Is Supersymmetry Really the Answer?

[czes]

Researchers failed to find evidence of so-called “supersymmetric” particles, which many physicists had hoped would plug holes in the current theory.

Before the start of LHC, I expected early discovery of supersymmetry in the jets+MET signature. Many other theorists also had this belief. But, it was not correct.

On Twitter, there’s Carlo Rovelli gloating here, Matt Strassler (here and here) and Lisa Randall (here) claiming all is not lost. In an exchange here, Strassler notes that he’s fighting to prevent the risk of “no money for your research”. It’s unclear if he’s referring to funding for the LHC experiments or for SUSY theory.
http://www.math.columbia.edu/~woit/wordpress/?p=3937&cpage=1#comment-96348

Due to Quantum Decoherence and Quantum Information there arn't the particles at all. The Quantum States may create many different quasi-particles in superposition. Doesn't mean the particles are created of non-material Quantum Information like a Wave Function of the Schroedinger equation ?
http://www.hologram1.glt.pl/

 

[mitchell porter]

Due to Quantum Decoherence and Quantum Information there arn't the particles at all. The Quantum States may create many different quasi-particles in superposition. Doesn't mean the particles are created of non-material Quantum Information like a Wave Function of the Schroedinger equation ?
http://www.hologram1.glt.pl/

That's an issue which is completely independent of whether or not supersymmetry exists. Superparticles, whether or not they exist, are just another type of particle, so whether particles are "things" or are "just information" is an independent question.

edit: OK, I'll give you this much: maybe you could come up with a "non-particle interpretation" of the meaning of supersymmetry. Supersymmetry as an information relationship, rather than supersymmetry as the existence of a whole new set of particles.

 

[czes]

That's an issue which is completely independent of whether or not supersymmetry exists. Superparticles, whether or not they exist, are just another type of particle, so whether particles are "things" or are "just information" is an independent question.

edit: OK, I'll give you this much: maybe you could come up with a "non-particle interpretation" of the meaning of supersymmetry. Supersymmetry as an information relationship, rather than supersymmetry as the existence of a whole new set of particles.

Yes, it is independent. The General Relativity is also independet of the Quantum Mechanics and works well. The Quantum Gravity has to explain why the Generak Relativity works and we can't find it.
There might be a superparticle in relation to another particle but not necessery. May be it depends on a program how the Quantum Information are related in the superposition.

 

[Fra]

Due to Quantum Decoherence and Quantum Information there arn't the particles at all. The Quantum States may create many different quasi-particles in superposition. Doesn't mean the particles are created of non-material Quantum Information like a Wave Function of the Schroedinger equation ?
http://www.hologram1.glt.pl/

That's an issue which is completely independent of whether or not supersymmetry exists. Superparticles, whether or not they exist, are just another type of particle, so whether particles are "things" or are "just information" is an independent question.

edit: OK, I'll give you this much: maybe you could come up with a "non-particle interpretation" of the meaning of supersymmetry. Supersymmetry as an information relationship, rather than supersymmetry as the existence of a whole new set of particles.

I get what you're saying but I'd like to interject an objection here.

As my perspective to is that of inference and information one step beyond just "non-particle" interpretations is this:

When you say that the existence of a symmetry is independent of it's information interpretation that may be wrong, because IMHO in a proper inference perspective, the notion of symmetry is something that must be INFERRED. Thus to think in terms of wether a particular symmetry "exists" independent of inference, is on par with talking about definite outcomes without measurements, except it's a more subtle form of realism.

In the more inference perspective I adhere too, a symmetry is something that is indirectly observerd, and thus formally gets observer dependent. I don't think the notion of "existence of symmetry" without looking at the process where by it's inferred (and CAN be inferred) makes sense.

So clearly, what we are talking about here is we humans trying to INFER supersymmetry in nature. The insight in this process might also possible suggest that the idea of the "existence of supersymmetry" as element of objective realist is wrong. But of course the argument applies to ANY symmetry.

We often like to think of symmetries as the DNA of physical law. But what if we for a second admit that symmetries are inferred, meaning you need an inference machinery (observer) then this may force new ways to even think about these questions.

/Fredrik

 

[czes]

The "non-particle" interpretation is probable more general than the supersymmetry particles. May be there is Quantum State Supersymmetry instead of the Particle Supersymmetry ?