Without supersymmetry, the standard model does not hold together. supersymmetry will not be found at the LHC. Particle physics will demand a bigger and more powerful proton smasher to find supersymmetry at a huge waste of more money.
Background... Supersymmetry (SUSY), a theory of particle physics, is a proposed type of spacetime symmetry that relates two basic classes of elementary particles: bosons, which have an integer-valued spin, and fermions, which have a half-integer spin. SUSY postulates that each particle from the group of elementey particles are associated with a particle from the the bosons, known as its superpartner, the spin of which differs by a half-integer. In a theory with perfectly "unbroken" supersymmetry, each pair of superpartners would share the same mass and internal quantum numbers besides spin. For example, there would be a "selectron" (superpartner electron), a bosonic version of the electron with the same mass as the electron, that would be easy to find in a laboratory. Thus, since no superpartners have been observed, if supersymmetry exists it must be a spontaneously broken symmetry so that superpartners may differ in mass. Spontaneously-broken supersymmetry could solve many mysterious problems in particle physics including the hierarchy problem. The simplest realization of spontaneously-broken supersymmetry, the so-called Minimal Supersymmetric Standard Model, is one of the best studied candidates for physics beyond the Standard Model. In theoretical physics, the hierarchy problem is the large discrepancy between aspects of the weak force and gravity. There is no scientific consensus on, for example, why the weak force is 10^^32 times stronger than gravity. On Sun, Sep 13, 2015 at 1:14 PM, David Roberson <[email protected]> wrote: > Eric, I hear what you are saying about the different interactions but > that does not help to explain exactly why that is so. My suspicion is that > the behavior is explained by creating new "forces, colors, and particles" > that have arbitrary interaction methods just to fit the measurements. I > see that as curve fitting and projections based upon measurements that did > not fit into the earlier theories. Perhaps I am wrong in this negative > view of current physics understanding. > > From my perspective I see far too many fudge factors that don't make > physical sense being used in that respect. One example that has bothered > me for a very long time is the understanding that photons are particles > instead of small wave packets consisting of fields that obey Maxwell's > equations. Everyone knows that static electric fields exist and can be > mapped out. Also, steady magnetic fields exist and can be mapped with > instruments. The wavelength of a DC system with static electric and > steady magnetic fields is infinite so the photon particles must likewise > approach infinity in size. The issue escapes the singularity as the rate > of change of the fields becomes more significant, but the calculated photon > size remains huge for many decades of AC frequency increase. This does not > make any practical sense at all as far as I can tell. Continuous fields > described by Maxwell do not share this confusion. > > No one would argue that energy is stored within atomic structures in > anything but fixed quanta since that has been shown true in every case to > which I am aware. But free electrons undergoing acceleration should not be > expected to exhibit that same restriction. Field equations according to > Maxwell accurately capture the emitted signals due to every change in > acceleration of that particle as a function of time. Are we to assume that > a continuing emission of discrete photons is taking place depending upon > the rate of acceleration according to existing theory? That each of > these is directed toward a certain precise location in three dimensional > space? At what point in time and acceleration is each photon released as > the process proceeds? > > I am a bit of a heretic in some of my beliefs regarding accepted physical > theories. But, when I detect curve fitting instead of basic understanding > of the underlying processes I get annoyed. Curve fitting is the beginning > point in a quest for further understanding and I applaud the guys for > patching up the holes that continue to appear as more accurate experiments > indicate problems with the most recent theory. This should be expected as > long as an honest, thorough understanding of what is actually occurring > remains elusive. > > Dave > > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Eric Walker <[email protected]> > To: vortex-l <[email protected]> > Sent: Sat, Sep 12, 2015 5:57 pm > Subject: Re: [Vo]:time, separation and neutron tunneling cross section > > On Fri, Sep 11, 2015 at 10:10 AM, David Roberson <[email protected]> > wrote: > > But why does the force fall off with such a high power relationship with >> respect to separation? > > > Here's a Hyperphysics page that says that the range of the strong > interaction is limited in part because gluons carry color charge, and > therefore interact with themselves and with quarks, in contrast to photons, > which carry no (electromagnetic) charge: > > The range of the strong force is limited by the fact that the gluons >> interact with each other as well as with quarks in the context of quark >> confinement. These properties contrast them with photons, which are >> massless and of infinite range. The photon does not carry electric charge >> with it, while the gluons do carry the "color charge". > > > http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/particles/expar.html > > Eric > >
