LHC and the demise of String Theory

Desperately seeking SUSY?

To date not a single supersymmetric particle (predicted) has been found.
Why - either our current particle accelerators cannot generate enough energy or Supersymmetry is just wrong. We'll have to wait and see.

Until String Theory gives us a single verifiable result, it should remain as pure speculation. At the moment people quote it as gospel. That should stop.

Desperately seeking SUSY?

To date not a single supersymmetric particle (predicted) has been found.
Why - either our current particle accelerators cannot generate enough energy or Supersymmetry is just wrong.

Well supersymmetry predicts that the first supersymmetric partner should be visible at the LHC. If it isn't supersymmetry is wrong. Which is standard scientific practice so there isn't anything wrong with it.

Until String Theory gives us a single verifiable result, it should remain as pure speculation. At the moment people quote it as gospel. That should stop.

Well that is how most people treat it in the majority of the world's universities. There are certainly those who are overzealous, but again string theory isn't that important in physics in general.

Although its seperate to String Theory, I'll stick my neck out and predict that the LHC finds not even a Squark (lightest supersymmetric particle). But guess what - they'll raise the bar yet again, and revise their mass of the Squark upwards, SUSY will not be dumped either, regardless of evidence (or lack of it). If we built an accelerator that could harness all the power in the universe and didn't find a SUSY they would still be able to revise the theory to account for lack of evidence.
I'd love to be wrong because that would mean we were on the right track and at least give a whole new direction to particle physics. So here's to finding Squark.

Physics used to be about providing Theory to explain what we observed through experience or experiment. Nowadays we seem to be coming up with theorys that are impossible to prove and have no grounding in observation, and are they even necessary? Nice maths though.........

Although its seperate to String Theory, I'll stick my neck out and predict that the LHC finds not even a Squark (lightest supersymmetric particle).

Why? I could say I'll stick my neck out and supersymmetry will be found. Without experimental results it's a pointless thing to say. It's not like the LHC is a horse race with odds-on favourites.

But guess what - they'll raise the bar yet again, and revise their mass of the Squark upwards, SUSY will not be dumped either, regardless of evidence (or lack of it).

Again, why would you think this? It sounds like you're conflating the Supersymmetry community with the String Theory community. The supersymmetry people have never given any indication that they'll do this. Frank Wilczek has said he's interested to see if it's correct or move on. Remember it's mainly an idea that was done and dusted in the 70s and 80s, so nobody has a big attachment to it. Supersymmetry is simply simply the final possible symmetry quantum field theory could posses, so it's interesting to check if it is right. Could you indicate why you believe the supersymmetry community will do these readjustments?

Physics used to be about providing Theory to explain what we observed through experience or experiment. Nowadays we seem to be coming up with theorys that are impossible to prove and have no grounding in observation, and are they even necessary?

"We" do? You've given one example of this with String Theory and one incorrect example with supersymmetry. It isn't a modern day phenomena, for instance see Kelvin's atomic knot theory. In fact the past 100 years and even the past 50 or 25 years have had an excellent track record for newly invented theories which were later confirmed. For example all the field theories in condensed matter.

Nice maths though.........

Well the maths of modern theories aren't really as intricate as the Mathematics of QFT from the 1940s. For instance supersymmetry is just an additional (bigger) symmetry group.

Why? I could say I'll stick my neck out and supersymmetry will be found. Without experimental results it's a pointless thing to say. It's not like the LHC is a horse race with odds-on favourites.

'Cause it's a bit of fun and provides a talking point. Also, although I like Supersymmetry (it's a lot more logical than string), something just doesn't feel right about it (now there's a scientific argument). Like you say we'll know soon enough hopefully.

Could you indicate why you believe the supersymmetry community will do these readjustments?

I could be wrong, but haven't the masses of SUSY particles been revised many times, usually after the latest accelerator has shown no "results"? Like I say - I could be wrong .

In fact the past 100 years and even the past 50 or 25 years have had an excellent track record for newly invented theories which were later confirmed. For example all the field theories in condensed matter.

Fair enough....

Quote:
Nice maths though.........

Well the maths of modern theories aren't really as intricate as the Mathematics of QFT from the 1940s. For instance supersymmetry is just an additional (bigger) symmetry group.

I was referring here to String Theory mathematics e.g. Calabi-Yau manifolds and other topological mathematics, etc. very interesting and will no doubt prove useful in other fields.

Just as a matter of interest - where does your bet lay? Are you a supporter of String or SuperSymmetry or Loop Quantum Gravity. I am not, as you've probably gathered, a Particle Physicist. I have nothing to base my assumptions on other than the books I have read (so I could be totally wrong). What I have learned has been self taught, so if I'm wrong blame my teacher. A lot of the problem I have with String Theory is where it flies in the face of Relativity Theory, namely gravity (curvature of spacetime - they seem to treat gravity as a newtonian force). So - where do you stand?

I have to say this is real interesting, John, you mention that you believe the LHC will not provide the particles they say it will and the they will simply say they need a bigger accelerator, they will surely have to say why?? they will not get away with simply making it up.
At least they have a theory which they are trying to prove, I suppose we'll have to wait and see the LHC results, presuming it doesn't generate a black hole that swallows us all up. :lol: