ATLAS squark and gluino search with 165/pb extends SUSY exclusions

A new conference note from ATLAS using 165/pb of data has extended exclusions for SUSY. Previous published results used 36/pb of 2010 data. These new findings will be reported at the Physics at LHC conference next week. With 691/pb delivered, further search results will be possible very soon.

Gluino masses below 725 GeV are excluded in the simplest models. The new limit of the excluded region is the thick red line on this plot. The odler limit using just the 2010 data is the thinner black line. The no-go zone has extended about 200 GeV to the right.

It is disappointing for many phenomenologists that no SUSY signal has yet appeared, but SUSY has a large parameter space and it will take much more data to really rule out the theory completely. It seems likely that if SUSY is not found then something else will prove to be the solution for physics at the TeV scale. The data from the LHC to be accumulated over the next two years will tell us how the Higgs sector looks. Whether it is SUSY or not, it is likely to be something of interest.


15 Responses to ATLAS squark and gluino search with 165/pb extends SUSY exclusions

  1. Luboš Motl says:

    Note that at

    https://atlas.web.cern.ch/Atlas/GROUPS/PHYSICS/CONFNOTES/

    the preprint 2010-085 is the first number that is missing. 😉 It could be just some achronology in the posting of preprints with predetermined numbers or something else. 🙂

  2. Ulla says:

    If Susy would be an island it must be as an BEcondensation at higher densities. Then you must remember that in reality it is contrarily, that the matter is a mirror of the Susy. This is what TGD says.

    This I say without reading your article. If I am not qualified to comment, then I need not read it either, right?

    Other similar islands are the island(s) of coherence, named living matter (Matti), and the island(s) of atoms/isotopes. So how could it be you who have invented this term, Lubos?

  3. Ulla says:

    I read the articles now. Would supergravity explain the dark energy phenomenon? Or is the missing gravity that gives the acceleration of the Universe-what? Gravity should be possible to measure even if it belonged to Susy. Can Susy be the same as dark matter, but without antimatter, that has been showed to be repelling?

    http://iopscience.iop.org/0295-5075/94/2/20001/pdf/0295-5075_94_2_20001.pdf
    the gravitational interaction between matter and antimatter is a mutual repulsion, i.e. antigravity appears as a prediction of general relativity when CPT is applied. This result supports cosmological models attempting to explain the Universe accelerated expansion in terms of a matter-antimatter repulsive interaction. This CPT invariance assures that antimatter is gravitationally attracted by antimatter exactly in the same way as matter is attracted by matter, but it says nothing on the interaction between matter and antimatter.

    Could we refute the concept of dark matter (or at least, be the starting point for further development in this direction) and would this be a good explanation for the expansion of the universe? http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/9637/antimatter-gravity-and-the-expansion-of-the-universe

    Antigravity v. supergravity? Darkmatter is seen only through gravity? The bulk is matter? Does this follow GR and invariance too?

    Another thread: http://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=491705
    began the study with two major assumptions. First, he posited that both matter and antimatter have positive mass and energy density. Traditionally, the gravitational influence of a particle is determined solely by its mass. A positive mass value indicates that the particle will attract other particles gravitationally. Under Villata’s assumption, this applies to antiparticles as well. So under the influence of gravity, particles attract other particles and antiparticles attract other antiparticles. But what kind of force occurs between particles and antiparticles?

    To resolve this question, Villata needed to institute the second assumption – that general relativity is CPT invariant. This means that the laws governing an ordinary matter particle in an ordinary field in spacetime can be applied equally well to scenarios in which charge (electric charge and internal quantum numbers), parity (spatial coordinates) and time are reversed, as they are for antimatter. When you reverse the equations of general relativity in charge, parity and time for either the particle or the field the particle is traveling in, the result is a change of sign in the gravity term, making it negative instead of positive and implying so-called antigravity between the two.

    Also, particles such as the neutral pion and the photon are their own antiparticles. How would they behave?

    A non-existent (in this world) Indian Island with supergravity, somehow it seems so odd. My female brain doesn’t get it. I would want to know more about its interference with dark matter and energy. Like a possible BE-condensate of DM?

  4. Ulla says:

    Maybe this?
    http://arxiv.org/ftp/gr-qc/papers/0701/0701168.pdf

    This article is based on two hypotheses. The first one is the existence of the gravitational repulsion between particles and antiparticles. Consequently, virtual particle-antiparticle pairs in the quantum vacuum may be considered as gravitational dipoles. The second hypothesis is that the Universe has geometry of a four-dimensional hyper-spherical shell with thickness equal to the Compton wavelength of a pion, which is a simple generalization of the usual geometry of a 3-hypersphere. It is striking that these two hypotheses lead to a simple relation for the gravitational mass density of the vacuum, which is in very good agreement with the observed dark energy density.

    we have discussed how the gravitational properties of antimatter, together with the geometry of a hyper-spherical shell of thickness πλ, might allow the identification of the observed dark energy density with the appropriate gravitational mass density of the quantum vacuum.

    • Bill K says:

      In all the years the Tevatron has been running, Ulla, the antiproton beam has never been observed to fall up.

      • Ulla says:

        No, this seems very odd. But the annihilation time is certainly so short that any ‘falling’ has no chance to be seen? I guess gravity has no chance to talk there. Antimatter goes backwards in time, is also said. What does this mean for gravity and the dark matter/energy problem? Usually antimatter is said to be gravitional.

        But supergravity and antigravity would neutralize each other? The whole qusetion seems confusing.

        If this Island would be a heavier island of antimatter and dark matter that connects to our world with BE condensates?

        I saw that Lubos or a commenter also mentioned paranormal physics. Entanglement at distance could happen through this channel. And it could give Life.

        The main problem is still that it is so small. A real Susy would be bigger?

  5. Ulla says:

    http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=antiatoms-alpha-1000-seconds

    June 5 in Nature Physics, the ALPHA group reports having confined antihydrogen for 16 minutes and 40 seconds.

    Critically, the confinement times achieved by ALPHA imply that the antihydrogen atoms have had time to decay into their lowest-energy, or ground, state. “This method of antihydrogen formation creates them in highly excited states,” Surko says. “They’re fragile, and for really high-precision measurements of antihydrogen you need them in the ground state.”

    for each antiatom confined by the trap, thousands more from the same batch escape. And in 16 trapping experiments of 1,000 seconds each, only seven antihydrogen atoms were detected in total. (The researchers demonstrate the confinement of antihydrogen by quickly shutting down the superconducting magnets, turning the anti-atoms loose, and watching for matter–antimatter annihilations on the walls of the trap.)

    Gerald Gabrielse, the ATRAP collaboration. “We would hope not to be publishing a paper that says we see 0.6 atom per trial, but 100 atoms per trial.”

    I wonder what would happen if antiprotons would be smashed? But nothing about gravity 🙂

%d bloggers like this: