5
$\begingroup$

Due to the failure of the LHC to discover supersymmetry so far (July 2021), the simplest and the likeliest supersymmetric models (e.g. the MSSM) have been ruled out, and the confidence in supersymmetry is waning. While there were many searches for supersymmetry in the LHC in the past, are searches for supersymmetry in Run 3 (and even later runs) of the LHC still planned to occur as common as the earlier runs?

PS: I do not know much about supersymmetry, so I do apologise if any of the aforementioned facts is wrong.

$\endgroup$
1
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ Note that some of stringent constraints on possible SUSY models come not from direct searches but rather from indirect ones with flavour physics: e.g. one famous example is the $B^0_s \to \mu^+\mu^-$ decay which, as we know now, has rate compatible with the Standard Model, while a large enhancement was originally predicted in MSSM. See this plot from 2012 (and the constraint has greatly improved since then): cds.cern.ch/record/1473791/files/StrauBMoriond.png, where the greyed-out region is excluded by Bs->mm measurements. $\endgroup$
    – Martino
    Jul 11, 2021 at 11:49

1 Answer 1

5
$\begingroup$

The general purpose experiments at the LHC don't have an operating schedule analogous to a telescope, like you might be imagining, where at any given time the collider is being used for one type of search. Instead, at any given moment over the years of data collection the experiments are running in more-or-less the same configuration, collecting lots of data and saving it to disk (and tape backup) for later reconstruction and analysis. So, there's not really any reason why any of the experiments wouldn't repeat supersymmetry searches with new data -- all the papers are referring to essentially the same set of data, filtered and analyzed in different ways. The cost of doing whatever analysis you want on the data scales only with the amount of number of researchers and their free time.

There are some technicalities that might lead some to say the above is an oversimplification. Specifically, all these experiments have hardware and software level triggers, that let them decide what collision events are interesting enough to be worth keeping. Hypothetically one of the teams could decide that they weren't going to prioritize supersymmetry searches anymore, and reconfigure their trigger to prioritize other things. That's not going to actually happen, though. For one, the collaborations will want to perform more searches and, at the very least, set tighter and tighter bounds on supersymmetry; more prosaically, the trigger conditions in these experiments tend to be fairly simple/generic (e.g. "there was a high $p_T$ jet"), since the decisions need to be made quickly (at a 40 MHz rate), and aren't really more specific to supersymmetry than to other sorts of new physics searches (caveat: not a member of these collaborations).

$\endgroup$

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service and acknowledge you have read our privacy policy.