Supersymmetry

[Diablo]

Sciam just dropped through my letter box.

Seems there's some chance that the LHC could detect some of the heavy particles predicted by supersymmetry (SUSY) when it starts up again next year. There's also some conjecture that such particles have already been seen, but missed because they decay into common particles which could have other sources. It may be possible to find these traces by looking at the relative abundances of those particles. A couple of teams are working on that now.

It would be a fantastic breakthrough if SUSY were proven to be true.

[Endo]

"How do you know God didn't design supersymmetry?"

[Diablo]

"How do you know God didn't design supersymmetry?"

It is absolutely certain that she did, just to make life difficult for her creations to understand.

[Autumnlicious]

While I was away last week Columbia was hosting the Large Hadron Collider Physics (LHCP) conference here on campus. Talks are available here. Matt Strassler posts about some of the new Higgs results, which basically see some of the inconsistencies in Higgs mass measurements disappearing. Right now everything is quite consistent with a pure Standard Model Higgs.

REF: http://www.math.columbia.edu/~woit/wordpress/?p=6935

The only inclination for super symmetry is a combination of graph finagling and a mistaken idea that it would be nice for things to be symmetric.

As we can see from CP violation, our idea of symmetry might very well be a flawed concept.

For SUSY, every testable prediction at CERN (and the lower energy collider institutions) has come up null (i.e. we don't see anything at all) and there appears to be mounting evidence there is "just one" Higgs boson. Yet SUSY proponents, like their String Theory brethren, seem more than happy to whip up yet another version -- after a while it strikes me as moving the proverbial goal posts.

Also, why the hell does every time I look into SUSY, it seems that Ned Flanders came up with the names? Neutralinos? Charginos? Woof.

[Surgenator]

The only inclination for super symmetry is a combination of graph finagling and a mistaken idea that it would be nice for things to be symmetric.

As we can see from CP violation, our idea of symmetry might very well be a flawed concept.

For SUSY, every testable prediction at CERN (and the lower energy collider institutions) has come up null (i.e. we don't see anything at all) and there appears to be mounting evidence there is "just one" Higgs boson. Yet SUSY proponents, like their String Theory brethren, seem more than happy to whip up yet another version -- after a while it strikes me as moving the proverbial goal posts.

Also, why the hell does every time I look into SUSY, it seems that Ned Flanders came up with the names? Neutralinos? Charginos? Woof.

I wouldn't go so far as a flawed idea to have things symmetric. There is conservations laws in physics that are directly related to symmetries. Of course, CP violations is a counter example. You maybe right in the end, but we need a solution to the hierarchy problem. SUSY and technicolor are good starting points to solve the problem.

Plus, I don't blame the theorist for refining their theories when we get new data. That is exactly what they're suppose to do. Until their model is completely ruled out, or (more frequently) run out of funding, they won't give up on it.

[Autumnlicious]

The problem with SUSY is like the problem with String Theory -- there are a near infinite number of variants possible, all self consistent.

Whether or not they reflect the real universe or even are testable is another matter.

Most theories are shot dead within the first salvo of null or contradictory results. SUSY/ST on the other hand seems to be highly resilient to damn near everything. In that light, SUSY/ST appears to be more akin to religion than science.

I get that a great many people have diverted their entire careers to SUSY/ST combinations, but I think it's well past the due date to consider an alternative approach instead of recycling the rotting corpse of a theoretical framework that has consistently proven to yield nothing.

[Surgenator]

The problem with SUSY is like the problem with String Theory -- there are a near infinite number of variants possible, all self consistent.

Whether or not they reflect the real universe or even are testable is another matter.

Most theories are shot dead within the first salvo of null or contradictory results. SUSY/ST on the other hand seems to be highly resilient to damn near everything. In that light, SUSY/ST appears to be more akin to religion than science.

I get that a great many people have diverted their entire careers to SUSY/ST combinations, but I think it's well past the due date to consider an alternative approach instead of recycling the rotting corpse of a theoretical framework that has consistently proven to yield nothing.

SUSY and ST "natural" parameters predict particles that are outside the capability of our technology. So some theorist created minimul syper symmetric model (MSSM) which predicts particles at low enough energies that our technology can reach. This is why physicist can confirm the Standard Model and still be optimistic about SUSY. They only ruled out MSSM, not SUSY.

You are correct about the large number of parameters avaliable to SUSY (~230) and ST (~1E500).