You are probably right, as far as experimental high energy physics is concerned. Also I am not saying, I particularly would like this outcome.With what data? Beter values of Lambda? A higgs mass to three decimal places?
From Becker, Becker, and Schwarz:Hm, okay. So would you say then that string models without SUSY are just not in the cards, period?
Ahh...but who would have believed GR if it weren't for the experimental predictions. Almost immediately, Eddington tested GR's predictions that light follows geodesics, and the perhelion of mercury was derived.You are probably right, as far as experimental high energy physics is concerned. Also I am not saying, I particularly would like this outcome.
I was talking about theoretical physics.
As an example:
What data did Einstein need to develop GR?
Zero. He unified Newtons gravity with SR.
What data did he have to develop SR?
Zero. (Arguable, ok)
He in fact noticed that the transformation properties of classical mechanics
and Maxwells theory were inconsistent.
What data did Newton use to develop classical mechanics?
Zero. He unified Keppler's theory of the planitary motion with Galilei's theory
of falling bodies.
This string scale supersymmetry, which we could never test at an accelerator. If SUSY is broken at a very high scale, then there is no way we'd know about it.From Becker, Becker, and Schwarz:
"The third general feature of string theory is that its consistency requires supersymmetry, which is a symmetry that relates bosons to fermions. There exist nonsupersymmetric bosonic string theories (discussed in Chapters 2 and 3), but lacking fermions, they are completely unrealistic. The mathematical consistency of string theories with fermions depends crucially on local supersymmetry. Supersymmetry is a generic feature of all potentially realistic string theories. The fact that this symmetry has not yet been discovered is am indication that the characteristic energy scale of supersymmetry breaking and the masses of supersymmetry partners of known particles are above the experimentally determined lower bounds."
So like I said, high energy physics in the LHC disaster scenario will become the poorly funded domain of theorists. The ILC will be built b/c there is still some residual political will (a remant imo of the cold war) to do such a thing, but its unlikely another will be built after that unless there really is a compelling breakthrough.
Seriously? You're talking about the same Democrats that just CUT funding for high energy physics?The ILC will be built b/c there is still some residual political will (a remant imo of the cold war) to do such a thing, but its unlikely another will be built after that unless there really is a compelling breakthrough.
I think that the best that we can hope for is something like SUSY at the LHC. Honestly---there will then be a strong case to make for the ILC, which is a precision experiment, not an energy experiment. If this can be couched in a way that US politicians (thick skulled as they can be) can actually COMMIT to funding, then we MAY get an ILC in 30 years.After the cancellation of the SSC (which was planned to be even more powerful than the LHC and therefore seemed like a good bet for some form of new physics or at least dicovery of the Higgs) it seemed to me that the US will not be a major source of funding for any future large accelerator.
How about something else.I think that the best that we can hope for is something like SUSY at the LHC.
I don't know what kind of ``energy'' there is to tap into.QGP (quark-gluon plasma ) Is still a phase that needs experimentation if we ever want to be able to tap into this kind of energy.
Fair enough---I really hope you're right. Nothing would be better for science in the US than an multi-national, multi-billion dollar high energy science lab. I really hope to see ILC data before I die.I'm talking about the type of people who decided to fund a manned mission to Mars for no apparent reason whatsoever other than essentially technological welfare and pie in the sky wishful thinking. I guess thats as good a reason as any, and better than most, but yea that type of mentality fortunately still exists in some sectors of politics (in the US and even in the rest of the world).