Statistical analysis of the supersymmetry breaking scale
By Michael R Douglas. 2004
145 citations recorded by the source corpus.
We discuss the question of what type and scale of supersymmetry breaking might be statistically favored among vacua of string/M theory, building on comments in Denef and Douglas, hep-th/0404116.
Subfields: Astronomy and Astrophysics, Nuclear and High Energy Physics
View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/338a1fded99eb5ef2736aa499da5a45cb21b103f
How researchers see this paper
The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.
In Astronomy and Astrophysics
- Frederik Denef
- Washington Taylor
- S. Kachru
- Michael R Douglas
- Anshuman Maharana
- S. Giddings
- Andrei Linde
- Liam McAllister
In Nuclear and High Energy Physics
- Frederik Denef
- S. Kachru
- Washington Taylor
- Eran Palti
- Liam McAllister
- E. Silverstein
- Michael R Douglas
- Andrei Linde
Citations in the corpus
- The statistics of supersymmetric D-brane models (2004, unknown): “11/2004”
- Predictive Landscapes and New Physics at a TeV (2005, background): “The fact that the distribution of F and D terms, if sufficiently uniform, will statistically favor high scale SUSY breaking on the landscape has been discussed in the context of stringy constructions in [39, 40, 41, 42].”
- Enumerating flux vacua with enhanced symmetries (2004, background): “In this subsection we discuss these vacua, beginning by describing precisely what is meant by the statement that a vacuum possesses an enhanced symmetry.”
- Distributions of nonsupersymmetric flux vacua (2004, background): “We then argued that the suggestion of [11, 19] for a large power law growth in the number of F breaking vacua in models with many moduli is not expected in general.”
- Supersymmetry Breaking in the Anthropic Landscape (2004, background): “breaking in the Landscape. These authors find that high scale supersymmetry breaking may be favored [8]. 2 Note Added After this paper was written M Douglas put out a paper addressing the same problem [9]. Douglas’ conclusion is a good deal stronger than mine. The difference lies in formulas 1.1 and 1”
- Dynamics of warped compactifications and the shape of the warped landscape (2005, background): “An important part of the arguments of [49-53] is the independence of the Kahler potential on the fluxes.”