or is this better in a separate page? I'm looking for info on what's "constrained" in the CMSSM and I can't find a good summary anywhere - doesn't even APPEAR in Wikipedia. I expect the news tomorrow will be all about this area... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Infojunkie23 (talk • contribs) 19:27, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

Tease! -- cheers, Michael C. Price ^talk 03:51, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Non-result from LHC

Somebody who has a good grasp of this, should update this with information on the fresh non-results from LHC that have really put the squeeze on this theory. -- Cimon Avaro; on a pogostick. (talk) 07:38, 27 August 2011 (UTC)