Latest results from the LHC are casting doubt on the theory of supersymmetry

  • #26
Fra
3,097
144
Fredrik, are you trying to make the distinction between model and meaning, where a mathematical model helps us make predictions but does not necessarily give any understanding as to why that model works, as opposed to a theory which tells us why things are as they are? Isn't this the same as the ontological vs. epistemological perspectives? If so, I would be more comfortable if you would use that language. And I think you'd have to put it in one of the philosophy forums.
Mmm no that's not what I meant.

What I meant is - spawned by the note that any given observation can give rise to a multiplicity of different actions and choices about the status of current theory - that a theory and theoretical frameworks in particular, are MORE than just wrong or wrong. It determines also how new data is treated.

Suppose that a certain amount of evidence "points towards" violation of lorentz symmetry, or supersymmetry.

What is the exact impact of this evidence? This is a decision problem. The problem isn't to kill or corroborate. The problem is how to learn. An theoretical frameworks are more like interaction tools.

When is an interaction tool or learning strategy ever falsified?

Then deeper connection I then make is that; if you consider physical actions of say a proton to be inferencial to it's nature (a generalization of the entropic origin of interactions) then this all this is put in the RG context. The question of how to scale a theory between different observers, becomes that of scaling a decision problem.

All this, suggest that theory and in the extension suggested here, even physical LAW (seen as rationality constraints) are not just descriptions that are just right or wrong.

The extreme implication of this, relating to this context is this: supersymmetry or not may be a matter of perspective! Insist on supersymmetry and you solve some problems but get others; do away with supersymmetry and you solve some yet other problems and created some yet new ones.

The learning strategy here is a CHOICE.

/Fredrik
 
  • #27
264
0
1 out of 3, 1 out of 4 something like that depending on which group of physicists you talk too (theorists or phenomenologists, or say condensed matter physicists) but yea it is easily the most dominant idea for stabilizing the electroweak sector and for beyond the standard model collider physics.

I mean the real worry among physicists, is not that SuSy isn't observed, its that we don't see ANY physics that properly explains why the electroweak sector is stabilized. That would be highly discouraging!
Thx for your insights, Haelfix.

renormalizability is not a fundamental physical principle
That's clearer to me, thx.
 
Last edited:
  • #28
Fra
3,097
144
I like to gather information, provide links, organize and present information.
I think you are doing a great job with this! To bring things up for discussion and notice here. This is one of the main things I like about PF since I am myself very bad at monitoring the field, new articles etc..
That is the big news story for me, over a several year horizon. That the continuum is gauge. That it is being replaced by structure that is more combinatorial/algebraic. That QFT and particle physics can be rebuilt on a new spacetime basis.
I share this same basic view.

/Fredrik
 

Related Threads on Latest results from the LHC are casting doubt on the theory of supersymmetry

Replies
1
Views
6K
Replies
2
Views
766
  • Last Post
Replies
0
Views
3K
  • Poll
  • Last Post
3
Replies
68
Views
12K
Replies
8
Views
1K
Replies
11
Views
1K
Replies
13
Views
2K
  • Last Post
Replies
14
Views
3K
Replies
5
Views
3K
Replies
6
Views
3K
Top