Friday, November 13, 2009

AWT and supersymmetry

This post is motivated by recent New Scientist article about possibility to validate string theory by observation of s-tauons, or another supersymmetric particles. But such interpretation is not exact, as 4D space-time superalgebra was first discovered by soviet physicists Yuri Gol'fand and E. Likhtman, who extended the Poincaré algebra into a superalgebra and discovered supersymmetry in four spacetime dimensions in 1970 (published in 1971) together with Akulov-Volkov (1971/72) independently to string theory. At the same year, in 1971 Pierre Ramond, André Neveu and John Schwarz develop a string theory with fermions and bosons and Gervais and Sakita recognized a version of 2D world-sheet supersymmetry in the new fermionic string theory, i.e. supersymmetry algebra in two dimensions. This led to Wess and Zumino rediscovering 4D supersymmetry in 1973 (consider this concise review of SUSY history). In general, superalgebra is spinor extension of quantum mechanics, which can be incorporated into whatever else quantum field theory including Standard Model and LQG (for example, Lee Smolin promoted it for advanced version of loop quantum gravity LQG II) - which effectively means, it cannot serve as an evidence of whatever particular theory, including large group of various string theories.

In context of AWT, supersymmetry is special stuff, it shouldn't be mixed with symmetry as such. We can observe it at water surface, just in quite limited scope. At the water transversal surface waves (so called capillary waves) are dispersing gradually, thus changing itself into longitudinal waves (so called the gravity waves - don't confuse it with gravitational waves, albeit they've similar nature in AWT). We can see, how undulation in one plane shears in complex way, until it becomes undulation in perpendicular complex plane. This rotation is closely related to Poincaré transforms in relativity and Wick rotation in quantum mechanics and Weyl spinors in Cartan composite geometry.




Whereas waves in one plane could be considered as a bosons, the another waves resulting from dispersion are fermions and vice-versa. Note that the dispersion is symmetric with distance scale around distance scale of CMB wavelength  - the very small waves of Brownian noise are longitudinal too! Therefore we can postulate general gauge group, which transforms bosons into fermions and vice-versa, infinitely on both sides of dimensional scale. In real world SUSY gauge symmetry remains broken heavily due the dispersion and subsequent lost of information, though - so we can observe only few members of it. More illustratively, you wouldn't see very much of longitudinal waves at water surface, while observing it via transversal waves and vice versa. 

If the surface waves couldn't disperse into density fluctuations of water, then the bosons and fermions (energy and matter carriers) would be destined to forever remain distinct. But in 1975 Haag-Lopuszanski-Sohnius theorem named after Rudolf Haag, Jan Lopuszanski, and Martin Sohnius  pointed out, that if one allows anticommuting operators as generators of the symmetry group, then there is possibility of unification of internal and space-time symmetries. Such a symmetry is called supersymmetry by now and it constitutes a large part of current research into particle physics. It means, SUSY is just another case of Aether dispersion phenomena at short scales.

In addition, supersymmetry gauge group is closely connected with E8 Lie group and famous Lissi Garret's E8-theory: Every energy wave, exchanged between pair of particles (i.e. density fluctuations of foam) is behaving like less or more dense blob of foam, i.e. like gauge boson particle. Every boson can exchange its energy with another particles, including other gauge bosons, thus forming the another generation of intercalated s-particles. After then the E8 Lie group solves the nontrivial question: "Which structure should have the tightest lattice of particles, exchanged/formed by another particles?".



In AWT supersymmetry could be based on idea, inside of gradient driven reality every gradient has its mass. When we pile a huge amount of lightweight particles, such pile would have a larger mass, then the simple sum of original particles, because it creates more pronounced gradient of mass density/space-time curvature along surface of resulting pile. The difference can be assigned to virtual particles, whose nature depends on the composition of original clusters. For example surface waves on large droplet of neutrinos will be formed by so called neutralinos. If we broke resulting cluster, we wouldn't find them in their individual state, as they evaporate into gravitational waves, i.e. tachyons. 

The same result follows from relativity theory as well, if we think a bit about it. From GR follows, every curvature of space has it's own energy density - this is basically, what Einstein's field equations are about. But as we know from E=mc^2 formula, every energy density can be assigned to its corresponding mass energy density, which should exhibit it's own additional gravitational field and resulting additional curvature of space. This idea can be applied ad infinitum onto resulting solution, which would make relativity recursively nested, implicit theory of geometrodynamics. The supersymmetry concept is just a small distance scale application of the above implicit property of general relativity. It could be demonstrated, analogous recursive principle can be applied to quantum mechanics too - and resulting fractal foam solution would be quite similar and forming general solution of quantum gravity.



Aether is not supposed to replace quantum and/or relativity religion. In addition, there are many concepts and models, which could be derived from Aether concept in a much more straightforward way, then just SUSY concept. It took me some time, when I realized, what the SUSY is all about. In this way, SUSY theory is achievement of mainstream physics - although Aether concept could help in its understanding substantially. SUSY theory has it's analogies even in context of biological sciences. Specialized parazites and predators could be considered as s-particles related to host organisms in process of energy dissipation. Whenever political situation changes, a new social layer of people emerges. These people are following newly formed gradient of energy density, thus blocking its further evolution, as they're playing for himself preferably. These conjunctural zealots have antigravity behavior and their fanaticism discourages another people, who could be interested about new idea - despite of how useful it could be. It's analogy of dark matter particles, which surrounds large particle clusters (strangelets) or galaxies, thus repulsing ordinary matter on behalf of antimatter

In AWT supersymmetric particles are surface waves of rather large dense clusters of ordinary particles, which are stabilized by their surface tension. For example, inside of neutron stars neutrons are stabilized against their decay into protons and electrons by huge hydrostatic pressure. But the same pressure exists inside of atom nuclei, which is behaving like tiny dense droplet. It's well known, inside of tiny water droplets high pressure exist due the surface tension of high surface curvature. In this way, the dense clusters of elementary particles can be stabilized against its decay in similar way, like inside of quark stars made of strange matter and they can merge with another particles of ordinary matter into another strangelets via avalanche like mechanism. IMO top quark Yukawa coupling used for Higgs boson detection, nucleons pairing inside of atom nuclei, observation of pentaquarks, glueballs and/or indicia of tetraneutron formation are all stuff of the same category and it could be attributed to SUSY. Recent spooky observation of muon pairs formation well outside of collider tube at FermiLab could serve as an indicia of formation of strangelet and/or s-muons as well. 

For example, dark matter is generally believed to be composed of so called WIMPs, some of which are supposed to be supersymmetric particles, predicted by SUSY. But such s-particles must remain very stable to be able to form dark matter - and we didn't observe them in accelerators yet. This is strange, especially in connection to arguments, LHC is indeed safe, because much more energetic cosmic rays doesn't form s-particles, too. Many people argument the risk of black holes formation in LHC by fact, cosmic rays can be way, way more energetic - and we still didn't find any trace of black hole during cosmic ray events yet. But this argument can be reversed easily. If the long-lived s-tau does exist, it should already have been found in secondary cosmic rays. It hasn't, so it probably does not exist - or the LHC safety argument is wrong...;-) Why we are expecting the formation of s-tau in LHC, after then?

Tauon particle is ultraheavy lepton, composed of pair of strange quarks (1/3 and 2/3 of electron charge). Analogously to muon, it could catalyze high temperature fusion of lithium and beryllium atom nuclei - so it was proposed for explanation of seemingly missing lithium problem in Big Bang model. This prediction means, if we collect sufficient amount of tau particles, the resulting cluster of tauons could survive for minutes, thus becoming strangelet. AWT proposes an explanation, based on dense droplet model of strangelet formation. Cosmic rays are always individual particles, mostly protons - whereas LHC jet is dense stream of particles, enabling pilling of particles and formation of microscopic black holes and strangelets. Energy density isn't the only criterion of strangelet formation here - the particle mass density and their collision geometry plays a significant role here too. BTW IMO there are better adepts for strangelet formation, composed of neutral and more stable particles, then just tauons (compare the recent observation of muon pairs in FermiLab, which could be attributed to s-muons). 

The problem with s-tau s-particle is, its strangelet should be very stable, being formed by heaviest dense leptons known so far - but the precursor (i.e. tauon) is extremelly unstable stuff. The optimal approach should balance the stability of both strangelet, both its precursors. From this perspective s-muon is a better candidate for SUSY detection and in fact it was observed already in form of spooky muon pairs well outside of collider tube on Tevatron before year - i.e. in simmilar way, like top-quark pairs in 2008, which could serve as an evidence of heavy Higgs. As we can see, formal theory is one thing - the understanding, where to look for its confirmation is another one. Interesting point of these extrapolations (predictions of postdictions) is, I'm foreshadowing the future interpretation of the past events. Couldn't it be an example of situation, in which future affects the past - which was predicted by some quantum theorists recently (compare the critique here)?


AWT connection of SUSY to strangelets brings another problem to popular dark matter models: WIMPS particles are forming surface waves of these droplets - so they shouldn't exist independently to these strangelets. If dark matter is full of WIMPS, it should contain many strangelets as well. Such models really exists for example in context of string theory: Randall-Sundrum braneworlds models considers existence of primordial microscopical black holes, which could play a role of strangelets here. But strangelets aren't very stable in general and currently the only stable strangelets known so far are atom nuclei.  So we can expect, dark matter contains atom nuclei in accordance to Alfen's plasma universe model and WIMPS models of dark matter are BS - or strangelets aren't related to AWT model in any way. As we can see, there's still a lotta strange concerns about SUSY. 

SUSY is quite general geometrical concept, which could be expressed in proverbs: "Ne quid nimis" (Nothing in excess) or "The road to hell is paved with good intentions" (El infierno está empedrado de buenas intenciones) and it has many social and political analogies. It means, when we advance in technology too fast, we can surpass our social and moral ability to handle it. After then the technology wouldn't help us - on the contrary. We should always ballance practical pros and negatives. In contemporary level of technology and life environment pollution we should orient into cold fusion or room superconductivity research ASAP, because it can save us from geopolitical crisis resulting from fight for remnants of fossil fuel supplies and consequences of global warming droughts. In this moment, LHC research is expensive and dangerous luxury, which can be achieved in much more safe and effective way in cosmic space. In addition, we could save money for vacuum pumps, refrigerators, magnets keeping particles at curved path, isolation against noise, etc... 

The stance of contemporary science seems to be quite irresponsible for me. Scientists are like children, who want their toy just now - although they've no idea, how to use it and how dangerous it really may be. We already collected large enough list of experimental evidence, we are rather close to point of spontaneous strangelet formation of many particle types from gluons or quarks to neutrons. In this way, the success of human civilization lead by mainstream science in SUSY detection could become its very last achievement in the same moment.

38 comments:

Zephir said...

For further reading:

Universal hidden supersymmetry in classical mechanics and its local extension.

Jerry said...

Great article! I am a college sophomore with a dual major in Physics and Mathematics @ University of Canterbury in Christchurch, New Zealand. One of my professors was discussing about this the other day. By the way, i came across these excellent physics flashcards. Its also a great initiative by the FunnelBrain team. Amazing!!!

bertjwygant said...

Great minds think alike........................................

El Cid said...

Hi Zephir, me again.

...4D space-time superalgebra was first discovered by soviet physicists Yuri Gol'fand and E. Likhtman ...

Are you sure? I think I've read, that the supersymmetry was discovered in the context of the String Theory, at The Elegant Universe. Maybe, as you are living in a country that was controlled by USSR, you've been tricked by the communist propaganda. ;-)

... supersymmetry gauge group is closely connected with E8 Lie group and famous Lissi Garret's E8-theory …

Are you joking? The supersymmetry is incompatible with E8 Theory. Read Wikipedia, please!

... the discovery of new particles that do not fit in AESToE's classification, such as superpartners, would fall outside the model, and falsify Lisi's match to E8 …

Zephir said...

Hi, El Cid, how are you?

I don't think, CERN article (quoted in my post, BTW) is tricked by Soviet propaganda.. Instead of this, I'd reccomend You not to believe in everything, what you can find in Bibble of string propaganda...

Concerning the E8 group, it was proven, HE E8xE8 string theories are isomorphous with HO string theories based on SO(32) gauge group - so I don't see principial problem here. Well, lets say, E8 group based theories are a bit more general.

El Cid said...

Great article about the history of SUSY. My apologies, you're right. Soviet Physicists were the pioneers of SUSY.
Indeed, you can use the E8 as gauge group to build supersymmetric models. But, these models are based in supersymmetric Yang-Mills theories unlike Lisi's model.

Zephir said...

It doesn't matter very much, on what these models are based, because Garrett's theory is ad-hoced - important is, all these models are converging into same geometry.

El Cid said...

By the way, my hope is that the E8-Theory will eventually be the true Theory Of Everything. Well, I have to admit that there has been much criticism against E8 theory. Lubos wrote that E8-Theory does violate the Coleman-Mandula Theorem. As you know, The Coleman-Mandula Theorem is a No-Go theorem that states you cannot put together diffeomorphisms (Poncaire Group or external symmetry) and gauge transformations (internal symmetry) into a single gauge group to build a consistent Quantum Filed Theory in a 4D Minkowski spacetime. But E8-Theory evades this theorem in a very impressive way. Lisi enlarges the internal symmetry group (E8 group) and he can recover the conventional Einstein theory for gravity and the Standard Model, although Distler says that this SM is not chiral, see the Distler-Garibaldi's theorem for more details.

Zephir said...

Well, E8 theory is NOT definitely a TOE from obvious reason: we are NOT living in quite symmetric mandala of E8 group and observable reality is still way way more complex. Nevertheless it's model, which is consistent with my ideas about AWT and definitely step forward from established relativity-QM based paradigms.

El Cid said...

Well, if E8-Theory is not the definitive ToE, why does E-8 Theory predict the Standard Model and General Relativity? In other worlds, Why does E8-Theory predict the four forces of Nature, i.e., Strong Force, Weak Force, Electromagnetic Force and Gravity Force? What more do you want, Zephir? We are very lucky, because, we can know and study the Einstein's dream, namely, a theory that unifies all forces of the Nature using a Geometry based on the E8-Group. Indeed, Lisi has introduced an action that describes all laws of Nature in an exact and concise way. Lisi is definitively the new Einstein.

Zephir said...

/*..Lisi is definitively the new Einstein...*/
Why not, if naive people like you need a new Einstein, I will not hinder them in their expectations...;-) But I don't care about Einsteinian memorabilia - but about how Universe is really working.

In addition, there's a still priority concern, as has E8xE8 unimodular gauge group was introduced into HE string theories a well before by D. Gross & others in 1987. E8 is the U-duality group of supergravity on an eight-torus.

It was just Garret, who generalized it in simmilar way, like Einstein after Poincare - but he would never got it without long standing interests of string theorists, which lead into construction of E8 computer models.

Mr. Garrett just used these models phenomenologically (in less diplomatic words, he simply guessed it while playing with computer models of E8 generated for string theory research) - so I'm in doubt, he will be able to keep his priority concerning the usage of E8 gauge group in physics.

Zephir said...

/*..Indeed, Lisi has introduced an action that describes all laws of Nature in an exact and concise way...*/
So far Lisi didn't specify mass spectrum of particles predicted by him, which means, his predictions are not falsifiable, because the masses can always be speculated to be beyond the reach of a given experiment. Thirty years old Heim's theory is still more powerful in this extent.

El Cid said...

Dear Zephir,

Lisi is trying to predict the mass of the elementary particles using a elementary particle dubbed axion. As you well know, E8-Theory is very young. Much of the work must be still done, in order to complete it. Once it has been completed, E8-Theory will be the true ToE.
Heim's theory is a piece of crap. Tons of rubbish, no more.

El Cid said...

...and I am not naive, I am linving in the real world. On the contrary, you is who is living in an imaginary world that is ruled by AWT, Heim's Theory and similar crap.

El Cid said...

And please, don't mix the things, E8-Theory with String Theory and Lisi with the string theorists. E8-Theory is a realistic theory of nature unlike ST or supersymmetry which are only fiction physics. Moreover, Garret is a very nice guy, a true theoretical physicist (like Einstein or Smolin), meanwhile, many string theorists are too arrogant to admit that they have lost the game.

Zephir said...

/*..Once it has been completed, E8-Theory will be the true ToE...*/
From AWT follows, whatever logical theory could be elaborated into recursively nested implicit level, thus becoming effectively a ToE. It's just less or more workconsuming and effective.

/*..Moreover, Garret is a very nice guy, a true theoretical physicist (like Einstein or Smolin)...*/
Jeez, are u gay? You're just demonstrating again, how deeply you're influenced by personal sympathy, not by theory outcome itself. It's evident, modern formal theories are converging together, thus vanishing and dissolving mutually.

Lisi's theory has still future before it, so if you're interested into carrier of proffesional physicist, you can focus on it. But from my perspective it's apparently ad-hoced, geometrical and atemporal - so it can predict nothing about character of energy wave spreading and or dynamics of particle interactions. It still needs to handle quantum or wave mechanics separately to explain many phenomena around it. And because we are NOT living inside of symmetric lattice similar to E8 root system, it's evident, it remains the very same approximation of reality, like other formal theories. I don't want to adhere / spend my life with theory, which is apparently limited/specialized from it's very beginning.

Only model of colliding fluctuations inside of Boltzmann gas is flexible enough to be able to explain all subtleties of observable reality at all dimensional scales - at least conceptually. The fact, it cannot be formalized easily makes no problem for me. Observable reality doesn't care, if we can model it in atemporal way by math language, or not. It simply is, like turbulency in fluids.

Zephir said...

/*..don't mix the things, E8-Theory with String Theory and Lisi with the string theorists....*/
Why not? Correspondence principle requires seamless integration of all existing theories into continuous manifold in causal space-time. No theory could exist separately, or it's simply wrong, being isolated from the rest of reality (like you at times). You're behaving like fanatic in similar way, like some string theorists.

After all, real ToE should be able to explain/reconcile all working theories as well - not just observable reality itself. E8 theory cannot explain AWT, but AWT can explain E8 - causal time arrow plays for me. Lisi is just trying to distinguish himself from string theory proclamativelly under hope, it will help him to promote his theory easier. Every promoter of new theory is trying to keep his theory more different in the eyes of the rest of society, then it really is.

But E8 group still has a deep meaning even in context of string theory, which appears to be more general from this perspective, as it works both with E8, both with relativity and quantum theory. E8 theory appears too specialized from this perspective. Specialized theories can often predict particular phenomena easier/better, then these more general ones - but they're more difficult to extend at the price.

Approach of AWT is quite different, holistic and universal one. It doesn't assume about reality very much, but it tries to explain and correct existing theories - not to fight against them blindly. I can see caveats of string theory or E8 theory from AWT perspective - but I see the ways, in which these theories could be plugged into AWT, too. I've no reason to fight against theories, which are bringing new connections into our understanding or reality.

Zephir said...

/*..E8-Theory is a realistic theory of nature unlike ST..*/
Why do you think so? It cannot compute mass of particles from first principles in the same way, like SM or string theory. I just adheres to E8 model.

El Cid said...

... Jeez, are u gay? ...

Yes, where is the problem?


… The fact, it cannot be formalized easily makes no problem for me. …

The physics without math is like a unicorn without horn. The metaphysics without logic is only bullshit like AWT, only a moving gas in your mind.


… You're behaving like fanatic in similar way, like some string theorists. …

No, Zephir, no. I'm defending the reality, the string theorists are defending the fiction.


… Lisi is just trying to distinguish himself from string theory …

Lisi has nothing to do with the string theorists, he is studying the nature. On the contrary, string theory belongs to the realm of the fiction physics.


… I can see caveats of string theory or E8 theory from AWT …

You see nothing.


… It cannot compute mass of particles from first principles in the same way, like SM or string theory. I just adheres to E8 model. …

The words of the master: “The theory is very young, and still in development.

Zephir said...

/*..Yes, where is the problem?..*/
The problem is, your perceiving reality through perspective, which is biased from average of intersubjective opinion. Such perspective is therefore only 4% relevant to the intersubjective opinion. AWT is trying to find perspective, which could be acceptable poorly, but for everybody. I mean, a common ground of understanding.

/*..metaphysics without logic is only bullshit like AWT..*/
Not at all, it's a fundamental logics. Where is the logics behind concepts of constant speed of light, photons, supersymmetry? These concept follows from emergent coincidence of complex equations, but to explain them logically is problem of quite different cathegory. You should have a quite robust conceptual model of reality in your mind to be able to explain them at logical level.

Zephir said...

Your way is thinking is too emotional, labile and unbalanced, like the thinking of women. You started to adore AWT as a great theory, you finished with hate. The very same curve follows your opinion regarding string theory and now E8 theory is in first phase. I'd recommend you to consider both weak, both strong points of theories less dramatically and not to replace understanding of theories by your emotional feeling.

Lisi is indeed a brilliant scientist, but what he basically did was, he took the E8 model from string theory and extrapolated it in another direction on background of accidental observation. You can never find an explanation, why he used just E8 lattice from good reasons - it's because string theorists have used it a long time before!

The same thing Einstein did, when he separated particular aspect of Aether theory (Lorentz transform) and extrapolated it into relativity theory. So Lisi is a new Einstein because he did the very same achievement and mistake at the same time. Now Garrett pretends, E8 theory is fully independent on string theory, but this stance is somewhat analogous to stance of Einstein, who pretended, special relativity is independent to work of Aetherists.

In AWT development of theories occurs like condensation of bubbles inside of gradually condensing ocean of knowledge. String theorists piled ideas cluelessly - and at the certain moment one many potentially successful concepts of string theory (i.e. E8 group model) popped out into new independent theory. But unfortunatelly, just because this theory is so "independent", it cannot become a ToE. You cannot have ToE which is separated from other theories and explaining them at the same time. The truth is somewhere inbetween, as usually.

Zephir said...

When you compress dense particle gas, a foamy density fluctuations similar to strings will emerge. These strings are conceptual basis of string theory.

The dense system of these strings is similar to nested foam, which is analogous to spin network of quantum gravity.

The density fluctuations of this foam can be approximated by the densest geometry of kissing hyperspheres, i.e. by E8 geometry. This is conceptual basis of Lisi Garretts theory.

As you can see, all these theories are particular cases of much more simpler, general concept based on behavior of dense Boltzmann gas. You can derive all the above theories from this model, at least conceptually.

El Cid said...

Doesn't matter what you wrote. I'm a fan of Garrett Lisi.

Zephir said...

It doesn't matter, you're fan of Garrett Lisi. Science is not Ibiza concert.

There is no "Theory of Everything" inside E8,
latest lecture of A.G.L.

El Cid said...

Hi Zephir,

Off topic. As it seems to me, that you like very much the pseudo-scientific theories, I have thought that the following theory, based on the four colour theorem, would be of interest to you. In this theory the mass of the Higgs boson is predicted, and is equal to 125,992 MeV. The formula is M(H0) = (M(Z) + M(W+) + M(W-))/2 (Pg. 56). Very easy, doesn't it?
From now, I'm going to refer to it, like Four Colour Theory.

El Cid said...

Unfortunately, my knowledge in math are too limited as to know if the Distler-Garibaldi Theorem is a no-go theorem that applies to the Lisi's Theory. Maybe Distler and Garibaldi have shown that Lisi's theory doesn't work. But I have a small hope, yet. Don't blame me for dreaming, it's free. ;-)

Zephir said...

/*...Distler and Garibaldi have shown that Lisi's theory doesn't work...*/
They cannot change the indicia, on which E8 theory is based (predictions of particle generations from rotation of E8 geometry). It's like evidence of heliocentric model by order of Venus phases: maybe this model is inconsistent with epicycle algebra (and probably it really is) - but this inconsistency is the evidence of its validity, in fact.

Zephir said...

IMO the neutrino is lightest neutralino (photino) at the same moment in context of supersymmetry theory. Photons have different mass depending on their wavelength, so that their superpartners should behave in the same way. The mass of superpartners is the lower, the mass of original particles is higher and vice-versa. At the CMBR density scale the properties of both particles will be exchanged - the photons will change into fermion (tachyons) and the neutrinos will change into massive Goldstone bosons.

Superluminal neutrinos fit well the basic concepts of AWT. In AWT the neutrinos are the solitons of superluminal gravitational waves in the same way, like the photons are solitons of transverse waves of light. We cannot argue the property of neutrinos (which are massless in Standard Model) just with Standard Model. If Standard Model would be correct, we could never observe the things like the oscillations of neutrinos, for example. So if we are still observing it, it just means this model is already wrong regarding the neutrino questions.

Zephir said...

As in Dirac's case, this doubling of the number of particles was disconcerting, and it was initially hoped that perhaps the neutrino could be the supersymmetric partner of the photon. Now it is known that this is impossible, but in contrast to Dirac's case, no discovery of supersymmetric partners has quickly followed

Zephir said...

As in Dirac's case, this doubling of the number of particles was disconcerting, and it was initially hoped that perhaps the neutrino could be the supersymmetric partner of the photon. Now it is known that this is impossible, but in contrast to Dirac's case, no discovery of supersymmetric partners has quickly followed.

Zephir said...

It’s ironic that the solution to the absence of SUSY is to add even more stuff: composite 3rd generation or Higgs, R-parity violating couplings, scalar gluons, or new singlets. This is what the "parametrization" is called: adding new layer of epicycles to the model, which is dysfunctional already.

Zephir said...

This article implies, that the SUSY requires time-reversal symmetry breaking to work. If the dark matter is attributed to WIMP particles predicted with SUSY, it would mean, that the T-symmetry breaking is widespread phenomena, because the dark matter accounts for 83 percent of the matter in the Universe. But in fact the T-symmetry breaking was never observed experimentally even at the way more sensitive experiments and its breaking would broke even the theories, on which supersymmetry is based. Such an insight would render the SUSY as an intrinsically inconsistent theory.

Zephir said...

Researchers at the LHCb detector 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 ever 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 experiment is one of the "golden" tests for supersymmetry, and it would appear that this hugely popular theory among physicists has failed. The result is at a statistical level of "3.5 sigma" - meaning that there is a one-in-4300 chance that the team would see the same "bump" in their data if the decay were not happening. This level makes the find worth further investigation, but falls well short of the 5-sigma level of certainty required for a formal discovery.

Zephir said...

Thorium put to use, kills a few more versions of Supersymmetry

Zephir said...

'Perfect' Electron Roundness Bruises Supersymmetry.

Zephir said...

Does Physics Have a Problem?, A crisis in physics? BICEP2 does not favor GUT and low SUSY If supersymmetry doesn't pan out, scientists need a new way to explain the universe.

Zephir said...

Theories need to be consistent. But they also need to be falsifiable: this is where
theorists do need to be consistent. If you can't test a scientific hypothesis, what are you doing, exactly?

Zephir said...

Theories need to be consistent. But they also need to be falsifiable: this is where
theorists do need to be consistent. If you can't test a scientific hypothesis, what are you doing, exactly?