![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
our latest work
Aug. 2nd, 2007 01:21 amI wanted to name it "Beyond the Pentagon" like I did for my talk, but for some reason, every time I changed the title, Tom changed it back to "Embedding the Pentagon" in the next draft... so eventually I gave in and left it :) At least he kept my abstract...
Embedding the Pentagon
I can't seem to decide whether I'm a high energy theorist or a high energy phenomenologist. So far, it hasn't mattered, since we've cross-listed both papers to both areas, and have been working somewhere near the boundary between the two (I couldn't even decide which one to submit it to first this time). I suspect soon I will really be forced to choose one or the other. Until now, I'd been leaning towards wanting to get more into theory (string theory, holographic cosmology, AdS/CFT?), but after reading the latest reports about where all the jobs are going (analyzing stuff coming out of LHC), phenomenology is looking more attractive by the day. So now I'm thinking what I want to do is become better at more phenomenological stuff, but keep the more theoretical stuff in the back of my head. What it looks like I'm going to try and do next is work on some SUSY breaking phenomenology with either Dine or Haber (probably the former, as he has a project already in mind that he thinks might be up my alley, and somewhat related to previous stuff I've been working on). The other option would be to work with Tom again, on some intersecting D-branes and singular manifolds, trying to make a more stringy version of the GUT we constructed work. It's a somewhat tough call, because it does sound like fun, but I think I'm going to leave that to Sean. I've also been very intrigued by some of the stuff one of the postdocs has done here... an attempt to ameliorate the little heirarchy problem by coming up with a model that evades the usual quoted bounds on the Higgs (and predicts that it's light but we missed it because we were looking for the wrong signature!) So I might try and get involved in that. Too many options! Although it's better than having too few, I suppose.
(Sorry if none of this made sense to most of my readers... essentially, it just boils down to me being unsure about whether my work should be more or less theoretical in the future. Pressure from the job market is on less... on the other hand, I really like math and it's fun. You can skip the rest.)
Embedding the Pentagon
I can't seem to decide whether I'm a high energy theorist or a high energy phenomenologist. So far, it hasn't mattered, since we've cross-listed both papers to both areas, and have been working somewhere near the boundary between the two (I couldn't even decide which one to submit it to first this time). I suspect soon I will really be forced to choose one or the other. Until now, I'd been leaning towards wanting to get more into theory (string theory, holographic cosmology, AdS/CFT?), but after reading the latest reports about where all the jobs are going (analyzing stuff coming out of LHC), phenomenology is looking more attractive by the day. So now I'm thinking what I want to do is become better at more phenomenological stuff, but keep the more theoretical stuff in the back of my head. What it looks like I'm going to try and do next is work on some SUSY breaking phenomenology with either Dine or Haber (probably the former, as he has a project already in mind that he thinks might be up my alley, and somewhat related to previous stuff I've been working on). The other option would be to work with Tom again, on some intersecting D-branes and singular manifolds, trying to make a more stringy version of the GUT we constructed work. It's a somewhat tough call, because it does sound like fun, but I think I'm going to leave that to Sean. I've also been very intrigued by some of the stuff one of the postdocs has done here... an attempt to ameliorate the little heirarchy problem by coming up with a model that evades the usual quoted bounds on the Higgs (and predicts that it's light but we missed it because we were looking for the wrong signature!) So I might try and get involved in that. Too many options! Although it's better than having too few, I suppose.
(Sorry if none of this made sense to most of my readers... essentially, it just boils down to me being unsure about whether my work should be more or less theoretical in the future. Pressure from the job market is on less... on the other hand, I really like math and it's fun. You can skip the rest.)
