Paper detail

Upper bounds on supersymmetry breaking from gauge coupling unification

I derive conservative upper bounds on the supersymmetry breaking parameter $m_{1/2}$ as a function of the strong coupling in the Standard Supersymmetric Model (SSM) using gauge coupling unification. I find that over more than $99\%$ of the parameter space, $α_3>0.120$ implies that $m_{1/2}$ is below $10\TeV$ and $α_3>0.129$ implies that $m_{1/2}$ is below $1\TeV$. I express the variation of these bounds over the SSM parameter space with a numerical coefficient, $c$. I also find that in the SSM, a reasonable value of $50\GeV<m_{1/2}<1\TeV$ requires $α_3>0.119$ over the whole parameter space. These bounds are particularly sensitive to the value of $\sin^2θ_W=0.2317\pm0.0005$ used in the calculation. In more realistic models, heavy thresholds and gravitational effects will modify this result. Although these effects are theoretically calculable in specific models, more realistic models contain many unknown parameters in practice. I illustrate this point with minimal supersymmetric $SU(5)$ where the combined constraints of gauge coupling unification and proton decay require $α_3>0.119$ for $m_{1/2}<1\TeV$ and the upper bound on the supersymmetry breaking scale is greatly relaxed.

preprint1995arXivOpen 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.

Authors

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.