My only comment is that SUSY is associated with string theory, not MW. String theory includes QFT as a low energy equivalent w/o SUSY and QFT does not predict MW. But then I am just another dummie. Richard
On Sun, Jul 20, 2014 at 6:22 PM, LizR <[email protected]> wrote: > 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. > -- 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.
