Is The Constrained Minimal Supersymmetric Extension Of The Standard Model Written Off Yet ?
    By Tommaso Dorigo | May 11th 2012 07:23 AM | 26 comments | Print | E-mail | Track Comments
    About Tommaso

    I am an experimental particle physicist working with the CMS experiment at CERN. In my spare time I play chess, abuse the piano, and aim my dobson...

    View Tommaso's Profile
    Today I read with pleasure a paper on Supersymmetry which is surprisingly well written and clear. I can only warmly advise anybody seriously interested in the phenomenology of SUSY (in particular, the version called "constrained minimal supersymmetric extension of the Standard Model", cMSSM for friends) to give it a close look.

    The cMSSM is a very attractive "minimal" option to extend the Standard Model with a minimal addition of parameters (still, quite a few, as in any Supersymmetric theory). Its appeal lies in the fact that one may basically study the resulting predicted phenomenology by just investigating five crucial parameters.

    The paper is nice because it keeps the discussion at a reasonably simple level, and it gives no previous knowledge for granted. You therefore may know nothing about SUSY and read it back to back without trouble. Authored by Diptimoy Ghosh, Monoranjan Guchait, Sreerup Raychaudhuri, and Dipan Sengupta, it is titled "How Constrained is the cMSSM ?". You may find it on the arxiv as preprint 1205.2283.

    Authors analyze the present status of experimental measurements and searches: this of course includes especially direct searches for SUSY particles at the Large Hadron Collider, but also the typical inputs coming from the searches for rare B decays (which are still dominated by the LHC experiments anyway) and the g-2 anomalous magnetic moment measurement. Plus, of course, the Higgs boson, which however authors do not seem to take very seriously yet. In fact, on page 23 they so comment:

    "Perhaps the strongest constraints on the cMSSM will eventually come from the most tenuous of the existing empirical information, viz. the hints for a 125 GeV Higgs boson."

    Here I beg to differ! Most SUSY parameter space constraints come from 95% confidence-level upper limits on sparticle cross sections, or unseen rare decays. 95% CL now is, in standard-deviation units, a bit less than two sigma. This means that authors routinely take seriously 2-sigma claims (of non-existence of SUSY particles); yet they call "the most tenuous of the existing empirical information" the over three-sigma evidence presented by ATLAS and CMS for a 125-ish GeV Higgs boson ?! (Not to mention that the 3-sigmaish g-2 discrepancy from SM predictions is given quite some emphasis in the paper as well).

    Perhaps the choice of giving little emphasis to that experimental datum hides the authors' fear that the Higgs, once found at 125 GeV, will kill by itself a very large swath of parameter space points of the cMSSM: indeed, they note:

    "[...] a light Higgs boson with mass somewhat higher than 123 GeV would require us to invoke portions of the parameter space which have been left unexplored in the present work, such as very high values of A0. Here, every GeV counts – an increase in the light Higgs boson mass by a single GeV would rule out large swaths of the parameter space and vice versa."

    Apart from the Freudian slip of minimizing the present evidence for the Higgs by LHC, authors maintain a good balance throughout the paper. Maybe I can quote a couple of other strong statements, though. The first is on p.11:

    "Even if the LHC completes its run without finding any signatures of the cMSSM, we will still be able to argue that the neutralino (albeit a heavier one than we now think) is the main component of the dark matter"

    , which is like saying "you will never get rid of us!". Technically this is true, but I predict that if no SUSY is found post-LHC the arguing in favour of the neutralino being the stuff that dark matter is made of will move fewer research funds. Maybe we will not get rid of SUSY enthusiasts, but we can at least hope we'll starve them ;-)

    The second statement that surprised me a bit is the following, found at the start of the Summary section (p.22):

    "the cMSSM is arguably still the best option where extensions of the SM are concerned, and that one should have convincing empirical proof of its demise before other supersymmetric models can be taken seriously." (the boldface is mine).
    Hear that, aficionados of the non-universal MSSM, of fancier SUSY models, etcetera etcetera ? Stay put. Your time will come only after the cMSSM is proven dead!

    Finally, another minimizing statement is on p.24:

    "All in all, if we consider all the serious empirical evidence available at the present juncture, the cMSSM is still in pretty good health, even though some extremities of the allowed parameter space have been lopped off."

    Some extremities ?!? This is wishful thinking, and in stark contradiction with figures they themselves show in the paper -such as for instance the one below, showing how not only the LHC, but also other B physics measurements alone have pushed the allowed value of squark and gluino masses quite far up. Note that the figure is constructed in a way that the 2-D plane encompasses the range of parameter values that authors themselves are willing to consider in the paper as the natural house of the cMSSM.

    (In the figure, the horizontal axes show values of the squark mass, in TeV, and the vertical axes show values of the gluino mass, also in TeV; three possible values of A_0 are considered - +1 TeV, 0, and -1 TeV from left to right; and a value of tanβ=40 is assumed.)

    Apart from the above, as I already said above the paper is very well written. Besides giving a clear overview of the health status of the cMSSM, authors provide suggestions for how to investigate more of the parameter space at present-day experiments. Since I am such a darn nit-picker, however, let me add something at the end.

    1. Authors, who express themselves in elegant and flawless English, appear to believe that the expressions "a priori" and "a posteriori" come from French or something, if one judges by their consistent imposition of an acute accent on the "a". It is Latin, folks! No accents please!

    (But I should say that on this count authors are in good company: I was reviewing a draft paper the other day, and I found the Latin expression "vice versa" spelt "vis et versa", OMG!).

    2. On page 24 there is a mistaken sentence:

    "A Higgs boson discovery, while vindicating this picture, will be only the start of the real search for supersymmetry, since it will not only make supersymmetry a theoretical necessity, but also provide crucial information on the corner of parameter space in which to search for the Higgs boson."

    Omitting to say what I think of the "theoretical necessity", I only mention that here authors probably meant "for SUSY particles", lest the sentence makes no sense at all.

    In any case, my congratulations to authors for a very clear article - a nice change from the standards we are accustomed to nowadays!


    Isn't the whole SUSY theoretical structure "too big to fail" at this point?  By fail I mean be totally abandoned by theorist who have bet their credibility on this one idea. 

    I will certainly check that paper out.  


    Science advances as much by mistakes as by plans.
    You therefore may know nothing about SUSY and read it back to back without trouble. [From the 3rd paragraph.]
    Since the author here is, as he admits, a bit nit-picky, maybe he'd like to correct the above sentence to say 'read it front to back', since reading a paper 'back to back' doesn't make much sense.

    The cMSSM is a very attractive "minimal" option to extend the Standard Model with a minimal addition of parameters (still, quite a few, as in any Supersymmetric theory). Its appeal lies in the fact that one may basically study the resulting predicted phenomenology by just investigating five crucial parameters.
    This is a very superficial, intrinsically unscientific, lousy mode of reasoning about Nature. Nature doesn't give a damn whether it's easy for us to find or verify Her conjectures or theories. They're as hard for us as they are and if we find them hard, it's our problem....

    In other words, you are saying that we should only look for our keys beneath the lamppost. But they don't have to be there, especially not if you require that it's the particular lamppost that you decided to worship at a random moment for a random would-be reason, usually (and in this case) a reason that was chosen because it can be used for a demagogic argument defending your flawed preconceptions.

    So reducing the number of parameters by considering subspaces of parameter spaces may simplify someone's life but it's surely not a way to achieve a theory that's more likely or more profound or more motivated than others. In particular, cMSSM has been close to excluded for a year or so. But its fate is extremely far from being representative of the fate of SUSY. Even within the MSSM, cMSSM is simply not the state-of-the-art region that is investigated and the MSSM itself isn't the representative of the state-of-the-art SUSY phenomenology at all.

    Superficial texts such as yours are the reason why people end up with utterly irrational opinions about science. It starts with assumptions that are known to be wrong or at least misleading both for theoretical reasons as well as experimental reasons, then it unsurprisingly derives some "surprises", and makes big theater out of these "surprises" that wouldn't exist if your text were not all about your stupid assumptions and misconceptions.
    It is equally pernicious for you to suggest that a reader may end up with an informed opinion about the status (viability) of cMSSM or MSSM or SUSY by reading a mediocre paper even if the reader knew nothing about SUSY to start with. This is really a hardcore populist nonsense and I think that you must know very well that what you wrote is a lie. Readers who don't study SUSY at least for 20 hours - after they learned QFT to a reasonable extent -  have no chance to end up with an informed opinion about the state of SUSY. After all, not even you are anywhere close to be able to make up an informed opinion about particular SUSY models, their relative importance, or even about the fate of SUSY itself which is much deeper a question - one that depends on the breadth of one's knowedge - than comparing a particular model to the data. You have virtually no chance and your generic readers' chance is smaller by several extra orders of magnitude. 

    At most, what you can achieve is to map SUSY to their communist conspiracy theories about the mortgage crisis - greetings to Hontas - an "analogy" that most dogs can think of without reading your stupid demagogic blog, too.

    This as you put it "very superficial, intrinsically unscientific, lousy mode of reasonin" is called Occam's razor.

    Well, even if this were an example of Occam's razor, it wouldn't be in conflict with the fact that it is superficially, lousy, and intrinsically unscientific mode of reasoning. Ockham wasn't a scientist; he was a theologian and Franciscan friar in the dark ages centuries before science was born so if you are assuming that everything he wrote must be dogmatically viewed as a pillar of science, you should revisit your psychiatrist....

    Equally importantly, picking cMSSM out of MSSM or even out of SUSY model building is obviously not an example of Occam's razor, not even according to the original quote which was
    Pluralitas non est ponenda sine neccesitate
    which means something like "the diversity of concepts shouldn't be inflated unless it's necessary", if I give it a somewhat more rigorous modern meaning. First of all, MSSM doesn't introduce any new concepts that are not included in cMSSM so it is not increasing the "plurality" at all. Second of all, even more importantly and at any rate, much like Einstein's quote about simplicity, Ockham was very careful in saying "unless it is necessary". When we talk about the MSSM parameter space, it obviously *is* necessary to go outside cMSSM - for many reasons, including the reason that the cMSSM slice has been largely excluded, unlike the MSSM parameter space.
    In fact, one could argue that according to Wikipedia, 

    your usage of Occam's razor is upside down. The first sentence of the definition says that theories making "fewest assumptions" are preferred. But cMSSM makes a *greater* number of assumptions than MSSM. In particular, it has the extra *constraints*. That's also why the name of cMSSM is longer and more contrived than the name of MSSM, you know. So Occam's razor really favors MSSM over cMSSM.

    Tommaso's hardcore populist articles of the type "you may understand everything about SUSY if you've never studied as long as you read a low-brow article" only help to make arrogant uneducated and intellectually defective idiots such as you even more arrogant.


    "In fact, one could argue that according to Wikipedia,
    your usage of Occam's razor is upside down. The first sentence of the definition says that theories making "fewest assumptions" are preferred. But cMSSM makes a *greater* number of assumptions than MSSM. In particular, it has the extra *constraints*. That's also why the name of cMSSM is longer and more contrived than the name of MSSM, you know. So Occam's razor really favors MSSM over cMSSM."

    Not only could one argue that, isn't this the one and only correct view? The MSSM is minimal while the cMSSM adds a constraint, violating Occam's razor. No ifs or buts. Equivalently, the NMSSM adds an extra assumption.

    Dear JollyJoker, perhaps, I think you're essentially right although it's hard to say what a 14th century priest actually wanted to say about the parameter spaces of supersymmetric theories. ;-)
    The rough suggestion is as you say, of course, and it is reflected in the terminology. The longer name we have, the more "engineered" the given theory is. So NMSSM and CMSSM are both "additions" to MSSM in general. NMSSM adds a new chiral superfield; CMSSM adds new constraints.

    CMSSM may be more explicit to deal with and one may more quickly find out whether its points remain viable. But this speed is something completely different from its actually using a smaller number of concepts and assumptions.

    At any rate, even if we were able to exactly define what Occam's razor says for a particular question, it still doesn't mean that this statement coming from Occam's razor is the right proposition. Science isn't about a mindless application of philosophical principles with catchy names and often repeated slogans. Science is about the application of logical reasoning to observed data.

    Two theories, even if one of them has a smaller number of parameters than others, are competing hypotheses that must be given a "comparable a priori chance" instead of deciding about the "advantaged ones" by some sloppy philosophical prejudices. And when a theory with a higher number or parameters starts to be preferred by arguments directly or indirectly based on empirical facts, then it is how it should be whether or not someone finds it philosophically pleasing.

    CMSSM and mSUGRA began to be disfavored hypotheses relatively to other SUSY theories.
    Dear Lubos, I knew my one line was enough to provoke another page long rant from you but i didn't expect it would move you enough to dedicate a post on your famous blog to it, I feel honored ;)

    It's not demogogic.  
    You have bet big time on super symmetry.  At some point it has to show itself.  For a long time we have all been told that the LHC will be turned on.  In a year or two all these SUSY particles will be found.  etc etc.  

    In a sense the LHC was built to find super symmetry.  If it is not found then allot of people are going to look like knobs....people like you.

    I know very well that falsifying the MSSM would not necessarily falsify something like M theory.  However failure to find even MSSM particles should weaken SUSY's grip on the minds of physicists. 
    Science advances as much by mistakes as by plans.
    I have only bet $100 on SUSY. That's 100 times less than the other party has bet against SUSY. Most of the papers I wrote when I was in the publication career depend on SUSY in an essential way and that's true for all good high-energy physicists, too. Those things will remain paramount and valuable whether or not SUSY is found at the LHC. They have really nothing to do with it. And I have no vested interests in phenomenology, one way or another. I've never been a professional phenomenologist.
    The LHC has been mostly called the "Higgs boson machine" and SUSY was and remains the first most likely beyond-the-Standard-Model thing that the LHC may find.

    The reason why SUSY has a grip on the mind of good physicists - not all physicists - is composed of two facts: it is an essential symmetry in the scheme of stable Universes that may be described by QFT or especially its gravitational extensions; good physicists have brains in their skulls instead of irrational brainwashed transsexual hormones as many other individuals. 

    The hypothetical non-existence of superpartners in the future LHC searches may weaken the belief that SUSY is relevant for TeV-scale physics; but SUSY may only become a #2 BSM physics framework once an actual new #1 contender is found. If it is not found, denying the huge value of SUSY will remain a domain for brainwashed cranks such as yourself.
    Oh calm down Dr. Motl you really have to stoop to ad hominem's and attempted bullying because nothing you and your SUSY cohorts predicted has been found.  
    The Higgs is probably where the SUSY free standard model predicts it should be.  It is not where SUSY theories say it should be.  If any one prediction of a theory is not confirmed with experiment then that theory is false.   SUSY predicted the Higgs where we do not find the Higgs, it is where we would expect it to be if there were no super symmetry.  Ergo, there may not be any super symmetry in nature. 

    Being a heterosexual white man does not make your theories right.  Finding particles where SUSY theory says they should be would.  

    Science advances as much by mistakes as by plans.
    Dear Ms. Farmer,

    In point of fact, if the Higgs mass turns out to be 125 GeV as the current data indicates, this is precisely in the region favored by low-scale SUSY. It cannot be said that the Higgs is where the non-SUSY SM predicts it should be as the Higgs mass is not predicted at all in the non-SUSY SM. Indeed, if there is no SUSY and the Higgs is a fundamental scalar, then the Higgs mass should be near the GUT or Planck scale. i suggest you educate yourself a bit before making such ignorant statements in the future.

    Many many physicist disagree with you.  If you need one more read this. 

    Can the LHC rule out the MSSM ? (_
    S. S. Abdus Salam
    Abdus Salam ICTP, Strada Costiera 11, I-34014 Trieste, Italia
    If supersymmetry (SUSY) exists in nature and is a solution to the hierarchy problem then it should be detectable at the TeV energy scale which the large hadron collider (LHC) is now exploring. One of the main goals of the LHC is the discovery or exclusion of the R-parity conserving minimal supersymmetric standard model (MSSM). So far, the SUSY search results are presented in the context of the constrained MSSM and other specific simplified SUSY models. A model-independent analysis necessarily relies on the trigger-system of the LHC detectors. By using the posterior samples of a 20-parameter MSSM, the phenomenological MSSM, from a fit to indirect collider and cosmological data we find that there is a significant volume in the MSSM parameter space that would escape the standard trigger-systems of the detectors. As such, in the absence of discovery in the current and future LHC runs, it would be difficult if not impossible to exclude the MSSM unless some dedicated and special triggers are commissioned or a Higgs boson with mass as predicted by the supersymmetric models is not found.
    I suppose for you and friends of Lubos, Abdus Salam's word might not be enough.  Ok then there is this paper.  Implications of a 125 GeV Higgs for supersymmetric models
    A. ArbeyM. Battaglia et al.

    The main thrust of my argument is backed up by those papers. 


    SUSY theories predict a very narrow range of higgs masses, depending on the model.  If a particular model fails to fit the data that model is false.  Low scale MSSM has not been eliminated but it's not looking good.   


    The standard model actually does require that the Higgs have a certain wide range of masses which includes where it has been spotted. Too light of a Higgs and we would have seen it already, too heavy and the standard model starts to predict things we do not observe.  

    I know it's hard to accept but the problems that SUSY has been thought to solve may need to be looked at with fresh eyes.  Yet, accept the experimental results you must...or just call yourself a philosopher.  

    Science advances as much by mistakes as by plans.
    corrections in logic or mathematical derivation is necessary to fine tune a theory and could be called advancement.
    But establishing a theory without a logical foundation is certainly not amenable to any form of correction but becomes an anomalous baggage that cant be rid off. I have given a model of a an axiomatic theory below in reply which does not suffer
    from such pitfalls. Cheers

    >> Abdus Salam's word might not be enough

    The S.S. Abdus Salam who wrote this paper in 2011 is not *the* Abdus Salam, who died in 1996.

    I stand corrected.   But does that make him wrong?
    Science advances as much by mistakes as by plans.
    Dear Hontas,

    You quite frankly don't know what you are talking about. The the non-supersymmetrical SM, you can only say that the Higgs needs to below around 900 GeV in order to preserve perturbative unitarity. Please compare this to the SUSY constraint that the Higgs should be less than 135 GeV. Second, if the Higgs mass is a fundamental scalar, then its mass receives large radiative corrections which causes it to diverge quadratically in the non-SUSY SM. In SUSY models, these corrections are cancelled. It is true that a 125 GeV Higgs requires a small amount of fine-tuning in the MSSM. However, in other SUSY models such as the NMSSM or in R-parity violating SUSY models, this can be easily accomodated. In fact, if there exists R-parity violation, then the constraints are SUSY models are drastically loosened.

    Let me distill all of what you just said for the masses and demonstrate that I do know what I speak of. 
    "If SUSY is not found at the LHC SUSY theorist will simply reformulate their theories to keep SUSY alive. "  - Eric

    That is how you say what you just said without trying to make yourself sound smarter.    

    Contrary to what you may think there are many theories that use SUSY that I really do like.  M theory and M theory based cosmology appeal to me greatly.  It provides a good explanation for everything from the big bang, to dark matter. 

     My objections still stand in the face of what you just said.

    General Supersymmetric theories tend to post-dict very well, and predict nothing (because they can as you described in detail be "fine tuned" or reformulated) to fit whatever comes up.   They have tons of free parameters, need extra dimensions and other things that so far, we do not or cannot observe.   Strictly from the point of view of the philosophy of science they are at best formal tools not "theories".  

    Science advances as much by mistakes as by plans.
    This is known in the philosophical jargon as incommensurabiliity of paradigms, and here's a methodical take on the problem at last: If the object of interest is a vector constrained by symmetries and/or geometry, its rational to "undersample" in proportion as the vector components are mutually correlated or "redundant" in the terms of information theory.

    BUT the redundancy expected will depend on the constraints and dimensions assumed. So incommensurability shows up directly in disagreements about significance levels... I like this as a genuine application of information theory, which is all too rare these days.

    Of course if you write off arithmetic, geometry, trigonometry, number theory, astronomy, calculus, optics and algebra as ancient superstitions, you can but await a revelation from the tin god in your computer.....

    But for the grammatical swipes at the authors, I would have ignored this, but the phrase "it gives no previous knowledge for granted." in the post is expressed by native English language speakers as "It takes no previous knowledge for granted."

    Dear ohwilleke,
    thanks for the note - I am always eager to learn from my English mistakes. The reason why I pound on authors on their exchanging Latin with French is that if one is embellishing one's writing with those expressions one has better know how to use them; there is a difference with my writing English here - most non-natives are forced to write English for professional reasons and there's no reason to mock them if they err.
    Lubos Motl says, "Most of the papers I wrote when I was in the publication career depend on SUSY in an essential way and that's true for all good high-energy physicists, too."

    Dear Lubos, the expression "publication career" is a neologism; it does not exist outside your post. There is a good reason for this: there is no other kind of career. If you don't publish, then you don't exist. As you should know better than anyone.
    As for the main point of your post: when you grow up, you will realise that there is a vast gulf fixed between that which should be, and that which actually is. It may be true that a failure to discover SUSY at the LHC *ought* not to dismay enthusiasts. But in the real world, I can assure you that, in that case, the careerists who really determine the future of physics will desert SUSY faster than a failed physicist can generate an ad hominem. You can see the street-smart among them making preparations already, eg Nima AH.

    There are two 'faces' of supersymmetry, between which you are (apparently) failing to see the distinction:

    1. Supersymmetric theories are more constrained, and hence easier to calculate in, than typical non-supersymmetric theories. This makes supersymmetry a useful tool for studying, for example, strongly-coupled gauge theories, or quantum gravity.

    2. The addition of N=1 supersymmetry, broken at the weak scale, solves the hierarchy problem of the standard model.

    The LHC can teach us that point two above has nothing to do with nature, but it can't detract from the usefulness of supersymmetry outlined in point one. Lubos was referring to point one, as he made perfectly clear by saying that he has never been a phenomenologist, and you answered him by referring to point two.

    Dear Rhys, I am very well aware indeed of the distinction that you are making --- in fact I work [and publish!] on the first category. But if you think that Lubos M agrees with this distinction, then you evidently do not know him. Indeed, I'm willing to bet that saying, "well, after all, SUSY is still a useful technique even if it is wrong as BSM physics" is one of the [admittedly numerous] ways of getting him to tell you that you, and everyone within 100 km of your current location, is an idiot. Want to try?

    Anyway, nothing you have said contradicts what I said:

    "It may be true that a failure to discover SUSY at the LHC *ought* not to dismay enthusiasts. But in the real world, I can assure you that, in that case, the careerists who really determine the future of physics will desert SUSY faster than a failed physicist can generate an ad hominem."

    Indeed, what worries me is that if and when SUSY is discredited in your second sense, it will drag down those of us who are interested in its applications as a mathmatical technique. Believe me , it is not easy to get condensed matter [etc] people to take us seriously even as it is, and it will get a lot worse if everyone is happily celebrating the squashing of people like Lubos M.

    Fair enough; it sounds like we basically agree that supersymmetry is a useful formal tool regardless of whether superpartners show up at the LHC.

    The problems you have with the standard model etc is due to the false start in physics-top down.
    Axioms are your best bet. Se below. How would you like to get answers for all the surmises shown in your article?
    try me out

    Secret of Sankhya: Acme of Scientific Unification.

    To the question why Sankhya is a correct theory, the answer is that it is based on numerical axioms and its single, critical derivational algorithm is governed by the principle of self similarity and scale invariance, using combinatorial mathematics. Whereas Physics and Cosmology have been derived from experimental and empirical inputs, as a result of which, the Standard Model is built on a hypothesis that does not have a logical base which is free from doubts and inaccuracies. The solution, to the resulting series of anomalies, in Physics and Cosmology, has been found in the axiom based theoretical derivations in Sankhya.

    Abstract of Sankhya theory
    Sankhya is a unified field theory based on a perpetually, harmonic, oscillatory state forming the dynamic base for all manifestation. It is simple, logical & numerically consistent with all experimentally verified parameters. It is based on numerical axioms and does not violate the principle of causality. It is a non-dimensional and scale-invariant formulation, based on the principle of self-similarity which is universally applicable. The only “unification controlling” parameter is cyclic time, operated as the single critical variable in three modes that is identified with volumetric space. Space, as the substratum of all phenomena, is defined in identifiable numerical terms, consequent to its axiom based foundation. Sankhya is a complete theory that corroborates all modes of theoretical derivation, every type of experimental finding & observational experience that forms an element of physical reality. It is a holistic and holographic theory.

    As its derivational logic is based on numerical axioms, the complete proof for every theoretical, experimental and predictive proposition is extractable from within its formulation. All the results from its formulations are precise, confirmable through alternate modes of verification and its numerical uncertainty is limited only to the applied method of calculation. It uses combinatorial mathematics and treats all variables, as ratios of factors of proportionality. The proof or the completeness of Sankhya as a correct unified theory does not depend on externally derived inputs, observational parameters or coefficients of proportionality. It generates its proof through its internal algorithms based on axioms following the principle of self-similarity and scale invariance. Its uniqueness lies in its ability to derive every measurable state in real space and time from its internal algorithms, without external inputs, measured or derived. As a result of its precise, correct, complete and self proving capabilities, it establishes the principle of predestination as a universal operational factor.

    The notable highlights of its unique qualities lies in the derivation of the frequency of electromagnetic and gravitational oscillatory states from an axiomatic principle that equals experimental findings. Its further proof lies in the derivation through axioms, the mass values of Neutron, Proton and Electron (and many more) as accurately as measured in Physics, without any external inputs, coefficients or observational parameters. All states are counted as number of interactions in terms of the elemental state named the Moolaprakrithi (My) with a calculated mass of 1.34 E minus 51 kgs as a relative cyclic ratio between two dynamically interactive states. The interactive stresses between the sea of My per cycle is the Vrithi or Neutrino in Physics with a calculated mass of 9.5 E minus 35 kgs and forms the ubiquitous state that pervades all space and mediates the gravitational accelerative force and is also the initiating and operating cause for all phenomenal states in space, as dynamic holograms. Further every anomaly in Physics and Cosmology can be solved by applying the derivational principles from Sankhya.

    The following critical differences exist in Physics and Cosmology compared to Sankhya.

    1. The principle of eternal dynamism as the fundamental cause of all activities in the real Universe is established unequivocally through the derivation of the perpetual, harmonic oscillatory state, using the internally derived Neutron, Proton and Electron particulate configuration in Sankhya. In Physics the solution to solving the “problem of the harmonic oscillator” still exists, for the Hamiltonian (as the formula to find the solution) itself needs inputs that are indeterminate. As a result, the vital principle of eternal dynamism, as the motivating cause for all phenomena, is excluded by theoretical declaration in Physics and Cosmology.
    2. In Sankhya, the identification of space as the real foundation with definable properties is established through important numerical axiom based algorithms and provides the logical foundation for extrapolating correctly. In Physics and Cosmology space is conceived of as a vacuous void that follows rules of General and Special Relativity but without any inherent properties, which has led to a series of irreconcilable anomalies.
    3. In Sankhya the identification of phenomena operating in three modes of cyclic time, using the principle of self similarity and scale invariance, has established a numerically verifiable process to derive measure and operate the detectable and the hidden spectrum of manifestation with equal effectiveness. Whereas in Physics and Cosmology, the spectrum below the quantum or Planck’s constant is not identified specifically but is assumed to be a consequence to formulating the principle of uncertainty. As a result, the identifiable base for the spectrum of hidden phenomena (Dark Matter/Energy; EPR Paradox; Ultraviolet catastrophe; Red shifts of all types and many others) remain as anomalies, in the Standard Model in Physics and Cosmology.
    4. In Sankhya the gravitation phenomena is solved through the PHO state algorithm in a space populated with definable & measurable components forming particulate states and follows the same law of resonance as for example at the hydrogen boundary. In Physics the relativistic deformation of space without definable qualities, compounds the problem of logical presentation further.
    5. In Sankhya the entire spectrum of manifestation from the core (Planck mass level) to the Universal boundary is operated by a single algorithm which not only fits measured parameters accurately but provides solutions to yet unsolved questions like the critical matter density, cosmological constant, negative/positive spatial curvature, Expansion of the Universe, and many more aspects using purely theoretical considerations.
    6. The complete information on Sankhya is on the website given below

    G. Srinivasan.