An Irreducible Massive Superspin One Half Action Built From the Chiral Dotted Spinor Superfield

Although the chiral dotted spinor superfield should describe a Massive Superspin One Half multiplet, it has not been obvious how to derive this from an action. In this paper this is done by including a chiral undotted spinor superfield, finding the BRST transformations that govern both of these, and then finding the action as an invariant of the transformations. It turns out that both kinds of spinor superfields are needed. Moreover, the BRST transformations for the two kinds of chiral spinor superfields are generated from each other by a special involution that exchanges Grassmann odd (even) sources with Grassmann even (odd) fields.Comment: 13 page

Some Properties of Chiral Dotted Spinor Superfields

Chiral superfields with multiple dotted Lorentz spinor indices (`dotspinors') are important in the analysis of supersymmetry breaking through the mechanisms of Cybersusy. This paper describes the actions for massive dotspinors coupled to supersymmetric gauge theory and to chiral matter. It analyzes the free equations of motion and mass spectra for the case of unbroken supersymmetry. The general form of the Cybersusy algebra for dotsupers with multiple indices is also discussed briefly.Comment: 20 page

CYBERSUSY: A new mechanism for supersymmetry breaking in models like the supersymmetric standard model (SSM)

The SUSY breaking in Cybersusy is proportional to the VEV that breaks the gauge symmetry SU(2) X U(1) down to U(1), and it is rather specific to models like the SSM. Assuming full breaking, as explained below, for the leptons, Cybersusy predicts a spectrum of SUSY breaking that is in accord with experimental results so far. In particular, for the choice of parameters below, Cybersusy predicts that the lowest mass superpartner for the charged leptons is a charged vector boson lepton (the Velectron), which has a mass of 316 Gev . The Selectron has a mass of 771 Gev for that choice of parameters. The theory also leads to a zero cosmological constant after SUSY breaking. The mechanism generates equations that restrict models like the SSM. This version of this paper incorporates recent results and changes discovered subsequent to the talk.Comment: This is a revision of a talk given at SUSY 2009. It incorporates an important set of changes. 4 page

“I Will Never Forget the Sound of those Engines Going Away”: A Re-Examination of the Sinking of HMCS \u3cem\u3eAthabaskan\u3c/em\u3e, 29 April 1944

On the morning of 29 April 1944 the Canadian Tribal Class Destroyer HMCS Athabaskan was sunk in the English Channel after an engagement with the German Elbing Class Destroyers T-24 and T-27. The official explanation from the “inquiry into the Loss of HMCS Athabaskan” claimed that Athabaskan sank because of two explosions, the first at 0417 hours, and the second at 0427 hours. The first explosion was attributed to a torpedo from T-24. The second explosion was believed to have occurred when fuel fires, caused by the first explosion, ignited the 4-inch magazine. While this may seem simple and complete, an examination of the source material reveals that there is much confusion as to the actual chain of events. This confusion is focused on the cause of the second explosion. Eyewitness accounts have Athabaskan being torpedoed twice on the port side. This explanation seems to have been discounted by the Board. Then there are Athabaskan and Haida’s reports of “three echoes” being seen on the radar and Commander DeWolf’s assertion that German E-boats were involved. This assertion became the basis for Len Burrow and Emile Beaudoin’s book Unlucky Lady: The Life and Death of HMCS Athabaskan. Yet this book raises more questions than it answers. The E-boat mystery has been put to rest by Michael Whitby, in his article “‘Fooling Around The French Coast’: RCN Tribal Class Destroyers in Action, April 1944.” He cites the German record of the action and states that the only German vessels involved were T-24 and T-27. This has resulted in the British inquiry being deemed officially correct, with credit for the sinking being attributed to T-24. Yet this confusion is compounded by the statement in the inquiry’s report that the members of the board: “did not consider [whether] any other ships were present.” This is a curious statement. It is quite likely that another ship was indeed present. Unfortunately, it may have been the British Motor Torpedo Boat (MTB) 677 (commanded by Lieutenant A. Clayton, RNVR). All reconstructions of the action on 29 April 1944 have centred on the movements of Haida and Athabaskan beginning at 0400 hours. Yet the actions of all of the other participants must be reviewed to fully understand the situation. The movements of the other forces have, to date, been ignored. When the positions of the Tribals, the minelayers and the MTB’s are plotted together, the inferences become astounding