Slashdot Mirror
Supersymmetry Theory Dealt a Blow
Dupple writes in with some news from the team at the Large Hadron Collider. "Researchers at the Large Hadron Collider have detected one of the rarest particle decays seen in Nature. The finding deals a significant blow to the theory of physics known as supersymmetry. Many researchers had hoped the LHC would have confirmed this by now. Supersymmetry, or SUSY, has gained popularity as a way to explain some of the inconsistencies in the traditional theory of subatomic physics known as the Standard Model. The new observation, reported at the Hadron Collider Physics conference in Kyoto, is not consistent with many of the most likely models of SUSY. Prof Chris Parke, who is the spokesperson for the UK Participation in the LHCb experiment, told BBC News: 'Supersymmetry may not be dead but these latest results have certainly put it into hospital.'"
First it was the Novell acquisition, then the Microsoft licensing... when will it end?
The summary, like the article, jumps straight into "OMG CONFLICT" without bothering to tell us what's going on. From later in the article:
Researchers at the LHCb detector have dealt a serious blow to [supersymmetry]. They have measured the decay between a particle known as a Bs Meson into two particles known as muons. It is the first time that this decay has been observed and the team has calculated that for every billion times that the Bs Meson decays it only decays in this way three times. If superparticles were to exist the decay would happen far more often. This test is one of the "golden" tests for supersymmetry and it is one that on the face of it this hugely popular theory among physicists has failed. ...
The results are in fact completely in line with what one would expect from the Standard Model. There is already concern that the LHCb's sister detectors might have expected to have detected superparticles by now, yet none have been found so far.
But it sounds like this is only a problem for some variants of supersymmetry:
"If new physics exists, then it is hiding very well behind the Standard Model," commented Cambridge physicist Dr Marc-Olivier Bettler, a member of the analysis team. The result does not rule out the possibility that super particles exist. But according to Prof Parkes, "they are running out of places to hide". Supporters of supersymmetry, however, such as Prof John Ellis of King's College London said that the observation is "quite consistent with supersymmetry". "In fact," he said "(it) was actually expected in (some) supersymmetric models. I certainly won't lose any sleep over the result."
Visit the
Not to be confused with PUSY, which is still a mystery to most people here...
From TFA:
It's just a flesh wound!
these are not the particles you're looking for
Between this and the (possible) discovery of the Higgs Boson, we may be about to launch into a new era of particle physics theory and research.
Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
In a nutshell: the Standard Model of particle physics, developed in the 60s and 70s, has once again been shown to be a remarkably robust and effective description of reality. Thus far, no proposed extension to the SM has been corroborated by any convincing evidence. However, there *are* problems with the SM - it's just the resolution of these problems is at present beyond us.
Can anyone explain some of the implications of this finding, for all the non-physicists on Slashdot?
It's going to be a hell of a lot harder to reroute tachyon particles through the main deflector dish.
Yes, specifically Bs Mesons (cue the "BS!" gags...) decaying into a muon pair.
In a fairly hand-wavy way, supersymmetry predicts we should see this quite a lot, but the experiment shows it happens far less frequently, implying the current version of SUSY is either incorrect or completely wrong.
Please consider this account deleted, I just can't be bothered with the spam anymore.
The next big step is for them to 'prove' that what they found has more than just the mass they were expecting for the Higgs Boson. Just because something has the proper mass +/- some orders of magnitude, that was in a *very* wide ball park of their proposed Higgs, doesn't mean that it does what the Higgs is supposed to do. How they are going to actually prove that it gives all the other particles their mass, given they only know of its existence due to its decay mode (as in its already gone), is going to be one rather tough problem. We better get started...
See? Your science doesn't have all the answers.
The LHC data are beginning to impinge on the Minimal Supersymmetric Standard Model. One of the attractions of the MSSM is its "naturalness," which is beginning to seem less natural. The the lightest superparticle (LSP) of the MSSM is a dark matter candidate of the WIMP (Weakly interacting massive particle) variety, and WIMP searches are beginning to impinge on the "naturalness" of that explanation too.
Of course, after the confirmation of a non-zero cosmological constant, the arguments from naturalness seem less compelling to me...
Have gnu, will travel.
Here is the paper: https://cdsweb.cern.ch/record/1493302/files/PAPER-2012-043.pdf
Some blogs discussing the significance of the result:
http://www.science20.com/quantum_diaries_survivor/lhcb_evidence_rare_decay_bs_dimuons-96311
http://motls.blogspot.com/2012/11/superstringy-compactifications.html#more
http://profmattstrassler.com/
Particle physics isn't my field, but neither the paper nor the blog posts seem to be interpreting it, as the BBC does, as evidence against supersymmetry.
Find free books.
It always baffles me why everybody is so focused on developing completely new and revolutionary physics. The greatest progress has been made in refining the Standard Model, rather than replacing it. And it always amuses me when people exhibit surprise when the Standard Model holds up. There cannot be such complexity in the universe if the fundamentals are constantly in disarray.
Perhaps it's because Einstein was their role model, and nobody in the next hundred years is going to quite make the dent in physics as Einstein did even though everyone is going to try. Nobody remembers that there was 300 years between Newton and Einstein, and that people 300 years ago were just as smart and just as capable as people today, only with fewer opportunities for the unprivileged individual and slower methods of communication between intellectuals.
Unfortunately, wild theories and postulations are not going to get where people want to go. Einstein's revolution was sparked by a moment of insight. It's not something that can be forced out with extra hours pounding square pegs into round holes. It can be prepared for by building a solid foundation. But that amounts to keeping the rain barrels outside and ready to collect in a desert.
Forget the exotic theories (especially the untestable ones). Leave the speculation to the metaphysicists. Stick with the basics. Trying to initiate the next revolution in physics would be as futile as dancing for rain.
"If a nation expects to be ignorant and free in a state of civilization, it expects what never was and never will be."
So maybe dark matter consists of Standard Model particles after all.
Between this and the (possible) discovery of the Higgs Boson, we may be about to launch into a new era of particle physics theory and research.
Actually, I think it's the reverse. Between this and the (possible) discovery of the Higgs Boson, we have simply just confirmed the parts of the standard model that we think we already understand. No new physics.
What people are actually looking for (and have found some hints/clues about like unexpected non-uniform decay paths in other experiments) are things that might suggests new physics that we don't understand at all which would launch a new era of particle physics theory and research. Some physists posit that some new physics exists (like SUSY) that might help us understand these hints/clues better, but so far the evidence has been lacking in support of a specific direction for new physics outside the standard model.
For example, the standard model doesn't seem to have a much of a say on the hierarchy problems (e.g., how come the higgs is so light), the observed electroweak symmetry breaking (e.g, why the higgs field yields mass), or give us much of a clue about dark matter (e.g., are there super heavy, neutral particles). As I understand it, as a straw man, SUSY might have something to help explain some of these deficiencies of the Standard Model, if there was evidence to support it.
If we keep running experiments and just find predictions that are supported/predicted by the Standard Model, we've only eliminated potential new physics, we need to find something that we can't predict to launch a new era of particle physic theory and research.
Can you explain what an "argument from naturalness" means?
It always baffles me why everybody is so focused on developing completely new and revolutionary physics.
The fundamental problem with the standard model is gravity. In terms of particle interactions, they have it covered via the Higgs particle and gravitinos. But the standard model doesn't have curvature of space.
Another thing that is missing from the Standard model is an understanding of how the basic forces interact with each other. For example, if the strong and weak forces interact in some way, then there would be a decay pathway for the proton. The standard model doesn't rule this out.
The greatest progress has been made in refining the Standard Model, rather than replacing it.
Which is why a lot of folks were gunning for SUSY, because that's more or less exactly what is -- an extension, rather than a replacement, for the Standard Model.
In SUSY we keep everything we already know and love about the Standard model, but there is also a symetry where each existing particle has a partner with 1/2 spin difference.
Which as a consequence would apparently solve a number of known issues with the Standard Model -- which is attractive because we know the SM is good, but flawed -- and also provide possible solutions for other mysteries like Dark Matter.
So, basically, rulling out SUSY would be a setback for the (very reasonable and desireable) "refinement" model of advancing physics.
Maybe you're going off the fact that String Theory, a revolutionary new model of physics, also predicts SUSY?
The enemies of Democracy are
This might be a legitimate argument if it were not for the fact that the Standard Model has its own particular issues, and all these attempts to extend it, no matter how much you (whoever the fuck you are) may not approve are ways to try to solve those problems.
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
The standard model as a theory on its own needs extreme fine tuning to be valid all the way up to the scale where gravity becomes strong. Technically, there is a quadratic dependence on the upper scale of the theory when one calculates the quantum corrections to the Higgs mass. This leaves the theory very unnatural (even though mathematically not impossible).
Supersymmetry solves this naturalness problem by canceling the quadratic divergences. It cannot cancel exactly though (or we'd have observed supersummetry since long), so therefore a new unnaturalness problem arises when supersymmetry lives at an energy scale far above the scale of electroweak symmetry breaking (~the Higgs boson mass scale).
The standard model as a theory on its own needs extreme fine tuning to be valid all the way up to the scale where gravity becomes strong. Technically, there is a quadratic dependence on the upper scale of the theory when one calculates the quantum corrections to the Higgs mass. This leaves the theory very unnatural (even though mathematically not impossible). Supersymmetry solves this naturalness problem by canceling the quadratic divergences. It cannot cancel exactly though (or we'd have observed supersummetry since long), so therefore a new unnaturalness problem arises when supersymmetry lives at an energy scale far above the scale of electroweak symmetry breaking (~the Higgs boson mass scale).
And that wouldn't be the case no matter what sort of universe was observed?
I can do it captain, but I need more time!
Correct Horse Battery Staple: 72 bits of entropy. Enter "Correct H" into google. When it generates the phrase, that's
The summary isn't detailed enough to bring this up, but TFA tries to equate supersymmetry with dark matter, which is emphatically wrong. The existence of dark matter is strongly supported by astronomical evidence including galaxy rotation velocities and observations of gravitational lensing, regardless of the nature of the particles that make it up. Even if this result provides evidence against supersymmetry (which doesn't seem to be the conclusion of other articles I've read, although I'm not really qualified to say), it tells us absolutely nothing about dark matter.
You cannot change the laws of physics!
"I opened my eyes, and everything went dark again"
Would any hypothesis which must be tested from another universe (or all other sorts of universes) is be testable?
"I opened my eyes, and everything went dark again"
The fundamental problem with the standard model is gravity. In terms of particle interactions, they have it covered via the Higgs particle and gravitinos.
Don't forget graviolis.
It means string theorists are in trouble, because modern string theory assumes supersymmetry.
The Tao of math: The numbers you can count are not the real numbers.
Gravitons. Gravitinos are the supersymmetric partners of gravitons, which might not exist at all.
That's not the fundamental problem. If you could consistently describe quantum gravity without space curvature and recover GR in the classical limit, physicists would happily put space curvature where they haver put absolute time: A nice approximation which works well under certain conditions, but breaks down when you get to extremes. No, the real problem with quantum gravity is that the straightforward theories simply don't work.
The Tao of math: The numbers you can count are not the real numbers.
It can be thought of as an attempt to do probabilistic type arguments, when you don't have any data to do probability with.
Suppose that astronauts find a long abandoned alien base on the Moon. All equipment was carefully removed, but we know that the doors and corridors are all 4 meters wide and 3 meters high. It would be "natural" to assume that the aliens (or their machinery) were typically less, but not much less, than 3 meters tall. That could be wrong - maybe they are 1 meter birds who like room to fly in. Or maybe they are 4 meter giants who don't mind stooping. But, in the absence of any other evidence, it is a "natural" assumption. Such assumptions are very common in places like cosmology and quantum gravity.
One argument from naturalness is that dimensionless constants should "naturally" be near one, without a good reason to have some specific value. (The other "natural" is of course zero.).
Take the axion and CP violation. You can add a term to the QCD Lagrangian which violates Charge+Parity (or CP), which means that this term allows for particles and their antiparticles to behave differently. This term is multiplied by a constant denoted by theta, with theta = 0 meaning no CP violation. It turns out you can restrict theta to be 10^-10 experimentally. So, presumably, theta IS zero (as zero is a much more "natural" number than the really tiny 10^-10). The axion came from assuming that theta really described a new field (with a new particle, the axion), and was driven towards zero in the evolution of the universe. It seemed much more "natural" to say that "after about the first microsecond of the big bang theta is driven to be zero" than just saying "this constant is really tiny."
The reason I said that about the cosmological constant (lambda) is that it is about 0.7 and (in the same units) the standard model value for it is about 10^122. (Or,
in natural units, its current value is about 10^-122.) That is an extraordinary result. Many people were sure that lambda was exactly zero (as that could also be "natural,") but it isn't. Note that the value for the axion's theta is by contrast almost routine. If theta is like winning the lottery, lambda is like having every atom in the universe winning the lottery simultaneously for every nanosecond that the universe has existed. So, I regard these arguments as less persuasive than I did 20 years ago,
> Nobody remembers that there was 300 years between Newton and Einstein, and that people 300 years ago were just as smart and just as capable as people today, And less distracted by slashdot, facebook, twitter and other interweb stuff that detracts from serious thought
So, one breast is bigger than the other?
Table-ized A.I.
yeah, not enough vowels.
Table-ized A.I.
Wrong. If it is evidence against supersymmetry, it tells us that dark matter is likely not composed of supersymmetric particles. Given that supersymmetric particles are one of the main hypotheses about what dark matter is composed of, I'd say it tells us very much about dark matter.
What you probably wanted to say is that evidence against supersymmetry is not evidence against dark matter.
The Tao of math: The numbers you can count are not the real numbers.
Eh? Just use a Beryllium Sphere
Don't be apathetic. Procrastinate!
either incorrect or completely wrong.
But possibly not both? This quantum shit is weird.
systemd is Roko's Basilisk.
Because the greatest offshoot of SUSY is string theory. String theory relies on SUSY being true, and academic institutions are stuffed with string theorists making ever more grandiose claims about what string theory predicts (think Sheldon Cooper times a billion) without a single prediction of an experimental result that unambiguously proves string theory is correct.
I expect a petition by string theorists to turn off the Large Hadron Collider any day now.
Tubby or not tubby. Fat is the question
Well played.
Tubby or not tubby. Fat is the question
The fundamental problem with the standard model is gravity. In terms of particle interactions, they have it covered via the Higgs particle and gravitinos. But the standard model doesn't have curvature of space.
But you can do quantum field theory in curved spacetime, i.e., without quantizing the gravitational field. There is no single experiment ruling out such a model. So I don't think gravity is a problem for the SM, it's rather our desire to find a unified description of all forces in nature. But of course, nobody knows whether such a unified theory will be correct in the end.
OS Reviews: Free and Open Source Software
There is no single experiment ruling out such a model.
There are conceptual problems. Such as where did the space come from in your model? Or is space curved by your quantum effects (such as a non-zero vacuum energy)?
So I don't think gravity is a problem for the SM, it's rather our desire to find a unified description of all forces in nature. But of course, nobody knows whether such a unified theory will be correct in the end.
Any such description would be by definition unified. We have a number of unified descriptions now. They just don't work at the moment.
Why do techies completely miss that point, then, when the difference is 2000 years, and the subject is things for which they would have more experience than us?
Correct Horse Battery Staple: 72 bits of entropy. Enter "Correct H" into google. When it generates the phrase, that's
I thought Nature wasn't that rare, it has plenty of subscribers. On what page was the particle?
Why do techies completely miss that point, then, when the difference is 2000 years, and the subject is things for which they would have more experience than us?
This techie (engineer) doesn't. I must admit having a Mom who's an anthropologist, having spent time in the field, and listened to whole buildings full of archeologists as well, might have colored my outlook. Just a smidgen.
I can't speak for anyone else, but my ancestors weren't stupid. And we still can only guess at how they went about doing the "impossible" to this day. At least if civilization ends soon, I'll be one of the few that can make my own damn tools! [It probably would have helped if a certain library hadn't of burned.]
As to the problem at hand, it'll take someone coming along, looking at all the weird, bat-shit problems and having a different take on how to "look" (imagine) the problem description. Been there, done that in other problem domains. And, yes, I was thought bat-shit crazy at the time.
Actually, I still am ....
"[I]t is a wise man who admits the limits of his knowledge or skill, and that pretending either causes harm." --Terry Go
Einstein's revolution was sparked by a moment of insight.
Wrong, it was the result of long hard work by several people.
It all started when Maxwell's equations gave results that did not agree with newtonian physics. In an attempt to get at the root of things, Michelson and Morley created an experimental setup to measure the speed of light in different directions in a very precise way. To everyone's astonishment, these experiments indicated that the speed of light is a universal constant, which does not depend on either the movement of the light emitter nor the movement of the detector.
Which was exactly what Maxwell's equations had predicted to begin with! If there was a true intellectual giant here, it was Maxwell.
Several scientists started creating equations that made the results of the Michelson-Morley experiment compatible with classical mechanics. Einstein was just the most successful one, because his equations were more elegant and simpler than those of the others.
However, this does not mean Einstein was absolutely right, his theory was only the best one for that particular period. Today we know things he didn't know, just as Newton didn't know that the speed of light is constant.
For instance, there IS a fixed frame for the whole universe, the one in which the cosmic background is symmetrical. This background was discovered only in 1965.
There's also the horizon problem, which was discovered only in the 1970s. If we look at the sky in opposite directions, we see the same characteristics. We are looking at different regions of the universe that never had contact with each other since the creation of the universe. They are so far apart that even light couldn't have reached one from the other during the universe's lifetime. To solve this problem in a way that's compatible with einsteinian relativity, cosmologists came up with cosmic inflation, a rather ugly and contrived kludge.
Besides, relativity does not give results that are compatible with quantum physics, this has been demonstrated experimentally.
It's rather unfortunate that Einstein's theory is so elegant and precise, because it's certainly wrong when your size scales too much up or down.
LHC energies are a minute fraction of what will be needed to find super partner particles. But admitting that is bad for business.
You might want to have a look at this nice video about the scientific method :)
Futility? Really? The SM is incomplete, in that you have to plug and chug 17 constants that can only be determined via observation. This incompleteness may not be wrong, per se, but it certainly means that refining the SM is unlikely to be the optimal path towards truth. What is the optimal path? You tell me. But spending a lot of resources on a theory that is known to be incomplete and can never be made complete, when there exist other theories that don't have those issues, sounds like the very definition of futilty to me, ranking up there with rain dances.
Of course!
The Hair Club For Men's R&D division is expecting a satisfying conclusion to their statistical research on "Goatee/Evilness" correlation any day now!
There is no single experiment ruling out such a model.
There are conceptual problems. Such as where did the space come from in your model? Or is space curved by your quantum effects (such as a non-zero vacuum energy)?
Spacetime itself does not have to come from somewhere as an emergent concept. It could just be there as it's currently the case with either GR or QFT. Spacetime could get curved via the expectation value of the energy-momentum tensor. No mathemetical ambiguities, no contradiction to experiments, and fully consistent with both GR and the SM. However, I would hardly call this a "unified" description of all forces. Nevertheless, arguing against such a description of nature on purely aesthetic grounds is a bit shaky, IMO.
OS Reviews: Free and Open Source Software
Spacetime could get curved via the expectation value of the energy-momentum tensor.
Then you have to match the two. That creates a coupling between your model and your background. Not impossible, but also not something that's been done yet.
OTOH, if we can come up with a working model where spacetime is an emergent concept, then that would probably be a more fundamental description and also a model where the above problem of getting curvature to agree with the energy-momentum tensor happens naturally.
I believe one of the big motivations is that while the Standard Model does a good job of *describing* our current observations (excepting gravity), it doesn't do anything to *explain* them. Unlike every other area of science where the fundamental laws are accompanied by a theory that gracefully explains *why* those laws describe observations, the SM simply consists of a bunch of component "particles" and some apparently completely arbitrary constants governing their behavior. Couple that with the act that there are numerous situations where the SM doesn't *quite* predict the outcomes exactly and you've got a situation which looks like we have a very good approximation but are missing some fundamental. A similar situation existed with Newtonian gravity which only *almost* perfectly described Mercury's orbit.
--- Most topics have many sides worth arguing, allow me to take one opposite you.
No, the "observed" distribution of dark matter wouldn't occur unless it doesn't interact with normal matter except gravitationally, and possibly not with other dark matter either - none of the "particles" in the SM exhibit those properties. If the SM is correct and complete (and we know it isn't, we've already discovered problems) then that would mean that dark matter almost certainly doesn't exist and the various phenomena which suggest its existence are due to some other effect. There's lots of alternative theories out there already, it's simply that DM is the simplest and explains the widest range of observed phenomena.
--- Most topics have many sides worth arguing, allow me to take one opposite you.
I'm not a physicist, and to me, a lot of this seems like wishful thinking : building on a model of a model, without any actual proof that any of it is actually correct.
We have an enourmous amount of experimental evidence that a huge number of predictions of the Standard Model are correct to ridiculous degrees of precision. No matter what happens, that mountain of evidence is not going to go away.
You can't literally "prove" physical theories; proof is for math. You can only acquire evidence based on observation. And there is precious little else in all of science that has as much hard quantitative evidence for it than the Standard Model.
Accepting that you meant "proof" in the sense that is applicable to physics, it's just ludicrous to say we're building on a model "without any actual proof".
The theory also isn't perfect as there are phenomenon it does not explain, but given its enourmous success, doesn't it make sense to build on it to iron out the imperfections? It's not like this is being done to the exclusion of complete reworks. Physicists around the world are working on the problem from various angles. It would be outright stupid to ignore the "Standard Model is basically correct but needs extending to cover the new phenomenon" angle.
It seems like a lot of fun, but why does it surprise anyone if it comes crashing down one day ?
Two different answers:
1) Because if the theory was really that bad that it was going to come "crashing down", then it wouldn't have been so fantastically successful up to this point.
2) It wouldn't be a surprise if the next-better-theory does away with the Standard Model completely as the most accurate description of reality, because this has happened before and will probably happen again. However, just like with the theories those two supplanted, the Standard Model would not so much come "crashing down" as be shown to just be an approximate model that works extremely well for a broad range of conditions and to extremely high precision. It is essentially impossible for this not to be the case because we've already tested it in that range. Any replacement theory must give the same predictions for the same conditions, or that theory is not a good replacement.
The enemies of Democracy are
SUSY is an extension to the standard model, not a replacement. Most new physics is an extension. Even string theory can be seen as sort of an extension, albeit one that (attempts) to add a lot of explanatory power as well.
The standard model needs to be extended - we know it's incomplete. SUSY would resolve some problems with the model and also introduce some good candidate particles for dark matter.
Don't doubt Einstein did a lot of pounding pegs. His theories didn't spring fully formed out of his head at breakfast one day. They were also inspired by experimental results that contradicted theory, or to fill holes in existing theories that were okay, but not quite complete. Just like modern particle physicists are trying to do.
Einstein's revolution was sparked by a moment of insight.
Perhaps I'm misreading the intention of this sentence, but Einstein did not have some "eureka moment!" that led to special or general relativity. Special relativity was heavily influenced by the Michelson-Morley experiment and Hendrik Lorentz' work. General relativity was influenced by Riemannian geometry, and Einstein was almost beaten to its discovery by David Hilbert. His discoveries were absolutely incredible, but they were the result years and years of work building upon earlier theories and experiments.
"Actually, I was led to it by steps arising from the individual laws derived from experience."- Einstein on special relativity
There's Rivelli's book, Quantum Gravity, where he quantized the gravitational field and gets space-time to emerge as the eigenstates of the relevant operators. Warning: the subject matter is deep both conceptually and mathematically. Not for easy casual reading.
-- hendrik
No, many current variants of SUSY predict we should see this quite a lot. Other versions agree with the SM.
Quite a few variants of SUSY can be ruled out, others are still viable. Quite a lot of string theory variants can also be ruled out, and a few theories involving extra dimensions (Kaluza-Klein partner particles would likely alter this result, though it is not sensitive enough to rule out a lot of these interactions.)
That doesn't mean SUSY is wrong, or that string theory is wrong, or that extra dimensions are wrong. It just means that certain versions of these theories are wrong. When the LHC ruled out the Higgs boson having a mass between 150 and 400 GeV that didn't damage the Standard Model, it just ruled out formulations of the Standard Model with a Higgs with a mass between 150 and 400 GeV.
Not a sentence!
Supersymmetry Theory would be a great name for a tech in Alpha Centurai 2 (if\when it gets made), so it'll be a shame if this gets disproven further.
Not quite. Einstein didn't work in a vacuum. There were plenty of other scientists working on exactly the same problems he was. Including lots and lots of "wild theories and postulations." Einstein's great insight was to put it all together in a way that happened to work.
If his formulation had turned out to be wrong, we'd be holding up someone else as the pinnacle of physics -- possibly even still Newton.
As for 300 years -- you're absolutely right on that. But you skim over the obvious problem with that time scale. We're 100 years since relativity. Given the enormously larger amount of people able to work in the field now, and the tremendously faster communications between those people, you'd think that by purely matching timescales we should be getting damned close to a solution (or at least, to the next stage of understanding.)
None of those are really the problem though. The problem is that the theory has gone far beyond what experiment can measure. Anyone who's interested and a bit clever can set up a double-slit experiment on a shoestring budget. That's the scale of experiment back when Einstein was working. It certainly took creativity and brilliance to invent the experiments originally, but once they were invented, repeating them was within the grasp your average physicist.
On the other hand, it takes a huge multinational investment to set up an LHC. And the LHC only has the potential to barely touch SUSY energy sales, never mind things like string- or M-theories. And even then, the only plan we've got to hit those energy levels is just slam things together really hard and see what the stains look like. Its more forensics than direct experimentation.
Hopefully someday someone will create an experiment that can probe those high energies in a better (and hopefully cheaper) way, but what format such an experiment would take, or its possible at all, will be a completely unanswerable question until someone goes ahead and actually does it.
I'm sure they can adjust some variables to make it fit back into their model. There is a consensus after all.
Thank you, a far better description.
Please consider this account deleted, I just can't be bothered with the spam anymore.
I'm not sure I understand what you mean. But one way out of the problem is indeed that the universe is a little different than we think we are observing. The proposal of extra dimensions that make the apparent very high gravity scale much smaller in the theory removes the unnaturalness problem as well. However, this nor other solutions are fully satisfactory either, and supersymmetry remains to be one of the best possibilities - though nature might have something completely different in stock for us.
Here's two flaws, that are really one flaw:
EU claims that the sun is powered not by fusion, but by a DC interstellar current. The induced magnetic field at 1 AU from a current of sufficient magnitude would far surpass the earth's magnetic field. A compass trivially disproves this.
EU claims that the sun carries a net charge, producing the solar wind from electrostatic repulsion. Experiment shows the wind is actually a quasi-neutral plasma containing equal amounts of positive and negative particles moving outward, when a net charge would obviously move the two charge carriers in opposite directions.
Two flaws that are really one flaw: EU doesn't understand E.
The enemies of Democracy are
Wave bye-bye to Lambda-now-falsified cosmology theory. :)
What I meant was that whatever dimensionless relationships can be constructed in the theory, they would also have to be either big numbers or little numbers or somewhere in the middle.
It was a conjecture! If you are going to define "Theory" as being supported by a preponderance of evidence, as we do when we say, "The theory of evolution." then we can't keep going around calling every damned conjecture a theory too.
What the hell is so wrong with the word "conjecture"?
Susy dealt a heavy blow at the Large Hadron Collider If you can't laugh at that statement then you are dead.
I haven't thought of anything clever to put here, but then again most of you haven't either.
TFA tries to equate supersymmetry with dark matter, which is emphatically wrong.
No it doesn't. It equates SUSY particles with Dark Matter candidates, which is completely true.
The enemies of Democracy are
A replacement which has approximately five times as many doesn't seem too desirable to me.
Actually I used to feel the same way - that ultimately we should have a theory with 0-1 free parameters until a colleague pointed out another possibility. Suppose you have a universe where there are many free parameters but, ultimately, the physics ends up being pretty similar regardless of their actual choice? Since then I've been a lot less hung up on the idea of free parameters despite the fact that neither scenario is applicable to SUSY!
SUSY was invented to explain why the Higgs mass is around 126 GeV/c2 (assuming it is the Higgs we have found) while gravity gets important around 10^18 GeV. If there is nothing else but the SM and Gravity then you have to have a truly amazing coincidence equivalent to winning the UK national lottery about 5 times in a row. While this is technically possible if someone won the lottery that many times in a row you would not be thinking "wow, what a coincidence" but "how did the manage to do that?". It's the same with physics: nobody believes that this is the result of random chance but that there has to be some mechanism by which the universe makes the Higgs mass so small compared to gravity.
Interestingly SUSY does not stop there. It also provides an excellent Dark Matter candidate, makes the weak, strong and EM forces unify at a single point and also turns out to the highest order symmetry possible in our space-time...but it was not conceived of to do any of this at all! When "coincidences" like this happen you really start to feel that you are onto something big so the hope is that some model of SUSY is out there in the universe despite the issue with the ~120 free parameters (which would very likely rapidly decrease from 120 if SUSY were found).