The Theory, Significance and Precise Calculation of Gluino Mass
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. For example, the first LHC runs may create a 'light Higgs boson,' as evidenced by CERN's electron collider before it was terminated for the upgrade. Though such confirmation will be ballyhooed as a major 'discovery' of the 'standard model Higgs boson,' it would 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 by maybe the end of 2008.
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 'dark mass' called WIMPs) - without first producing a gluino. For what is referred to above as "the real interesting physics" reduces to a precisely mapped 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.
It's my opinion that in these senses the gluino represents the most important, yet presently seems the least appreciated or understood, state of the sparticle-particle spectrum. Likewise, there is more to super-symmetry than just the idea of a sparticle as the inverse 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 +2e/3-Up or -1e/3-Down 'family' to which it belongs. So 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 a mere function of fermi-bose spin-inversion. Yet just as importantly the Bose nature of squarks certainly reinforces the subsequent absence of an identifiable Fermi-like state of antimatter: a -2/3 or +1/3 charged squark is simply not allowed.
And although it is far too light to produce three 1st generation squarks, only a neutral gluino is heavy enough to, and so in fact must, strongly decay into either a U-squark with two light sBottoms or two D-squarks with, say, a sCharm. Given these demands, it's rather easy to imagine how a fixed squark charge from gluino decay is a prerequisite for material baryogenesis. There's much more to this of course, but our explanation here conveys the hard theoretic essense in plain English. Although a couple of other 'models' have been proposed which seem in accord, or amendable, with these conclusions, there is little evidence that any argument has effectively challenged the notoriously inadequate means of addressing baryogenesis in terms other 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 'stable matter.' For theorists to collectively acknowledge neutralino dark-mass, but not baryon-matter, as representing the 'Purposeful-consequence of SUSY' - creating a viable physical world corresponding to the one we live in - is beyond comprehension or easy excuses.
But then again, many experimentally-minded physicists believe that SUSY in any guise is hypothetical speculation barring empirical evidence otherwise, as if CERN's new toy won't test this assumption soon enough. And I casually await these results with no less interest than anyone else. Yet it'd surely be fair to question the advisability of disputing established theoretical criteria of greater intellects, especially if merely based on an unsubstantiated claim of calculating the precise gluino mass. In regards to the former critique, all I'm saying is that no consensus or other "authority" provides any explanation for actual baryogenesis. By comparison, the proposed elucidation in fact supplies exact solutions for at least (well-measured) CP-violations in K-mesons as an adjacent process for a final stage of literal baryogenesis. Which furthermore naturally provides a precise percentage of baryon matter relative to the 'critical density' of universal mass that's in fine accord with observational evidence - yet is supposedly a mere "coincidence" otherwise.
But it's the latter critique that demands the greater emphasis here as a follow-up to a previous essay (see resource box) about our central discoveries. In this regard, the gluino mass is given as the first of four examples of data and proofs on the website, as well as before the introductory text. Two of these other choices utilize well-measured particle-states that constitute "pudding proofs" which empirically, as well as theoretically, confirm the calculation for the precise mass of the down and up, as well as, strange and bottom, quarks, in the latter case also verifying the mass of the 'Higgs vacuum minimum.' While the gluino mass comparatively will lack full LHC-verification beyond 2008, it entails a hard proof nonetheless, though it's not theoretical either. Rather, the mass is given as a means to urge serious readers to taste and "eat the pudding" for themselves as the first of two 'hands-on mathematical tasks.' Which is to write three dimensionless equations as independent ratios to other masses in an abbreviated sparticle-particle table following the introductory chapter (as a prelude to receiving the expanded swamp of the full spectrum containing the gluino).
For the point of the earlier article was that establishing a dimensionless system of ratios between metric parameters is in itself insufficient and rather meaningless unless one is able to write a discrete, 'pure' numerical equation, which naturally is precisely predictive. If three independent equations exist as dimensionless ratios to the gluino mass, a cogent being might conclude that it is the only possible answer even without experimental data to "back the claim." In any case, in this proof the bowl of pudding is in your hands - and for six years that this material has been on the web, everyone tested spilled everything before the first spoon hit their mouth - no one has supplied one equation, let alone three. Seems nobody wants, recognizes or is willing to 'buy' concrete, or new, information anyway - they're too busy trying to convince me, as each other, that they are real authorities.
Sean Sheeter is an independent theorist and author of the forthcoming hardcover "241-Mumbers: The Definitive Data for Fundamental Physics and Cosmology," now available as an e-course. The gluino mass is one of four examples of Sample Data and Proofs found at http://www.241mumbers.com/page2.html Interested parties are encouraged to subscribe to the e-training since successful solutions to the task of providing equations for this mass will warrant a free ever-updated subscription (or) at least (a far cheaper e-book for, say, a correct partial answer) unto the foreseeable future. Though the 241-mumbers website conveys a similar message with regard to the value of the e-course compared to the hardcover, this specific task is not mentioned but rather is reserved for this essay as a perfect follow-up to http://www.ezinearticles.com/?Pure-Derivation-of-the-Exact-Fine-Structure-Constant-and-as-a-Ratio-of-Two-Inexact-Metric-Constants&id=907943
For we're trying to distribute this raft of unique information both as cheaply and directly (so, granted, to potentially the most customers) as possible - our foremost concern being the optimized, hands-on learning process. The purpose of which is to insure that one respects ultimate authority: the information and arguments themselves. But, as that concluding caveat alluded, in the real academic-world, as with business or the google-eyed internet: money = self-promotion; of your job, institution, bosses and/or peers (which => more $/prestige: =Most$-> PR/Google-Yahoo!!). So who cares if it takes another seven years to sell one manuscript? But one thing's assured: whoever wants it will have earned it the one-and-only way it can be acquired, learned or itself respected. As the brethren say in the gnostical way to another down in JA, "enough respect," except unto Jah, or just as reality, all else being relatively transitory self-illusion.
