The discussion revolves around the empirical evidence for subatomic particles, specifically those within the standard model and beyond, including the Higgs boson and supersymmetry. Participants explore the existence of various particles, their detection, and the implications of theoretical models.
Participants generally agree on the existence of empirical evidence for many standard model particles, but there is no consensus on the status of the Higgs boson and supersymmetry, as well as the implications of their potential falsifiability.
Some discussions involve assumptions about the energy levels at which particles can be detected, and the implications of theoretical models that may not yet be empirically validated.
What is the expected energy range for Higgs boson? I didn't really understand how "supersymmetry is a symmetry of nature" is falsifiable. Sorry, I must sounds pretty dumb. But these are new stuff for me.Kevin_Axion said:Yes, if we don't find the Higgs Boson in it's expected energy range also with Supersymmetry. But one can always extend the energy levels on Supersymmetry.
If supersymmetry is false, how can we actually falsify it?Kevin_Axion said:Supersymmetry is a symmetry of nature because it states that each fermion has a corresponding boson that differs by half a unit of spin and since it is a broken symmetry they are much more massive.
Oh yes, I know that. I just wanted to know that just in case it is false, what experiment would prove it wrong.Kevin_Axion said:It isn't false, falsifiable means it can be proven wrong through experiment.
What exactly did you mean by "extend the mass"?Kevin_Axion said:The LHC but you can always extend the mass of supersymmetric particles as to save them from falsification.
Can the same thing be said about Higgs boson? Why or why not?Kevin_Axion said:I mean the theorists can say "Well, the Supersymmetric Particles can be much more massive than what the energies can probe at the LHC."