Paper detail

Supersymmetry: Aspirations and Prospects

The realization in the early 1980s that weak scale supersymmetry stabilizes the Higgs sector of the spectacularly successful Standard Model led several authors to explore whether low energy supersymmetry could play a role in particle physics. Among these were Richard Arnowitt, Ali Chamseddine and Pran Nath who constructed a viable {\em locally} supersymmetric Grand Unified Theory (GUT), laying down the foundation for supergravity GUT models of particle physics. Supergravity models continue to be explored as one of the most promising extensions of the Standard Model. After a quick overview of some of the issues and aspirations of early researchers working to bring supersymmetry into the mainstream of particle physics, we re-examine early arguments that seemed to imply that superpartners would be revealed in experiments at LEP2 or at the Tevatron. Our purpose is to assess whether the absence of any superpartners in searches at LHC8 presents a crisis for supersymmetry. Toward this end, we re-evaluate fine-tuning arguments that lead to upper bounds on (some) superpartner masses. We conclude that phenomenologically viable superpartner spectra that could arise within a high scale model tuned no worse than a few percent are perfectly possible. While no viable underlying model of particle physics that leads to such spectra has yet emerged, we show that the (supergravity-based) Radiatively-driven Natural Supersymmetry (RNS) framework serves as a surrogate for a phenomenological analysis of an underlying theory with modest fine-tuning. We outline the phenomenological implications of this framework, with emphasis on those LHC and electron-positron collider signatures that might point to the underlying natural origin of gauge and Higgs boson masses. We conclude that the supergravity GUT paradigm laid down in 1982 by Arnowitt, Chamseddine and Nath, and others, remains a vibrant possibility.

preprint2015arXivOpen access

Signal facts

What is known right now

Open access1 author1 topic

Next steps

Decide what to do with this paper

Use like or dislike for the fast social read. The more specific scholarly feedback stays available below when needed.

Log in to curate

Reading frame

Keep the important context close to the paper

Keep the important signals around this paper in one place: votes, save state, collection context, reviews and the metadata you need before deciding what to do next.

Institutions

Add specific reaction

Move through the context

Research map

Open full explorer

Move through nearby people, institutions, topics and adjacent work without leaving the paper page.

Building this map preview

BZPEER is loading the nearby papers, people, topics and institutions for this page.

Structured reviews

0 review(s)

ContributeLeave structured feedbackUse the review template when you have a concrete strength, concern or method question.Open review form

No structured reviews yet. High-signal critique starts here.

Work discussion

0 comment(s)

DiscussAdd a high-signal commentKeep quick notes, caveats and replication pointers separate from formal reviews.Open comment form

No discussion yet. The first strong comment sets the tone.