Does no one have any comment / answer / information on this?
On 20 July 2014 15:38, LizR <[email protected]> wrote: > We've just been watching "Particle Fever" - a documentary about the LHC > (from 2007 to the discovery of the Higgs boson last year). In it, at least > a couple of people (Monica Dunbar and David Kaplan, IIRC) say that a 115GeV > Higgs would be a clear sign of Supersymmetry, while a 140GeV (or greater) > would indicate a Multiverse (meaning a String Landscape, I assume). The > measured value is 126GeV, which apparently leaves everything open for now. > > They seem quite certain that there is a dichotony - SUSY vs MV - and that > the MV answer would effectively be "the end of physics", I assume because > the fundamental physics underlying the string landscape is only accessible > at scales/energies far beyond those accessible to any currently conceivable > experiment. > > I can't quite see this, so perhaps someone could elaborate. That is, it > seems to me unlikely that there is a theory that is going to say the ratio > of electron to proton masses is exactly what it is (1:1836.15267245 or so, > I believe) and that this emerges from simple principles. Since the proton > is a composite "particle" a better example might be the ratio of the > electron to muon masses, which I believe is around 1:206.7682821476077. > > When the chemical elements were being discovered, it became clear that > there were simple principles underlying the apparently complexity. There > were what seemed like completely different substances, which turned out to > be related by simple numbers, e.g. if you take something like 2 grams of > hydrogen and 16 grams of oxygen and mix them you get 18 grams of water. (Or > whatever the correct figures are.) The point being that these small integer > (or almost-integer, but they couldn't measure them accurately enough to > realise that at the time) values indicate something simpler underlying the > observed complexity, whereas 1:1836.15267245 or 1:206.7682821476077, it > seems to me, don't. > > And so on for the various other dimensionless ratios that abound in the > Standard Model, plus the fact that we see neutrinos with only one > handedness, the absence of antimatter and various other apparent symmetry > breakings > > This seems to me to indicate that a multiverse could easily be involved, > and that the (ahem) string of apparently random values we observed emerge > from something like there being 10^500 ways to knot a piece of string in 11 > dimensions. > > What I don't understand is why this would not *also* allow supersymmetry > to exist? Or why would SUSY rule out a multiverse, as the people in the > film seemed to think? Or maybe I misunderstood them. > > Anyone out there with the ability to explain advanced physics to dummies? > > -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
