Talk:Superpartner

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Physics, which collaborates on articles related to physics.	Physics Portal
Stub	This article has been rated as Stub-Class on the assessment scale.
???	This article has not yet received an importance rating within physics.
Help with this template This article has been rated but has no comments. If appropriate, please review the article and leave comments here to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article and what work it will need.

This article has been automatically assessed as Stub-Class by WikiProject Physics because it uses a stub template. If you agree with the assessment, please remove {{Physics}}'s auto=yes parameter from this talk page. If you disagree with the assessment, please change it by editing the class parameter of the {{Physics}} template, removing {{Physics}}'s auto=yes parameter from this talk page, and removing the stub template from the article.

This makes no sense. No information could possibly go here that is not covered already by the SuSy article. If nobody objects, I'm redirecting. -- Xerxes 03:41, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

I'm not so sure. It's kind of a useful definition to have at the top when you link the word. I know that's not what articles are for, so I'm kind of undecided... -- SCZenz 03:44, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] String theory?

Discovery of such a particle is considered essential to proving superstring theories or M-theory. I don't think this is really true. String theory seems to be perfectly happy with SUSY breaking at the GUT scale, in which case we won't discover any superpartners at the TeV scale. HEL 22:35, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

Agreed... I removed it -- it's probably technically wrong too since the heterotic O(16)xO(16) string has no susy but is not that far from realising the world. In addition, I tend to agree that everything could go into the supersymmetry article. ~~ jay 05:56, 1 October 2006 (UTC)