# theory

not endorsed by snarxiv

## Friday, January 22, 2016

### Susy II

However, the MSSM has a lot of annoying particles like gauginos and sfermions which get in the way. Here last decade's ideas about split susy are useful. In particular, in section 2.3.3 of "Predictive Landscapes..." we read about a framework midway between split and supersplit susy, in which only the Higgsino is light. That sounds worth exploring.

## Monday, January 18, 2016

### H, Z, susy

In the standard model, these quantities should be independent. But in the MSSM, the Z boson is the upper bound on the tree-level mass of the Higgs.

I am too tired to develop an interpretation. But tomorrow is another day.

## Thursday, January 14, 2016

### t, H, W, Z in 2016

m

_{H}= m

_{W}+ 1/2 m

_{Z}

The problem being that it works quite well; but theory tends to favor relations among the

*squares*of these masses (e.g. the "Veltman condition").

The primary purpose of this post is just to observe that you can get such a relation by squaring both sides of the D-K equation.

You do also get a term m

_{W}m

_{Z}. Perhaps it could result from a geometric mean, as in Torrente-Lujan.

Another simple thing that I want to observe, is that you might obtain something like D-K, by taking the square root of a Veltman-like sum rule. In other words, it could be approximately true, not by chance and not because it is directly implied by a fundamental theory, but as an algebraic side-effect of the truly fundamental relationship.

(The same applies to the Lopez-Castro - Pestieau - Garces-Doz sum rule, previously discussed here, which does involve masses squared, and therefore even more closely resembles Veltman's condition.)

P.S. Dharwadker also has a numerology for the ratio baryonic matter : dark matter : dark energy, which he deduces to be 1:5:18.

## Wednesday, December 16, 2015

### LHC bump

## Wednesday, October 28, 2015

### Today's vixra weather

Today has an unusual surge of interesting activity. Most of this is due to a document dump by an independent researcher in Bangalore, who appears to combine some genuine expertise and originality in signal processing and device physics, with a commitment to a traditional cultural synthesis embracing music, metaphysics, and language, and then rounded out with general polymathic speculation.

But there's also just a higher-than-usual density of papers combining geographically diverse origins and professionalism above the vixra average. In particular, this paper on neutrino mixing from China has a quite professional look and exposition - until the author wants to motivate their ansatz for the mixing matrix, and then suddenly there's crazy talk [*] about fractals, Tsallis statistics, and M theory. Also notable is that this newly uploaded paper immediately acquired a comment by "Critic" purporting to explain its error. It makes me wonder if "Critic" is some colleague of the author's, who promised to publicly explain their criticism.

Finally, someone is using vixra to lampoon a notoriously self-promoting critic of modern physics, by writing preprints which assert that his work is vindicated by the most avantgarde trends of the mainstream. The first such paper was just silliness, but today's paper is sophisticated silliness, in that it shows a fluency in contemporary mathematical physics beyond what can be obtained by just copy-pasting snarxiv output. My guess is that the author is at PhD level.

[*] I may write a separate post about this paper.

## Friday, August 21, 2015

### Constituent pions

## Friday, July 31, 2015

### Today's crackpot synthesis

_{p}is proportional to a power of the top mass, m

_{t}

^{2/27}.

Today I realized that Brannen's reformulation of the Koide relation can be described as follows: the Brannen mass scale of e,mu,tau is m_{p}/3, and the Brannen phase is 3 * 2/27.

2. If the quark families (b,s,d and u,c,t) are treated as Koide triples, their phases are also (arguably) multiples of 2/27.

There is also a "waterfall" of Koide triples, descending from the top, which *alternate* between the families. One of these triples - s,c,b - has a Brannen mass of m_{p}, and a Brannen phase of 2/3.

3. In Rivero's sBootstrap, the leptons are superpartners of mesons made of the five light quark flavors, and the quarks themselves are superpartners of diquarks made of those five flavors.

I proposed to interpret this as similar to a Seiberg duality. The primordial theory is like six-flavor QCD with one heavy quark and five massless quarks, and N=1 supersymmetry. The other is the standard model, with the light quark masses, the leptons, and the electroweak sector all emerging from the duality.

The leptons would then be the mesinos of the primordial theory, and the phenomenological quarks would be a mixture of the primordial quarks and the diquarkinos.

4. This suggests a way of thinking about the numerology in 1 & 2.

The primordial fact would be that m_{p} ∝ m_{t}^{2/27} is already true in the QCD-like theory on one side of the duality. The appearance of m_{p} and 2/27 in standard model numerology is then to be attributed to the duality. 1 comes from the "lepton-mesino duality", and everything in 2 from the "quark-diquarkino self-duality".