Supersymmetry theory - dead in the water?
Discussion
Before I waste my time trying to fathom out wtf all this is about, is it important? Because in the usual BBC stylee they bang on for 10 paragraphs about how this rocks the physics world and how it's of massive importance and then conclude in the last few words with a quote from a chap who says it's an irrelevance and this result was expected.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-2030...
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-2030...
Warning! this post will upset every person involved in Modern Particle Physics.
SUSY is alive, but she is only alive as long as we put more energy in to produce the effect.
SUSY is present in the Cosmos, not because it is essential to its existence but it is present because it is an effect of transformation.
It is the Particle Physics equivalent of GIGO, if you up the ante, you get more 'exotic' particle effects.
Last time I looked the maths of this 'madness' meant that upto 32,000 exotics were possible with the then present limits on construction of accelerators.
To date it has taken a very long time to find but a few...
Still, it keeps people busy.
SUSY is alive, but she is only alive as long as we put more energy in to produce the effect.
SUSY is present in the Cosmos, not because it is essential to its existence but it is present because it is an effect of transformation.
It is the Particle Physics equivalent of GIGO, if you up the ante, you get more 'exotic' particle effects.
Last time I looked the maths of this 'madness' meant that upto 32,000 exotics were possible with the then present limits on construction of accelerators.
To date it has taken a very long time to find but a few...
Still, it keeps people busy.
The Higgs was predicted theoretically in the early eighties as the last " piece " of the standard model, some many €billions and 30 yrs later they confirmed it, the next step into super symmetry currently only exists in the domain of the theorists and mathematicians....nothing wrong with that but it may take another 30 years and untold €billions to confirm / disprove super symmetry
That a quark ( they show a bottom strange quark ) a meson, has shown evidence of decaying into two Muons ( leptons ) is a bit odd, I didn't think that was possible under current understanding, so that's interesting.
A quark cannot be isolated as a single entity, if one was ever isolated it would decay in the order of a trillion trillion trillionth of a second, I suppose the decay trace is of a quark " residue " or some such thing
Theorists ( ie string theory ) and particle physicists ( evidence seekers )Often sit in two different camps, it's when they agree we make a great leap forward, until then one predicts, one disproves
I suspect quark decay into muons is akin to the announcement this year that neutrinos were travelling at faster than the speed of light! However I can only follow ( by many years ) what is actually current understanding
GV speaks as one at the cutting edge , I often cannot understand his answers, as in this case when he speaks of transformations.
That a quark ( they show a bottom strange quark ) a meson, has shown evidence of decaying into two Muons ( leptons ) is a bit odd, I didn't think that was possible under current understanding, so that's interesting.
A quark cannot be isolated as a single entity, if one was ever isolated it would decay in the order of a trillion trillion trillionth of a second, I suppose the decay trace is of a quark " residue " or some such thing
Theorists ( ie string theory ) and particle physicists ( evidence seekers )Often sit in two different camps, it's when they agree we make a great leap forward, until then one predicts, one disproves
I suspect quark decay into muons is akin to the announcement this year that neutrinos were travelling at faster than the speed of light! However I can only follow ( by many years ) what is actually current understanding
GV speaks as one at the cutting edge , I often cannot understand his answers, as in this case when he speaks of transformations.
mattnunn said:
Before I waste my time trying to fathom out wtf all this is about, is it important? Because in the usual BBC stylee they bang on for 10 paragraphs about how this rocks the physics world and how it's of massive importance and then conclude in the last few words with a quote from a chap who says it's an irrelevance and this result was expected.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-2030...
It's quantum physics - observe it too closely, and you introduce uncertainty...http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-2030...
Pobolycwm said:
...I often cannot understand his answers, as in this case when he speaks of transformations.
My use of transformation means that if you impose a huge amount of outside energy to an existing particle to shatter it then that energy will cause transformations of what is hit.If you hit a rock hard it might shatter into 4 or 5 pieces, if you hit it with more energy then you can eventually pulverise it into thousands, the mechanism is different but the principle is the same.
I hope that helps.
Yes that helps clarify what you are saying, so if super symmetry is to all intents a man made phenomena only to be seen in a super super collider how is the next stage of understanding to be reached ?
It looks as if a form of the Uncertainty Principle could be having a part to play, the only way we have to try to see what is happening actually influences what it is we see.
Now for a stupid question, Is there an alternative to ever bigger colliders?
Is more guile required to tease out the evidence without corrupting it , what sort of physical process could actually do this ( theoretically )
It looks as if a form of the Uncertainty Principle could be having a part to play, the only way we have to try to see what is happening actually influences what it is we see.
Now for a stupid question, Is there an alternative to ever bigger colliders?
Is more guile required to tease out the evidence without corrupting it , what sort of physical process could actually do this ( theoretically )
Pobolycwm said:
Yes that helps clarify what you are saying, so if super symmetry is to all intents a man made phenomena only to be seen in a super super collider how is the next stage of understanding to be reached ?
It looks as if a form of the Uncertainty Principle could be having a part to play, the only way we have to try to see what is happening actually influences what it is we see.
Now for a stupid question, Is there an alternative to ever bigger colliders?
Is more guile required to tease out the evidence without corrupting it , what sort of physical process could actually do this ( theoretically )
SUSY is an attribute of the underlying mechanism of the Cosmos, so not man-made.It looks as if a form of the Uncertainty Principle could be having a part to play, the only way we have to try to see what is happening actually influences what it is we see.
Now for a stupid question, Is there an alternative to ever bigger colliders?
Is more guile required to tease out the evidence without corrupting it , what sort of physical process could actually do this ( theoretically )
I think we do have enough confirmation to simply accept its existence.
I think the CERN project should be taken as far as it can and should really be a truly International project as far as backing is concerned.
It will become a backwater of knowledge at some point as computer power is already way ahead of it, even my own mainframe at home is far more use to me than almost anything that has come out of CERN for the last 20 years. It has for all that time simply confirmed findings, nothing original originates there.
The minds of men/women and the computing power to press/confirm the case is more than enough to keep the rate of progress accelerating.
Gene Vincent said:
It will become a backwater of knowledge at some point as computer power is already way ahead of it, even my own mainframe at home is far more use to me than almost anything that has come out of CERN for the last 20 years. It has for all that time simply confirmed findings, nothing original originates there.
Really? Not even the World Wide Web?Gene Vincent said:
SUSY is an attribute of the underlying mechanism of the Cosmos, so not man-made.
I think we do have enough confirmation to simply accept its existence.
I think the CERN project should be taken as far as it can and should really be a truly International project as far as backing is concerned.
It will become a backwater of knowledge at some point as computer power is already way ahead of it, even my own mainframe at home is far more use to me than almost anything that has come out of CERN for the last 20 years. It has for all that time simply confirmed findings, nothing original originates there.
The minds of men/women and the computing power to press/confirm the case is more than enough to keep the rate of progress accelerating.
Sooner or later you need to test your theories via real experiment though, no?I think we do have enough confirmation to simply accept its existence.
I think the CERN project should be taken as far as it can and should really be a truly International project as far as backing is concerned.
It will become a backwater of knowledge at some point as computer power is already way ahead of it, even my own mainframe at home is far more use to me than almost anything that has come out of CERN for the last 20 years. It has for all that time simply confirmed findings, nothing original originates there.
The minds of men/women and the computing power to press/confirm the case is more than enough to keep the rate of progress accelerating.
Whether or not CERN is 'value for money' is another argument...
hairykrishna said:
Sooner or later you need to test your theories via real experiment though, no?
Whether or not CERN is 'value for money' is another argument...
Without doubt, but accelerators aren't really of huge value in Quantum Field Theory, the experiments for much of that are actually in the realm of application and Cosmology.Whether or not CERN is 'value for money' is another argument...
The Space program, taking new instruments into space, gives me more confirmations and greater questions than the LHC etc.
Gene Vincent said:
Krikkit said:
Hehe, I can't decide if Gene is a really elaborate troll or just a tinfoil hat-wearing weird-beard.
...or I could know what I'm talking about and can no longer be arsed to provide up to date information as the old hat is so much more comfortable.Gassing Station | Science! | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff