While most sparticles are confined to a lesser energy, any evidence of squarks will at least require a mass-energy equivalent to a gluino g^ = 6.388355 TeV. Similarly, the first runs of the LHC may create a ?light Higgs-boson,? as evidenced by CERN's electron collider before it was terminated for the upgrade. Though such confirmation will be ballyhooed as a major discovery of the ?standard-model Higgs boson,? it would be foolish if finding that was the only point of building the LCD. But it's certainly vindicated by the lack of evidence of sparticles to date. Likewise, the lepton collider was incapable of producing the raft of states encompassing the ?minimal supersymmetric Higgs mechanism,? the heaviest of which imparts mass to the gluino. One can then be rest assured the real interesting physics won't occur until the accelerator reaches higher relativistic energies of focused proton-antiproton collisions by maybe the end of 2008.



In fact, it's probably impossible to generate not just squarks, but the lightest sparticle - the fermi-equivalent of a Higgs boson better known as a neutralino that constitutes the proportion of galactic ?dark mass? called WIMPs - without first producing a gluino. For what is referred to above as ?the real interesting physics? reduces to a precisely mapped chain of transformational decays that further accounts for the observed dominance of fermion matter over anti-matter in baryogenesis ? the creation of material baryons; precursors of protons and neutrons. It's my opinion that in these senses the gluino consequently represents the most important, yet presently under-appreciated or misunderstood, state of the sparticle-particle spectrum.

Likewise, there is more to super-symmetry than just the idea of a sparticle as an opposing spin state of a lighter ?fundamental particle.? For example, a quark carries a fractional charge whose nature as a fermion demands the existence of an anti-quark of opposite charge. A squark, on the other hand, is a boson of integer spin whose charge is ultimately determined by the ?first generation? of the +2/3-Up or ?1e/3-Down ?family? to which it belongs. And while the up is the lightest quark, the ?sup? is the heaviest squark owing to an ?inverted flavor hierarchy? where the heaviest top quark corresponds to the lightest ?stop? squark, a nuance of SUSY that's not directly addressable as just a function of fermi-bose spin-inversion. Yet it's just as importantly the bose nature of squarks that reinforces the absence of an identifiable fermi-like state of antimatter: a ?2e/3-squark is simply not allowed.

Since only a neutral gluino can strongly decay into a U-squark (with, say, two light sBottoms) or two D-squarks (with, say, a sCharm), it's rather easy to imagine how a fixed squark charge from gluino decay is a prerequisite for material baryogenesis. There's much more to this conclusion of course, but the explanation here conveys its essence encapsulated in simple language. And though a ?model? or two have been proposed which seem in accord or amendable with the above conclusions, there is little evidence that any argument has effectively challenged the notoriously inadaquite means of addressing baryogenesis in other terms than the some variant of the ?standard model? of CP [or CPT] ?symmetry violations? from basically a high-energy meson-like quark-antiquark/gluon plasma - hardly a ?stable material state.? For theorists to collectively acknowledge neutralino dark-mass, but not baryon-matter, as representing the ?purpose of SUSY? - creating a viable physical world corresponding to the one we live in ? is beyond comprehension or excuses.

But then again, more experimentally-minded physicists believe that SUSY in any guise is hypothetical speculation barring empirical evidence otherwise, as if their new toy won't test this assumption soon enough. Anyway, I casually await these results with no less interest than anyone else. Yet it'd certainly be fair of collective authorities to ask who am I to question the theoretical criteria of the greater intellects who devised SUSY, and who merely claims to calculate the precise gluino mass. In regards to the former critique, all I'm saying is that no 'group concensus' or other ?authority? provides any explanation for real baryogenesis that comes close. For ?my model? further naturally provides a precise percentage of baryons relative to the critical density of universal mass that's in fine accord with observational evidence ? a supposedly mere ?coincidence? otherwise.

But it's the latter critique that demands the greater emphasis here as a follow-up to the previous essay (http://www.goarticles.com/cgi-bin/showa.cgi'C=754366) in a series of reports about some central discoveries. In this regard, the gluino mass here is given as one of four examples of ?Sample Data and Proofs? on my website, as well as before the Introduction in the text ?241-Mumbers.? Two of these other samples effectively constitute ?pudding proofs? that empirically, as well as theoretically, verify the calculation for the precise mass of the down and up, as well as, strange and bottom, quarks, in the latter case also verifying the mass of the ?Higgs vacuum minimum?. While this gluino mass comparatively will lack full LHC-verification beyond 2008 ? it entails a hard proof nonetheless that's not theoretical either ? but wholly mathematical instead, though this is not mentioned in the given example. Rather, it serves to give the gluino mass as a means to urge serious reader to ?eat the tasty pudding? for themselves as the first of two ?hands-on tasks.? Which is to write three dimensionless equations as ratios to other masses in the abbreviated particle table following the book or e-course's introductory chapter.

For the point of the preceding report is that establishing a dimensionless system of ratios between metric parameters is in itself insufficient and meaningless unless one is able to Write a discrete, ?pure,? numerical equation. If three independent equations exist as dimensionless ratios to the gluino mass, surely any cogent being would conclude that it is the only possible answer even without experimental data to ?back? the ?claim.? But in this proof, the bowl of pudding is in your hands ? and for six years that this material has been on the web ? everyone I've tested has flunked, no one has supplied one equation, let alone three. Nobody's wants, or is willing to buy information anyway ? they're too busy trying to convince me, as each other, that they are a real authority.