A Precise Calculation of Gluino Mass and Its Importance to a Free e-Course from 241-Mumbers, as Well as Predictions of LHC Particle Cascades at CERN

San Marcos, CA, August 04, 2008 --(PR.com)-- This year the Large Hadron Collider at CERN will commence operations. It’s expected the LHC is capable of producing supersymmetric particles, otherwise known as sparticles. While most sparticles are confined to a lesser energy, any evidence of squarks will require an energy equivalent to a gluino g^ = 6.388355 TeV - whose calculation central to a free e-course from 241-Mumbers, as well as the upcoming LHC (s)particle cascades.

For example, it's expected the LHC will find the standard model or 'light Higgs boson', yet that was evidenced by CERN’s electron collider in 2000. But the lepton collider was incapable of producing the raft of states of the full Supersymmetric Higgs Mechanism, the heaviest of which imparts mass to gluinos. Which assures the real interesting physics won’t occur until the LHC reaches higher energy proton collisions.

Just as gluino creation precedes its decay into squarks, it's also antecedent to producing the lightest sparticle: the Higgs-fermion better known as a neutralino or 'WIMP dark-mass.' For what was referred to as "the real interesting physics" reduces to a chain of transformational decays that further accounts for the observed dominance of baryon matter over anti-matter in baryogenesis: the creation of precursors to protons and neutrons. It follows that gluinos represent the most important, though rather misunderstood, state of the sparticle-particle spectrum.

For there's more to supersymmetry than just regarding a sparticle as a heavier spin-inverted state of some fundamental particle. For example, a quark carries a fractional charge whose nature as a fermion demands existence of an antiquark of opposite charge. A squark, however, is a boson of integer-spin whose charge ultimately is determined by the 'first-generation' of the +2e/3 Up or –1e/3 Down 'family' to which it belongs. So while the up is the lightest quark, sUp is the heaviest squark owing to an 'inverted flavor hierarchy' where the heaviest top quark corresponds to the lightest sTop squark. Yet more importantly, it's the bose nature of squarks that enforces the absence of an identifiable fermi-like state of antimatter: –2/3-charged squarks simply don't exist. So a neutral gluino strongly decays into a either a U-squark with two lighter sBottoms, or two D-squarks with, say, a sCharm.

Hence it's easy to imagine how a fixed squark charge from gluino decay is a prerequisite for material baryogenesis, though of course there's is more to this conclusion's reasoning. And though a few models have been proposed which seem to accord with these ideas, there's little evidence any argument has effectively challenged the notoriously inadequate explanation of baryogenesis in terms other than some variant of [CP] symmetry violations from a dense meson-like quark-antiquark/gluon plasma: hardly stable matter. For theorists to then acknowledge neutralino dark-mass, but not baryon-matter, as representing the "purpose of SUSY;" creating the world we occupy, is beyond comprehension.

Still it's fair to ask 1: what justifies criticiziing established precedents beyond 2: merely making unconfirmed "claims" of calculating gluino mass. In regards to the former critique, one can only say no other 'authority’ provides an effective explanation for baryon-creation. For the '241-model' further predicts a precise percentage of baryons relative to the total 'critical universal mass' that’s in fine accord with observation; supposedly mere "coincidence" otherwise.

Yet it’s critique-2 that garners emphasis as a follow-up to a review (pr.com/pressrelease/69740) of key discoveries. In this regard, gluino-mass is first of four Sample Data and Proofs at 241mumbers's website, as well as before the text's introduction. Two of these other examples constitute "pudding proofs" that empirically, as well as theoretically, confirm the precise mass of the down and up quarks, as well as strange and bottom. So while gluino mass lacks LHC-confirmation; it still entails a hard proof that's instead mathematical and experiential. For giving the mass-value urges serious readers to “eat the pudding themselves" as an initial 'hands-on task.' Which is to formulate three dimensionless equations as ratios to other masses in an abbreviated particle table following the introduction.

For the preceding report argues that listing dimensionless ratios between metric parameters is meaningless unless one is able to Write a Predictive Dimensionless Equation. If three independent equations exist for one mass, one could cogently conclude it's the only possible answer even without experimental data 'backing the claim.' For in this pudding, proof is in your bowl. Yet for the six years this material's been on the web, everyone tested has flunked; nobody's supplied one equation, let alone three. Since 241-Mumbers' purpose is best tested in an educational forum, it announces indefinite postponement of publication in favor of a free invitation to the introductory e-course in which one can earn full access to a raft of unprecedented information.

###