Talk:Minimal Supersymmetric Standard Model

MSSM Higgs Mass was nominated for deletion. The discussion was closed on 12 March 2014 with a consensus to merge. Its contents were merged into Minimal Supersymmetric Standard Model. The original page is now a redirect to this page. For the contribution history and old versions of the redirected article, please see its history; for its talk page, see here.

Tip: Anchors are case-sensitive in most browsers.

This article links to one or more target anchors that no longer exist.

[[Renormalization group#Threshold effect|threshold corrections]] The anchor (#Threshold effect) is no longer available because it was deleted by a user before.

Please help fix the broken anchors. You can remove this template after fixing the problems. | Reporting errors

Feynman diagram[edit]

The Feynman diagram whose text starts "An example of a flavor changing neutral current process in MSSM." is dubious, at best. Surely that anti-down quark is supposed to be an anti-down squark? Adam1729 (talk) 22:56, 18 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sparticle?[edit]

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

How to put tildas on greek chars ?[edit]

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. [ 12:32, 10 June 2004‎ 212.158.238.126 ]

Superparticles and antimatter[edit]

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)[reply]

Nonanalytic (soft) SUSY breaking terms[edit]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Awkward Sentence[edit]

"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? [ 17:19, 6 April 2006‎ 156.56.145.97 ]

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)[reply]

First Paragraph[edit]

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)[reply]

N=1?[edit]

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

CMSSM and other variants[edit]

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)[reply]

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

Still needed in 2016 ! - CMSSM redirects here but there is no description of the Constrained MSSM. Also Non-Universal Higgs Model (NUHM) could be mentioned here or in SUSY ? - Rod57 (talk) 11:44, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Here be Dragons: The Unexplored Continents of the CMSSM says "There is a more restrictive choice which is often made when attempting to understand "common" SUSY signatures. This 4 dimensional slice of parameter space is known as the Constrained MSSM (CMSSM or mSUGRA) [17{19]. For some studies of the CMSSM in light of the Higgs discovery, see [20{36]. This ansatz is defined by four parameters and a sign which are delineated at the scale M_GUT where the gauge couplings unify: a universal scalar mass M₀, a universal gaugino mass M_1/2, a universal scalar-trilinear coupling A₀, and the B_μ-term (usually set by choosing tan _β) along with the sign of μ. These high scale inputs are evolved to the weak scale using the renormalization group and the μ-term is chosen to reproduce the measured value of the Z⁰-boson mass." - Rod57 (talk) 13:51, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That source defines up to 5 volumes ('continents') in each quadrant (identified by the main mechanism to set the relic density) with boundaries defined by the LHC measured higgs mass and the observed relic dark matter density estimate range. Then discussed how much of the continents are testable by various LHC upgrades and other experiments. - Rod57 (talk) 20:29, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Non-result from LHC[edit]

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)[reply]

Some text from Supersymmetry#Current_status could perhaps be copied into this article. - Rod57 (talk) 11:48, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Theories of supersymmetry breaking[edit]

Each of these are vast subjects that deserve to be expanded in their own articles. Pulu (talk) 23:04, 19 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]