This year the Large Hadron Collider at CERN in Geneva will commence operations. It’s generally expected the LHC, as the world’s most powerful machine, is capable of producing supersymmetric particles, otherwise known as sparticles.
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 LHC runs may create a 'light Higgs boson,' as evidenced by CERN’s electron collider before the upgrade. Though it will be ballyhooed as a major discovery of the 'standard model Higgs boson,' it'd be foolish if finding that was the only point of building the LHC. 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 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 around 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 'WIMP dark-mass' - without first producing a gluino. For what was referred to 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. In these senses, the gluino thus represents the most important, yet presently misuderstood, 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 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-charged squark simply doesn't exist.
So a neutral gluino must strongly decay into a either a U-squark with two lighter sBottoms, or two D-squarks with, say, an sCharm. It's therefore 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 few "models" have been proposed which seem in accord or amendable with these conclusions, there is little evidence that any argument has effectively challenged the notoriously inadequate 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 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 the collective authorities to ask who am I to question the established theoretical criteria of the greater intellects who devised SUSY, and merely claims to calculate the precise gluino mass. In regards to the former critique, all I’m saying is that no other ‘authority’ provides any explanation for real baryon creation that comes close. For the '241 model" naturally further 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 a previous essay () 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 our website, as well as before the introductory chapter of the text "241-Mumbers." Two of these other samples effectively constitute "pudding proofs" that empirically, as well as theoretically, verify the precise mass of the down and up quarks, as well as the strange and bottom, 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, as well as experiential, instead. For giving the gluino mass serves as a means to urge serious readers to “eat the pudding for themselves" as the first of two 'hands-on tasks.' Which is to write three dimensionless equations as ratios to three other masses in the abbreviated particle table following the introductory chapter.
For the point of the preceding essay is that a dimensionless system of ratios between metric parameters is in itself insufficient and relatively meaningless unless one is able to a predictive 'purely numerical' equation. If three independent equations exist as dimensionless ratios to one gluino-mass, a cogent being could conclude it's the only possible answer even without experimental data to "back the claim." For in this bowl of pudding, proof is in your hands. And after the six years this material has been on the web, everyone tested has flunked; no one has supplied one equation, let alone three.
But nobody seems to want, let alone is willing to 'buy,' real, new information anyway. For everyone, including myself, is too busy trying to convince each other what qualifies as, and that they then are, a real authority. But 241's purpose is better tested as an educational forum: so we'll indefinitely postpone this text's publication in favor of an invitation to said introductory e-course in which a learner may earn full free access to a raft of information unavailable elsewhere.
