Skip to main content

To Infinity and Beyond (the Standard Model)

​Hello there readers (yes, all four of you), I'm back with the final installment of the Particle Physics Trilogy for Astronut. In my first and second posts, I gave a brief overview of the structure of the Standard Model of particle physics and went on to make a case for the existence of physics beyond the Standard Model. In this post I'm going to talk about one of these extensions of the SM, called Supersymmetry (you can call her SUSY)- which is also what will hopefully give me my PhD at the end of <till the funding runs out> years.

I'm afraid that this post is going to be a bit of a let-down, because I'm putting it together in a hurry but more so because we are now near the boundaries of my knowledge of particle physics- there is still a semester to go before I take the graduate level Beyond the Standard Model course! So please bear with the occasional vagueness. 

Before I begin, I must point out that SUSY is a bit of a controversial topic in the particle physics community. She's the girl you think is The One, while your friends try to warn you that you are just in love with the idea of her. Err, I may or may not have binge-watched some chick-flicks today. A great man- my PhD supervisor, actually- once said: "Supersymmetry is too beautiful to not be true" (relevant xkcd, see alt-text). And indeed, it is the only extension of the Standard Model that to date provides a solution to the dark matter problem, the Hierarchy Problem of the Higgs mass, quantum gravity, origin of matter, the instability of vacuum and the cosmological inflation (source). Beautiful as it is, it still remains elusive at the TeV scales that we have probed at the LHC so far, even though theoretical predictions suggest that supersymmetric particles should have been observable at those energies. 

But let's leave the SUSY debate to drunken after-conference dinner conversations, and try to make an acquaintance with the lady herself. Supersymmetry is a conjectured symmetry of space and time, and is the only possible non-trivial extension of the PoincarĂ© symmetry. This basically means that the symmetry relates fermions to bosons. The basic premise of supersymmetric theories is that every fermion has a corresponding boson whose spin differs from the that of the fermion by half a unit and vice versa. The first thing you should notice that this immediately doubles the number of particles we have in the standard model. The supersymmetric algebra transforms a fermionic field to a bosonic field, and a bosonic field to a fermionic field. These fermion-boson pairs are grouped into supermultiplets, with equal number of fermionic and bosonic degrees of freedom. (Note: The fact that I am unable to do away with the jargon should tell you by now that I am still learning how-to-SUSY with the training wheels on). So if SUSY is a perfect fermion-boson symmetry, why haven't we observed these "superpartners" of the SM particles? Good question. The very fact that we haven't observed SUSY particles yet means that supersymmetry is only realised as a broken symmetry: the masses of the superpartners do not mirror those of the SM particles. 

We're now getting to the fun and weird part of SUSY- the superpartners themselves. The supepartners of the fermions are bosons called sfermions. You read that right. The boson corresponding to the electron is called the selectron, that corresponding to the top quark is called the stop and so on. The fermionic superpartners of the SM bosons, on the other hand are named with suffix -ino. So we have the Higgsino corresponding to the Higgs, the wino corresponding to the W boson, the zino, gluino ... you get the idea. Moreover, SUSY hypothesizes not one, not two, not three- but FIVE physical Higgs states. There are several variants of supersymmetric theories: the simplest being the Minimal Supersymmetric Standard Model (MSSM) followed by the Next-to-Minimal Supersymmetric Standard Model (NMSSM). If you venture to Google these, you will notice the Wikipedia articles getting shorter and vaguer (like this blogpost), so these theories are clearly a work-in-progress. 

However, there are two important things that one should know about SUSY: (1) It predicts the LSP- Lightest Supersymmetric Particle to be electrically neutral and weakly interacting with the Standard Model particles- exactly the properties of dark matter, and (2) It naturally suppresses the radiative corrections to the SM Higgs mass, thus solving the Hierarchy problem. How does it do that? In the last post, I wrote about how the quantum corrections account for the couplings of the Higgs to the SM particles. As it turns out, these corrections are cancelled out by those due to the coupling of the Higgs to the SM superpartners- thus providing a solution to the Hierarchy problem that arises out of symmetry, and not ad hoc fine-tuning. 

So in all probability, SUSY seems weird and too far-fetched to you. But the reason why this theory appeals to physicists around the globe (and also why some really huge amount of money is being pumped into the LHC to search for SUSY) is that it's core principle is anchored in symmetry and by extension, in beauty and elegance. A brief acquaintance with Emmy Noether's remarkable theorem will tell you that symmetry dictates interaction- symmetries and invariance principles provide structure and coherence to the laws of nature. Whether or not SUSY continues to play hard-to-get in Run 2 of the LHC remains to be seen. No matter which way it goes, the next decade of particle physics is going to take us on a roller-coaster of a ride for sure. 

As Hawking would say, we look to the future of physics standing on the shoulders of giants who came before us. Science in the 21st century, in my opinion, is the gateway for humanity to redeem itself. But in the end- and I am sure that anyone who has loved and delighted in physics, and conversed with it in the the language of equations would agree- the reason why we do science is not because we believe our science will save the world- or that we will transport the human civilization to a higher plane of understanding. We do it for deeply personal reasons, for that moment of clarity that comes with the Quad Erat Demonstrandum at the end of a proof and quite simply for the joy of fulfilling the demands of a curious mind. 

It would be fitting to end this series of posts with the words of Henri PoincarĂ©- physicist, mathematician, engineer, philosopher and master of words: 

The Scientist does not study nature because it is useful to do so. He studies it because he takes pleasure in it; and he takes pleasure in it because it is beautiful. It is because simplicity and vastness are both beautiful that we seek by preference simple facts and vast facts; that we take delight, now in following the giant courses of the stars, now, in scrutinizing with a microscope that prodigious smallness which is also a vastness, and, now, in seeking in geological ages the traces of the past that attracts us because of its remoteness.

Over and out.

Popular posts from this blog

Animation using GNUPlot

Animation using GNUPlotI've been trying to create an animation depicting a quasar spectrum moving across the 5 SDSS pass bands with respect to redshift. It is important to visualise what emission lines are moving in and out of bands to be able to understand the color-redshift plots and the changes in it.
I've tried doing this using the animate function in matplotlib, python but i wasn't able to make it work - meaning i worked on it for a couple of days and then i gave up, not having found solutions for my problems on the internet.
And then i came across this site, where the gunn-peterson trough and the lyman alpha forest have been depicted - in a beautiful manner. And this got me interested in using js and d3 to do the animations and make it dynamic - using sliders etc.
In the meanwhile, i thought i'd look up and see if there was a way to create animations in gnuplot and whoopdedoo, what do i find but nirvana!

In the image, you see 5 static curves and one dynam…

on MOOCs.

For those of you who don't know, MOOC stands for Massively Open Online Course.

The internet is an awesome thing. It's making education free for all. Well, mostly free. But it's surprising at the width and depth of courses being offered online. And it looks like they are also having an impact on students, especially those from universities that are not top ranked. Students in all parts of the world can now get a first class education experience, thanks to courses offered by Stanford, MIT, Caltech, etc.

I'm talking about MOOCs because one of my new year resolutions is to take online courses, atleast 2 per semester (6 months). And I've chosen the following two courses on edX - Analyzing Big Data with Microsoft R Server and Data Science Essentials for now. I looked at courses on Coursera but I couldn't find any which was worthy and free. There are a lot more MOOC providers out there but let's start here. And I feel like the two courses are relevant to where I …

On programmers.

I just watched this brilliant keynote today. It's a commentary on Programmers and the software development industry/ecosystem as a whole.

I am not going to give you a tl;dr version of the talk because it is a talk that I believe everyone should watch, that everyone should learn from. Instead, I am going to give my own parallel-ish views on programmers and programming.
As pointed out in the talk, there are mythical creatures in the software development industry who are revered as gods. Guido Van Rossum, the creator of Python, was given the title Benevolent Dictator For Life (BDFL). People flock around the creators of popular languages or libraries. They are god-like to most programmers and are treated like gods. By which, I mean to say, we assume they don't have flaws. That they are infallible. That they are perfect.
And alongside this belief in the infallibility of these Gods, we believe that they were born programmers. That programming is something that people are born wit…