Talk:Superpartner

Redirect

This makes no sense. No information could possibly go here that is not covered already by the SuSy article. If nobody objects, I'm redirecting. -- Xerxes 03:41, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not so sure. It's kind of a useful definition to have at the top when you link the word. I know that's not what articles are for, so I'm kind of undecided... -- SCZenz 03:44, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

String theory?

Discovery of such a particle is considered essential to proving superstring theories or M-theory. I don't think this is really true. String theory seems to be perfectly happy with SUSY breaking at the GUT scale, in which case we won't discover any superpartners at the TeV scale. HEL 22:35, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed... I removed it -- it's probably technically wrong too since the heterotic O(16)xO(16) string has no susy but is not that far from realising the world. In addition, I tend to agree that everything could go into the supersymmetry article. ~~ jay 05:56, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

shadowy

Is the term "shadow particle" warrented here? The article does not mention them. Of the two citations in the intro/lead, one of them uses the term "shadowy" when refering too the Higgs Boson aka god particle. — Cpiral Cpiral 02:36, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Corrupted Page

I noticed that a linked page (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Portmanteau) is badly corrupted (no longer even a Wiki page). Since I can't post this note there, I thought I would post it here, at the parent page (since I didn't know where else to post it). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.131.208.23 (talk) 00:14, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]