Talk:Supersymmetry
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Physics, which collaborates on articles related to physics. | |
| ??? | This article has not yet received a rating on the assessment scale. [FAQ] | |
| ??? | This article has not yet received an importance rating within physics. | |
|
Please rate this article, and then leave comments here to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article. |
||
Contents |
[edit] Revision of 24 Feb 2006
I know very little about SUSY, but this article needs serious reorganization, so I'm trying it. I think the Motivation and SSM sections need the most work; they contain redundant information organized poorly. Some of the sections of this article could be spun off into their own articles. I've ripped out the following stuff, which appears to be irrelevant trivia; if it's important, then it should be expanded upon.
- In June 1976, the two researchers famously met at Fenway Park and combined their ideas, yielding the notorious "Fenway Thesis."
Joshuardavis 14:16, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Adding graphs to the Coupling Constants Section
In the coupling constants section it seems like it would be worthwhile to add the graphs that show how SUSY fixes the problem of the SM coupling constants not meeting at higher energies. Every talk that I see on SUSY usually includes this, and it is by no means technical. --Zekemurdock 22:58, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Credit where Credit belongs
This morning, I read an article in the New Yorker about wikipedia, and immediately felt compelled to read up on a subject I happen to know a few things about, namely SUSY. I couldn't help but get involved in editing even on my first experience.
Who the h*** (choose your own expletive!) are "Jonathan I Segal of MIT" and "Daniel Laufferty of Tufts"? A search on Google draws a blank on either, and my own memory of writing a computerized bibliography of the subject in the summer of 1982 also draws a blank. That bibliography contained the closure of the coset of all articles with Wess or Zumino as a co-author, plus all articles with "super[-]symmetry" in the title under the operations "refer to" or "be referred by", and contained even then several thousand papers.
I corrected the attributions in the second paragraph to my best knowledge.
--81.179.10.85 14:40, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
[edit] 3 Oct 2006 Rewrite
I've been eyeing this article a long while and I have been trying to have a plan of attack for it. The major problem with it was that it was a kitchen sink approach to writing. Supersymmetry is a huge topic and not everything can be covered in full depth in the main article. Many other articles have been written on supersymmetry and this article should be a jumping off point to the other more complete articles. There was a lot of disconnected points throughout the article. I have attempted to organise the page into a more logical flow. I have attempted to shorten the subsections by trying to remove the technicalia and hope that the reference articles will take care of that for interested parties.
I also felt it was terribly strange to have CDMS be the visual image for supersymmetry. Everyone I know finds this almost inappropriate -- a nice picture, but not directly related to supersymmetry (as CDMS could find something and have it not be supersymmetry).
The g-2 of the muon is not considered a hint for supersymmetry by the vast majority of the physics community (though not all) -- it's less than 3 sigma off.
I have added a bit aboout extended supersymmetry (which could be expanded upon). This was strangely absent IMHO (it wasn't even referred to).
I have also added a subsection for susy in other dimensions which should be filled in with a little detail and probably referred off to another article.
I have attempted to make this neutral and fact driven.
~~ jay 02:36, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
[edit] B_s Mixing is Consistent with the Standard Model
As much as I would like it to be true, B_s mixing does not point to new physics (despite media reports otherwise). There are a tonnes of 3 sigma deviations that eventually go away, and this is not even at that level. While it is not inconsistent with the MSSM, it does not give evidence for it. This article would be completely unwieldily if every ambiguous experimental result was put in this article. jay 13:12, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Pauli ?
Chapter 3 of P. West book says, referring to the cancelation of bosonic and fermionic degrees of freedom, "This fact was noticed time ago by Pauli" but no reference is given.
[edit] Hyperbolic extension
Can someone help develop the above article as it pertains to Supersymmetry?--Ludvikus 01:56, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Ambiguous Sentence
The following sentence in the article needs grammatical correction. It's hard to determine if the "if" at the beginning belongs there or not. If the "if" is removed the sentence reads correctly but the meaning is still vague. I have left the sentence as is in the hope that the author will rewrite it. Dr. Morbius 00:38, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
"If the Standard Model do not quite meet together at a common energy scale if we run the renormalization group using the Standard Model."
