Is Supersymmetry Dead?
The grand scheme, a stepping-stone to string theory, is still high on
physicists' wish lists.
But if no solid evidence surfaces soon, it could begin to have a serious
PR problem
Image: Courtesy of Maximilien Brice/CERN
For decades now physicists have contemplated the idea of an entire
shadow world of elementary particles, called supersymmetry. It would elegantly
solve mysteries that the current Standard Model of particle physics leaves
unexplained, such as what cosmic dark matter is. Now some are starting to
wonder. The most powerful collider in history, the Large Hadron Collider (LHC),
has yet to see any new phenomena that would betray an unseen level of reality. Although
the search has only just begun, it has made some theorists ask what physics
might be like if supersymmetry is not true after all.
“Wherever we look, we see nothing—that is, we see no deviations from the
Standard Model,” says Giacomo Polesello of Italy ’s
National Institute of Nuclear Physics in Pavia .
Polesello is a leading member of the 3,000-strong international collaboration
that built and operates ATLAS, one of two cathedral-size general-purpose
detectors on the LHC ring. The other such detector, CMS, has seen nothing,
either, according to an update presented at a conference in the Italian Alps in
March.
Theorists introduced supersymmetry in the 1960s to connect the two basic
types of particles seen in nature, called fermions and bosons. Roughly
speaking, fermions are the constituents of matter (the electron being the
quintessential example), whereas bosons are the carriers of the fundamental
forces (the photon in the case of electromagnetism). Supersymmetry would give
every known boson a heavy “superpartner” that is a fermion and every known
fermion a heavy partner that is a boson. “It is the next step up toward the
ultimate view of the world, where we make everything symmetric and beautiful,”
says Michael Peskin, a theorist at SLAC National Accelerator Laboratory.
The monumental collider at CERN near Geneva should have the oomph to produce those
superparticles. Currently the LHC is smashing protons with an energy of four
trillion electron volts (TeV) apiece, up from 3.5 TeV last year. This energy is
divided among the quarks and gluons that make up the protons, so the collision
can generate new particles with the equivalent of about 1 TeV of mass. But
despite the high expectations (and energies), so far nature has not cooperated.
LHC physicists have been searching for signs of particles new to science and
have seen none. If superparticles exist, they must be even heavier than many
physicists had hoped. “To put it bluntly,” Polesello says, “the situation is
that we have ruled out a number of ‘easy’ models that should have showed up
right away.” His colleague Ian Hinchliffe of Lawrence Berkeley National
Laboratory echoes him: “If you look at the range of masses and particles that
have been excluded, it’s quite impressive.”
Many are still hopeful. “There are still very viable ways of building
supersymmetry models,” Peskin says. Expecting to see new physics after just a
year of data taking was unrealistic, says Joseph Lykken, a theorist on the CMS
team.
What has theorists on edge, however, is that for supersymmetry to solve
the problems for which it was invented in the first place, at least a few of
the superparticles should not be too heavy. To constitute dark matter, for
example, they need to weigh no more than a few tenths of 1 TeV.
Another reason most physicists want some superparticles to be light lies
in the Higgs boson, another major target of the LHC. All elementary particles
that have mass are supposed to get it through their interaction with this boson
and, secondarily, with a halo of fleeting “virtual particles.” In most cases,
the symmetries of the Standard Model ensure that these virtual particles cancel
one another out, so they contribute only modestly to mass. The exception,
ironically, is the Higgs itself. Calculations based on the Standard Model yield
the paradoxical result that the boson’s mass should be infinite. Superpartners
would solve this mystery by providing greater scope for cancellations. A Higgs
mass of around 0.125 TeV, as suggested by preliminary results announced in
December 2011, would be right in the range where supersymmetry predicts it
should be. But in that case, the superparticles would need to have a fairly low
mass.
If that proves not to be the case, one explanation is that heretofore
underappreciated symmetries of the Standard Model keep the Higgs mass finite,
as Bryan Lynn of University College London suggested last year. Others say Lynn ’s idea would provide
at best a partial explanation, leaving a vital role for physics beyond the
Standard Model—if not super-symmetry, then one of the other strategies that
theorists have devised. A popular plan B is that the Higgs boson is not an
elementary particle but a composite of other particles, just as protons are
composites of quarks. Unfortunately, the LHC simply does not have enough data
to say much about that idea yet, says CERN’s Christophe Grojean. More exotic options,
such as extra dimensions of space beyond the usual three, may forever lie
beyond the LHC’s reach. “Right now,” points out Gian Francesco Giudice, another
theorist at CERN, “every single theory has its own problems.”
As ATLAS and CMS continue to accumulate data, they will either discover
superparticles or exclude wider ranges of possible masses. Although they may
never be able to strictly disprove supersymmetry, if the collider fails to
find it, the theory’s usefulness may fade away, and even its most hard-core
supporters may lose interest. That would be a blow not just to supersymmetry
but also to even more ambitious unified theories of physics that presume it,
which include string theory and other approaches [see “Loops, Trees and the
Search for New Physics,” by Zvi Bern,
Lance J. Dixon and David A. Kosower]. LHC physicists take this uncertainty in
stride and expect the collider to find some new and exciting physics—not just
the physics theorists had expected. Hinchliffe says, “The most interesting
thing we will see is something that nobody thought of.”
This article was published in print as "Is
Supersymmetry Dead?"
No hay comentarios:
Publicar un comentario