LHC puts supersymmetry theory on the spot

[astroron]

News just in from the BBC website .
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-14680570 (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-14657002)
Should make for some interesting discusions in the months ahead ;)
Cheers

[renormalised]

Wrong link, Ron. This one's for the atomic clock.

[Suzy]

Fixed, here's the link. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-14680570

Interesting article, thanks Ron.

Hubby was fortunate enough to visit the LHC just a month ago. Although no one is allowed underground where it all happens, they conduct tours through the facility. He even got me a souvenir- a bag holder (a little round disc with a hook that you put on the table and hang your hand bag off) with the equation for string theory on it. :D I feel rather intelligent when I hang my hand bag now. :lol:

[renormalised]

I thought you were going to say he got you a handbag, a Higgs boson, a miniature black hole and a few grams of antimatter:):P

Oh well, better luck next time he visits:)

[CraigS]

Never mind the Higgs boson biting the dust … now they're saying that Supersymmetry itself is being shown the door, because the predicted indirect evidence is absent !

LHC results put supersymmetry theory 'on the spot' (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-14680570)


This also means that String and Superstring Theories, the last 30 years of development, teaching and 'progress', are also all in deep trouble.

And .. my favourite quote from this article:

How do ya like that motivation/precept, eh ?

Cheers

[renormalised]

Who shot it??!!!:):P

[renormalised]

Actually, there are a number of other SUSY theories that might still be applicable. Despite the possibility that the MSSM is the theory they're now thinking is going by the wayside, I still think much of this talk about various theories being shown the door is a bit premature. However, even if all their theories turn out to be ghosts, it just means they've been deluding themselves all this time and they need to use the LHC to do the experiments they haven't been able to do previously to find out what's going on.

That's what science is about, finding empirical evidence for their pet ideas.

[CraigS]

Ahhh .. you're just being one of those ol' fuddy-duddies !
:P :)
Its dead … go on ! .. admit it .. or I'll call ya a 'denier' ! :P :)

.. and its over to us young-forward-thinkers to save the universe !
:)
Cheers

[renormalised]

Fuddy duddy....coming from someone several years older than I, I'll take that as an insult:):P:P

No...it's still alive!!!!, Just in another form:)

Youngster with big egos. What till all their ideas fall by the wayside too. Then they'll be brought right back down to Earth where they belong:):P:P

[astroron]

Good Morning Craig :)
I have already started a thread on this Here
http://www.iceinspace.com.au/forum/showthread.php?t=79897
Cheers:thumbsup:

[CraigS]

G'Day Ron .. up to the mods now, I guess ..

MSSM: Interesting .. it seems that there's almost no chance of the LHC in its current design, of completely eliminating the MSSM theory, anyway ...

Check out this paper … (http://arxiv.org/pdf/1106.2317v1) (June 2011) ...


Given that they haven't found evidence for the Higgs yet, and given the scenario where it might still be inside of the expected mass range, it would seem there may still be the possibility that the LHC isn't presently able to even conclusively rule out the MSSM !??!!

I really think we're seeing a media circus surrounding anything to do with LHC findings.
The human expectations are way beyond 'normal', and the media is playing that up to the hilt !
Another case of an area of science being hijacked by the media (and politics) ?
This could easily backfire badly on the Particle Physics research space. They need to manage media releases much more carefully than they have been, (IMHO).

Cheers

[renormalised]

I agree. All it takes is for one physicist to say something outrageous to himself and next minute some journo has jumped on the bandwagon taking the comments for gospel. This event was most probably the case of a few of the physicists getting a little ahead of themselves and the journos, not having a clue at what was being said, taking the comments for the usual grand pronouncements they expect from these scientists....

"Ah, we haven't found the evidence for MSSM. It mustn't exist, therefore...". It's much like saying, "My car won't turn over, therefore I don't have an engine in my car".

What the journos hear is, "GRAND PRONOUNCEMENT: The great God of Particle Physics decrees that MSSM does not exist, because I said so and so does my particle accelerator."

The facts get lost in the translation and the speculation.

[mishku]

http://www.phdcomics.com/comics/archive.php?comicid=1174

[renormalised]

Funny:)

But very true:)

[sjastro]

Very funny. :lol:

On a smaller scale this has happened when you write up an innocuous scientific report on a particular problem (let's say a problem in the automotive industry;)). The engineers reading the report not understanding the science go into a flap, panic ensures, the report is leaked to the press (for Victorian IIS members bits and pieces of your report end on the 3AW rumour file), the Federal government becomes involved thinking that Australian design rules have been violated.....
You get hauled over the coals by senior management........

Been there done that.:lol:



This is what happens when you let physicists run wild with mathematics.
The physicist claim they invent the mathematics, the mathematician however discovers it.

It's no coincidence when physicists come up with the maths, the end result is a vastly complicated ad-hoc mess.

At least Einstein who admitted lacking the mathematical knowledge was greatly assisted by mathematicians such as Hilbert, Minkowski, Grossmann etc.
The end result was a simple and beautiful theory known as General Relativity.

Regards

Steven

[CraigS]

...

… "beautiful" ??
.. What is that ??

Just once I'd like to see a real ugly one be demonstrated to be correct !

.. just once … even then I reckon some poet would paint a story around it to make it look "beautiful".

Why can't reality look ugly ?

:)
Cheers

[sjastro]

Looks like a tongue in cheek remark to me.
George Smoot made a guest appearance on "The Big Bang Theory".
Perhaps he is showing his comedic talents.;)



The mathematician David Hilbert perhaps summarized it best.



Most of General Relativity can be explained because very little of it is based on ad hoc assumptions.
How do you explain something that is ad hoc?

Elementary quantum mechanics is the same, it is largely based on mathematical Hilbert spaces that were developed in the 19th century.
As you progress to Quantum field theory the ad hoc nature of the theory becomes much more evident and therefore less comprehensible. Supersymmetry also follows the same way.



Quantum electrodynamics considered to be the "jewel in the crown of physics" but more more difficult to understand than GR.



Nothing to do with reality. A pure mathematician judges beauty in terms of simplicity and logic.
A geometric topologist (a special type of pure mathematician) is into one sided sheets of paper and hollow bottles with no insides.:)

Regards

Steven

[avandonk]

Don't tell me the sheila I am with is ugly as to me she is beautiful and I am sticking to my story. So is my pet theory!

The media thinks that an experiment can be done as the movies portray it. One experiment leads to a definitive result. Real science is not like that. When you are at the boundaries of signal to noise it takes time and much statistical analysis to tease out any real signal.

I find it rather perplexing that to analyse the trajectories of manufactured tiny particles we need detectors as big as a city building.

This will take time and feeling our way through the 'new' data. The answer is there somewhere! Finding and comprehehension is another!

Bert

[CraigS]

Hi Steven;
Not having a go at you … I see (and appreciate) the points you're making .. I hadn't rotated around the various perspectives on 'scientific beauty' as much as I probably should have, before making my previous remark.

I sometimes think many, (not particularly mathematicians), anthropomorphise things, which clouds their objectivity.

As I think about it some more, mathematicians are probably the least guilty of this!

Media personalities on the other hand … like … well … Brian Cox for example, actually make a living out of it !
:)


Bert;
I agree with everything you said … :)

… and .. you may have noticed that I'm presently pondering the area of data modelling, and the correlations with reality we sometimes impose on the models.

Nature is easily able to make things complex … which seems to cause us many problems in trying to understand why! :shrug:

Cheers

[renormalised]

And you spill your beer every time you try to pour it into one!!!:):P

[renormalised]

And that's the paradox....how many people really understand anything you tell them:):P

[CraigS]

… and why should they believe anything you tell them ?
:P:)

[renormalised]

That being the case, why should they listen to anyone, let alone scientists. And then you'd have them all going off and reading tealeaves and consulting their horoscopes before they all go and top themselves before 2012. Or, maybe, all politicians are honest and never lie....and the media always gets things right when it comes to telling the news truthfully.

That's the problem...most people aren't in a position to know enough to be able to listen to what a scientist says and make an informed decision about what's being said. If you're going to believe in what someone tells you, you'd better be informed enough to be able to figure out where the "news" is coming from. Or, at least have access to the knowledge from credible sources...certainly not your local TV news reporter or the "science" section of some scandal rag.

Which is where most public "science" is being conducted from, if they ever take science seriously enough in the first place.

[CraigS]

Glad you didn't take my comment personally, Carl … that was definitely not intended .. and I realise how easily my comment can be misinterpreted.

And .. yep .. I agree.

To be free enough to not have to believe what someone else says, one has to develop sufficient base skills to research the topic for themselves, and develop one's own understanding .. and this is what education at school should be drumming into kids …

… the skills of skepticism ... which are the only way to access the priviledge of freedom of considered thought.

Cheers

[renormalised]

It's not the skills of skepticism....skepticism can be highly counterproductive, because it usually leads to arrogance, pettiness, egotism and self righteousness. It's the skills of critical thinking which need to be developed. If they're honed sufficiently well then there is no need to be skeptical about anything because you know how to think through a subject and evaluate it on its own merits. Not on the merits of subjective opinion.

You'll usually find that 90% of skeptics don't know what they're talking about because they have little or no knowledge in that which they're debunking....either through ignorance or just sheer pettiness about the subject in question. The other 10% who may have some background in a field possibly related in some manner usually try to debunk a subject simply because it doesn't fit in with their world view/knowledge paradigm and they don't want to upset the apple cart by considering the possibilities. Most usually have careers and reputations to protect.

Just because someone has a string of letters after their name and a prestigious position/notable personality etc, doesn't mean they're correct every time they open their mouths to pontificate upon the state of play, or even know what they're talking about in some cases. Scientists like to think they're right at their top of the game and know all there is to know, however I can tell you from 1st hand experience that this is not the case. This sort of behaviour only holds science back.

[mishku]

Well said, Carl :)