Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

LHC Data Continues To Disagree With Supersymmetry

timothy posted more than 3 years ago | from the good-because-I'm-not-super-symmetrical dept.

Science 196

decora writes "Pallab Ghosh of the BBC reports on another piece of evidence hitting the beleaguered Supersymmetry community. Scientists at the Lepton Photon conference in Mumbai, India confirmed that extra levels of B-Meson decay have not been found in the LHC beauty experiment. Coming on the heels of a March report in Nature, this news seems to reinforce what many have suspected all along. Dark Matter is probably not explainable through massive shadow particles like squarks and selectrons, and for all practical purposes, the Supersymmetric Extension of the Standard Model of Physics is dead."

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

LIKE MY ASS CHEECKS !! (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#37232094)

Way super-symetried they are !! Not big like Taco's, but nice if I do say so myself !!

News Flash! Taco is GONE! (1)

kdawson (3715) (1344097) | more than 3 years ago | (#37232286)

In other news, ok this is what happening, my parents are out with family friends, and theyll be back any minute so i need your help see, i volunteer on my sister's softball team (im 22 the girls are 15) and whatever, i met this girl, her name is Alison, and were going out for a while. We have a lot in common, and sometimes i help her with homework. i helped her with her english essay and she still got a D... this is because her teacher is a prick... anywayz so she came over like an hour ago, and i really want to lose my virginity, so i ask her to have sex "no no i cant, its not right" she said, but i told her "dont worry, i know what im doing, ill be done in like 10 seconds, plus ill give you 2 n64 games if you say yes." So then I gave her Diddy Kong Racing and Ken Griffy Jr. Baseball and we went up to my room. she is a bit confused and scared. then i think to myself- yo i need lube, right? cuz i heard other people saying you need to lube up her clit otherwise it wont fit in properly. ok so i have no lube, but i really want to lose my virginity, so i grab some butter from the fridge, but its cold and it wont melt, so i microwaved it for 8 minutes and i put it in a glass and poured it on her cooter, and now shes saying i burned it. i dont know what to do, my parents are going to be back any minute and shes crying in the bathroom plz help you guys are really smart please help me. any idea how to shut her up? should i give her another n64 game?

Re:LIKE MY ASS CHEECKS !! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#37232288)

Taco's balls are not symmetrical. I've sucked them both and the left one is definitely larger.

-Hemos

Higgs Boson == /dev/null (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#37232104)

There is no Higgs Boson. - Accept it!
"Matter does not exist" - Hans-Peter Dürr http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rFTuI0G0hh8
"Die Welt entsteht im Auge des Betrachters" - Humberto Maturana

Your mom (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#37232122)

Your mom outputs to /dev/null.

Re:Higgs Boson == /dev/null (1)

ehrichweiss (706417) | more than 3 years ago | (#37232158)

Carver Mead ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carver_Mead [wikipedia.org] ) has been saying something similar for years....And I came up with a similar view a few years after he published his book on the subject, without having read his book or even previously hearing or thinking of anything about particles not existing; it just came to me...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wave%E2%80%93particle_duality#Wave-only_view [wikipedia.org]

Re:Higgs Boson == /dev/null (1)

Daniel Dvorkin (106857) | more than 3 years ago | (#37232238)

Hmmm. Frankly, the guy sounds like a bit of a loon on the subject, which is a very common problem when brilliant, accomplished people in one field who are used to being "the smartest guy in the room" try to tackle problems in a related field which lies just outside the area of their expertise. (I'm looking at you, Slashdot.)

Re:Higgs Boson == /dev/null (1)

ehrichweiss (706417) | more than 3 years ago | (#37232384)

Possibly, but the idea didn't originate with Mead; it's been around long enough that they were considering it in the days of Einstein, even if they rejected it at the time. But there's more than
just Mead, myself, and some old fogies taking this line of thinking seriously...

http://www.popsci.com/science/article/2010-10/fermilab-building-holometer-determine-if-universe-just-hologram [popsci.com]

ICP (2)

MrEricSir (398214) | more than 3 years ago | (#37232216)

"Fucking Higgs Boson, why doesn't it work?"

Re:ICP (1)

nschubach (922175) | more than 3 years ago | (#37232344)

Miracles!

Re:Higgs Boson == /dev/null (2, Funny)

Forty Two Tenfold (1134125) | more than 3 years ago | (#37232480)

Hans-Peter Dürr

Otherwise known as Herr Durr.

Higgs Boson == /dev/null (0)

mcantsin (2417600) | more than 3 years ago | (#37232116)

There is no Higgs Boson. - Accept it! "Matter does not exist" - Hans-Peter Dürr http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rFTuI0G0hh8 [youtube.com] "Die Welt entsteht im Auge des Betrachters" - Humberto Maturana

Re:Higgs Boson == /dev/null (0)

Pikoro (844299) | more than 3 years ago | (#37232146)

oops, forgot to check that Post Anonymously box this time eh?

Re:Higgs Boson == /dev/null (0)

mcantsin (2417600) | more than 3 years ago | (#37232166)

... sure. send the other message into the LHC. Higgs Boson will beam it into /dev/null. Greetings from Schrödinger's Cat =^.^=

What is with this... (5, Funny)

tyrus568 (644456) | more than 3 years ago | (#37232148)

So I clicked on the wikipedia link for supersymmetric extension and tried to read the first three paragraphs.

I encountered these: "supersymmetric partners, the weak scale, the hierarchy problem, quantum corrections, a fermionic superpartner, superparticles, squarks, gluinos, neutralinos, sleptons, R-parity, explicit soft supersymmetry breaking operators, large flavor changing neutral currents and electric dipole moments."

I always knew I wanted to be diagonal in flavor space to make the new CP violating phases vanish.

There is something deeply disturbing in the heads of physicists...

Re:What is with this... (1)

Mitchell314 (1576581) | more than 3 years ago | (#37232160)

There's something deeply disturbed in how nature works.

Re:What is with this... (3, Insightful)

AI0867 (868277) | more than 3 years ago | (#37232186)

Nah, the problem is how we describe it.

Re:What is with this... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#37232334)

There's something deeply disturbing about people who think that the macroscopic world must behave the same way as the microscopic world.

Re:What is with this... (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#37232524)

The terms "macroscopic" and "microscopic" are relative to a human's ability to observe the events. The idea that the Universe has some kind of Bipolar disorder, as opposed to it all being a lack of understanding on your part, is even more disturbing.

Re:What is with this... (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#37232610)

Every phenomina at a macro level must be something fundamentally different at its root.

Color for instance. A macroscopic object is red, but down at the atomic level, things aren't "red", they simply absorb and emit photons of differing energies.

Smell is another example. It may smell like "lemons" to you, but at the atomic level, it's about various molecules fitting into various receptors and stimulating nerve endings.

There is always going to be this "bi polar disorder" between the mechanics at the lowest levels, and the emergent phenomina we experience at our level. Heat, cold, light, ... even gravity.

Re:What is with this... (2)

Ravon Rodriguez (1074038) | more than 3 years ago | (#37233202)

This isn't a fundamental difference between macroscopic and microscopic; what it boils down to is human perception. We exist in the macroscopic world, so we perceive things thusly. Quantum "weirdness" doesn't just happen on the microscopic scale, but the odds of a quantum event being observed macroscopically would equal the odds of the same quantum event happening simultaneously to every particle of a macroscopic object (quantum tunneling is the event that comes immediately to mind). The world doesn't change just because we're in it, regardless of what new-age pseudo-scientists would have you believe.

Re:What is with this... (1)

zero.kalvin (1231372) | more than 3 years ago | (#37232854)

Under what assumption are you considering bipolar disorder disturbing ? Human ? The point is, as far as we know the universe might be one big jerk! If the universe is really indeed bipolar ( behaves differently at different scales ) then what is the problem ? Why are you trying to simplify things (or force them to be simple)? I'm not taking sides here, as a human being I would like it to be simple, but as a physicist I have to accept the universe as it is. I would rather much prefer to describe the whole Universe with one small equation. But that's probably never going to happen, and it's ok.

Re:What is with this... (1)

zero.kalvin (1231372) | more than 3 years ago | (#37232888)

OOps, I misunderstood the last part of your sentence.

Re:What is with this... (2)

TheRaven64 (641858) | more than 3 years ago | (#37233060)

Not really. Any sufficiently complex system begins to exhibit emergent behaviours which are fundamentally different to its normal behaviour. When you focus on the detail, you see something very different to when you look at an entire system. What we perceive as touch, pressure, and so on is just an emergent behaviour of electrostatic repulsion. There's no reason to suppose that this is limited in either direction - that the properties that we detect at the micro scale are not emergent behaviours of smaller and simpler systems, or that the properties that we perceive at the macro scale do not give rise to emergent properties at an even larger scale.

Re:What is with this... (1)

NoNonAlphaCharsHere (2201864) | more than 3 years ago | (#37232366)

I feel certain that if we add a few more hypothetical particles and their anti-particles, along with some new virtual particles to transmit forces between them and the rest of the particle zoo, and (at most) four new carefully tuned fudge factors^W^Wcosmological constants to make the math come out right, depending on how many extra space-like dimensions you postulate, that suddenly, miraculously, the Standard Model will become a thing of breathtakingly elegant simplicity and great descriptive and predictive power.

Re:What is with this... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#37232908)

that suddenly, miraculously, the Standard Model will become a thing of breathtakingly elegant simplicity and great descriptive and predictive power

To be fair, whatever its deficiencies in other areas, the standard model has had great predictive power.

Re:What is with this... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#37232450)

There's something deeply disturbed in our understanding ofhow nature works.
FTFY
How a system works can't be told from the inside of the same system. It can only be modeled, and probabilistic models can't prove they are "the good enough ones". A simple equation can be a good probabilistic model for "Did Alice go out to buy a loaf of bread today, Y/N?", yet the model for the brain of Alice making such a decision is clearly a bit different.

So, I agree with the other comment "Nah, the problem is how we describe it" .

Re:What is with this... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#37232532)

In other words, from our point of view there is no practical difference in the two phrases and you have defeated your own semantic argument. When we say how the system works, it is of course by definition our understanding of how that system works. This is implicit, and does not need to be stated.

Re:What is with this... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#37232892)

So implicit that we call ourselves "nature"?

Re:What is with this... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#37232162)

I do like the slept-ons though.

Re:What is with this... (5, Funny)

NoNonAlphaCharsHere (2201864) | more than 3 years ago | (#37232416)

Slept-ons are emitted when a futon decays.

Re:What is with this... (1)

Daniel Dvorkin (106857) | more than 3 years ago | (#37232210)

Every technical field has its jargon that's incomprehensible to outsiders. It doesn't mean the people who use it are crazy. Complex problems require complex descriptions; not everything can be reduced to a sound bite.

Re:What is with this... (3, Funny)

0123456 (636235) | more than 3 years ago | (#37232270)

Every technical field has its jargon that's incomprehensible to outsiders. It doesn't mean the people who use it are crazy. Complex problems require complex descriptions; not everything can be reduced to a sound bite.

But particle physics in particular seems to have vanished up its own asshole in the last couple of decades Every problem seems to be solved by inventing a new particle which will show up if only we spend ten times as much on the next machine.

Re:What is with this... (1)

wdsci (1204512) | more than 3 years ago | (#37232310)

But particle physics in particular seems to have vanished up its own asshole in the last couple of decades Every problem seems to be solved by inventing a new particle which will show up if only we spend ten times as much on the next machine.

As a particle physicist, I fully endorse this ;-)

Re:What is with this... (4, Insightful)

Daniel Dvorkin (106857) | more than 3 years ago | (#37232326)

I'm not sure I see how particle physics is any worse than ... oh ... say ... software engineering in that regard. Seriously, we here on /. don't tend to notice it as much because we're immersed in it, but have you ever noticed how fast any programming-related discussion here becomes an exchange of jargon? That's because new languages, new data structures, new API's, and new toolsets are being developed all the time, and they all need names. If you're working in the field, you know what these things are; if you're not, a discussion about them might as well be a string of random alphanumeric characters on the screen. I have no doubt that to physicists, all the terms the OP was mocking make perfect sense (a lot of physicists may disagree about whether the things the terms describe actually exist, but that's a separate issue -- and again, one not unique to physics.)

Re:What is with this... (1)

Oligonicella (659917) | more than 3 years ago | (#37232444)

This is what happens when a group of people believe infinity is a real thing.

Re:What is with this... (1)

flargleblarg (685368) | more than 3 years ago | (#37232598)

But particle physics in particular seems to have vanished up its own asshole in the last couple of decades [...]

Nice... LOL

Re:What is with this... (4, Informative)

sg_oneill (159032) | more than 3 years ago | (#37232642)

But particle physics in particular seems to have vanished up its own asshole in the last couple of decades Every problem seems to be solved by inventing a new particle which will show up if only we spend ten times as much on the next machine

That doesn't mean they are wrong however. As a physicist friend put it to me, "The more we study the universe the only thing we can be certain about it, is that the universe is actually very fucking wierd".

Re:What is with this... (1)

drinkypoo (153816) | more than 3 years ago | (#37232862)

But particle physics in particular seems to have vanished up its own asshole in the last couple of decades

But the bottom [wikipedia.org] quark was theorized in 1973...

Re:What is with this... (2)

drolli (522659) | more than 3 years ago | (#37233000)

Please join them. I am sure they will be delighted if you can, by your genius, propose simpler and cheaper tests for simpler theories which explain all previous observations - why didn't they think about this before? The answer is: they thought about it before. The amount of theories which have been proposed and already excluded is incredible.

Re:What is with this... (5, Funny)

adamofgreyskull (640712) | more than 3 years ago | (#37232746)

This is an incredibly relevant [youtube.com] comedy sketch from Armstrong and Miller...

Presenter:Science now and Britain's Einsteins are a-go-go over a new theory which is thought will revolutionise our understanding of Life, the Universe, and, pretty much, everything else. Heterotic supersymmetry is said to combine elements of String theory with a new take on...now hang on...[reading] "Quantum chromodynamics". Try saying that when you've had a few. And it's the brain-child of Professor Alan King. Er, Professor King, good morning.
Physicist: Good morning.
Presenter:Can you just..briefly...take us through this new theory of yours? In laymans terms.
Physicist: No.
Presenter:All I'm after is just a...a...a...broad stroke..explanation if you like.
Physicist:Um...there isn't one.
Presenter:O.k....well what if you were to..to..take us through the whole thing...starting with the real basics and just working our way up.
Physicist:Oh! O.k...I can do that. It will take quite a long time.
Presenter:How long?
Physicist:11 years.
Presenter: [finger to ear]Ok, I'm just being told we don't have quite that long. Professor, some of our viewers are quite smart...perhaps there's someone watching who's...capable of understanding your theory?
Physicist:There isn't.
Presenter:How can you be so sure?
Physicist:Well, Graham's on holiday and Chung Yao's dead.
Presenter:Professor King, thank you!
Physicist:My pleasure.

Re:What is with this... (1)

jpapon (1877296) | more than 3 years ago | (#37232824)

Fantastic bit, thanks for that.

Re:What is with this... (1)

trout007 (975317) | more than 3 years ago | (#37233064)

Funny. I feel like that when trying to teach economics on /.

Re:What is with this... (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#37233286)

"Theoretical physics" (real science)

vs

"Economics" (invented so that astrologers have someone to look down on).

Re:What is with this... (1)

edumacator (910819) | more than 3 years ago | (#37232974)

Complex problems require complex descriptions; not everything can be reduced to a sound bite.

Something tells me you aren't a politician.

Re:What is with this... (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#37232244)

Its like blowing up a balloon. Clear now?

Re:What is with this... (5, Informative)

belg4mit (152620) | more than 3 years ago | (#37232254)

Try this then: http://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supersymmetry [wikipedia.org]

Re:What is with this... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#37232634)

Good god, I had no idea that this part of the wiki existed. Thanks!

Re:What is with this... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#37232810)

I'm a giant set of teeth um num num *bites u*

Re:What is with this... (1)

Stormwatch (703920) | more than 3 years ago | (#37232290)

I always knew I wanted to be diagonal in flavor space to make the new CP violating phases vanish.

They say CP violates a phase called "childhood".

Sounds like it's time to rethink again (1)

Walkingshark (711886) | more than 3 years ago | (#37232184)

Sounds like it's time for another rethink then. Einstein got his insights from observing things in the real world, a lot of modern theory seems to be based on looking at Math. Maybe it's time to spend some time in the physical world again and to step away from the Platonic realm and see if something sparks some inspiration.

I, for one, wonder what we might learn if we try to model things using integer math instead of the often rounded real numbers that seem to be popular. Of course, with the numbers being so large you run into factoring issues pretty quickly but hey, that's what quantum computers are for right? :)

Re:Sounds like it's time to rethink again (5, Insightful)

JoshuaZ (1134087) | more than 3 years ago | (#37232224)

Sounds like it's time for another rethink then. Einstein got his insights from observing things in the real world, a lot of modern theory seems to be based on looking at Math. Maybe it's time to spend some time in the physical world again and to step away from the Platonic realm and see if something sparks some inspiration.

First of all, Einstein was famous for doing very clever thought experiments. Many of his ideas about special relativity came from thinking about how objects should behave if they tried to chase light. Second, the ideas of supersymmetry in fact come from inspiration of what we see in reality. In particular, supersymmetry has been posited to explain a number of different strange results, most importantly the apparent discrepancy of dark matter (that is, that the universe seem to have a lot of mass that we can't see).

I, for one, wonder what we might learn if we try to model things using integer math instead of the often rounded real numbers that seem to be popular. Of course, with the numbers being so large you run into factoring issues pretty quickly but hey, that's what quantum computers are for right? :)

We use the real numbers to model things because they do a really good job. One could try to just model a universe where the base field was the rational numbers (that is, ratios of integers) but that would have a lot of problems. For example, you won't be able to make a square with a diagonal connecting two corners. Moreover, for most purposes, calculations that can be done in the reals can be done with limits of rational numbers (in fact one way of rigorously defining the real numbers defines real numbers as special limits of rationals called Cauchy sequences. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cauchy_sequence [wikipedia.org] . I'm not at all sure why you think the difficulty of factoring integers is relevant in this context. For most practical calculations, you very rarely need to factor integers. Moreover, while it is true that quantum computers can in theory factor integers quickly using Shor's algorithm http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shor's_algorithm [wikipedia.org] , for all we know it might be possible for standard computers to factor quickly. Moreover, the models we use to talk about quantum computing rely very heavily on the real numbers which you aren't happy with.

Re:Sounds like it's time to rethink again (2)

Daniel Dvorkin (106857) | more than 3 years ago | (#37232372)

Thanks for this clear and cogent post. A lot of /.ers who aren't physicists (i.e., the vast majority of us) seem to really enjoy beating up on modern physics for some reason, and one of the most common complaints is "it's all math, there's no connection to reality any more." It's good to see a reminder that (a) a lot of physics has always been math, (b) there's still plenty of experimental work generating interesting real-world observations which the math is necessary to describe, and (c) the math that's used is pretty damn good at describing the way things work.

Re:Sounds like it's time to rethink again (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#37232604)

The thing which some people have trouble understanding is that Math describes how things will work if YOU already know everything about the situation. Physics is the reality of trying to perform real Math in a world where nothing can truly be 100% "isolated" from everything else.

For example, you can't do an experiment in zero gravity. You can do math which assumes zero G, but your instrumentation creates gravity of its own, albeit on a very small scale. This is also why some Math people have such a hard time with reality- they fail to account for everything which is causing an impact on a situation.

So when we take Math and try to do Physics, our math can often "break" because of factors which weren't considered ahead of time, and it's indeed possible to do things with Math on paper which can never be done in reality because there's no way to create a perfect test environment.

And the whole bit about Dude's cat in a box? It's bullshit, because you simply can never make a box where the insides are not constantly being affected by the outsides, so you are always "looking" inside the box.

So in short, it's not the Math which is the problem, but the people applying it incorrectly. (And just FYI, most people are never taught Math, they're taught the Language of Math which is NOT the same thing at all)

Re:Sounds like it's time to rethink again (1)

tyrione (134248) | more than 3 years ago | (#37232548)

I assume you want to include Complex Numbers in there with Reals when studying Quantum Theory, correct?

Re:Sounds like it's time to rethink again (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#37232870)

Complex numbers per se are not needed. In QM (and everywhere else, the formulation is equivalent), one could just see them as shorthand for specific matrix structures (a+bi = [a, -b; b, a], {a,b} real) that we can't seem to do without in even simple descriptions involving time evolution. Or actually, one _could_ mostly do without it, but that would mean trigonometric functions beyond belief in calculating all the problems where we now just slap an "i" (or "j").

Look at electrical engineering and alternating current: imaginary numbers are introduced to simplify differential equations concerning time evolution. Some people phrase it as "nature is actually complex" when they explain why imaginary numbers are needed. I would rather say "nature is often oscillatory through time, and complex numbers encode all this behaviour in a simple unit".

Anyway: real numbers _and matrices_ (with our defined calculatory rules) would be enough to describe the universe (obviously overstated, but it would be enough to not need imaginary numbers at least). The matrices might get infinite (hi Hilbert!), but physicists usually don't take too much notice of this (hi SUSY/QFT!).

Re:Sounds like it's time to rethink again (1)

trout007 (975317) | more than 3 years ago | (#37233104)

You should check out Universal Geometry and Rational Trigonometry. By redefining length and angle you can greatly simplify geometry where all problems are solvable by algebra without trig functions. Very cool.

http://web.maths.unsw.edu.au/~norman/YouTube.htm#WildTrig [unsw.edu.au]

Re:Sounds like it's time to rethink again (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#37232248)

No, actually Einstein got his insights by reading about E=MC2 as written by Olinto De Pretto.

Re:Sounds like it's time to rethink again (1)

guybrush3pwood (1579937) | more than 3 years ago | (#37232396)

Olinto looks [wikipedia.org]

looks like a young Stalin.

Re:Sounds like it's time to rethink again (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#37232794)

Let's bang things together a little while with this new LHC thingy before we start building new theories. Who knows what we'll find.

Best way to get started is by banging two stones together.

Shortsightedness is a weakness (-1, Flamebait)

MacGyver2210 (1053110) | more than 3 years ago | (#37232194)

"Seriously guys, we haven't found this subatomic particle that we have no idea if it exists or how to observe it in the first five years of the project, so it must not exist at all."

How long did they think the world was flat again? And how long before that did they believe thunder was anger from the gods? And how long before that was fire worshiped as magic?

Re:Shortsightedness is a weakness (1)

Rakshasa-sensei (533725) | more than 3 years ago | (#37232228)

Except this is the equivalent of having a round-earth hypothesis and finding that ships do not disappear behind the horizon.

Re:Shortsightedness is a weakness (5, Interesting)

Baloroth (2370816) | more than 3 years ago | (#37232234)

How long did they think the world was flat again? And how long before that did they believe thunder was anger from the gods? And how long before that was fire worshiped as magic?

About until the very most primitive scientists, until a semi-reasonable scientific explanation was found, and about the same as the other two, respectively. Seriously, one of the very first people to attempt science (the Greeks) knew the Earth was round, most of them knew thunder was a natural phenomenon but couldn't explain it, and they established fire as one of the four elements of nature (again: not magic but we just don't know how it works quite yet.)

However, if an experiment created explicitly for (among other things) confirmation or refutation of Supersymmetry not only doesn't discover it, but discovers absolutely no sign of it and in fact contradicts it (which I believe these results do), then chances are it's time to go back to the drawing board. Or the math board, in this case.

Re:Shortsightedness is a weakness (1)

drinkypoo (153816) | more than 3 years ago | (#37232876)

and they established fire as one of the four elements of nature

you don't get any points for being wrong.

Re:Shortsightedness is a weakness (1)

martas (1439879) | more than 3 years ago | (#37232932)

Then you never get any points, because you will pretty much always be wrong; or at least this is the view taken in science. You'd be hard pressed to find any serious scientist who thinks any sort of absolute truth can really be discovered. That makes your point system pointless (if you will forgive the pun).

Re:Shortsightedness is a weakness (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#37232240)

No no no! You go where the evidence takes you, no matter how much you liked the hypothesis.

Re:Shortsightedness is a weakness (3, Informative)

mfwitten (1906728) | more than 3 years ago | (#37232242)

Around 240 BC, Eratosthenes calculated the circumference of the Earth to an error of less than 2%.

Re:Shortsightedness is a weakness (5, Insightful)

NoNonAlphaCharsHere (2201864) | more than 3 years ago | (#37232308)

Please don't confuse the "Everybody thought the world was flat until Colombus!" crowd with facts. Telling them the ancient Greeks knew they were living on a sphere (from the shape of the shadow of the earth on the moon) won't disturb their firmly held articles of faith at all.

Re:Shortsightedness is a weakness (1)

houghi (78078) | more than 3 years ago | (#37232630)

Why all this OR/OR thinking. You are for us OR against us. You are for a flat earth OR a round one. Here in Babel you speak one language OR another. This is such a negative attitude. Why not start having an AND/AND mentality?

You can agree with some things AND dislike other.
You can speak one language AND others.
You can believe the earth is flat AND round. Just like a pizza.

Re:Shortsightedness is a weakness (1)

KiloByte (825081) | more than 3 years ago | (#37232856)

If you want to be strict here, please mind the distinction between XOR and OR :p

Re:Shortsightedness is a weakness (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#37232914)

You don't even have to go back to the ancient Greeks - the Europeans knew the world was a sphere. The Italians were making globes 200 years before Columbus set sail, so it was obviously known already at that time. The educated of nearly every society since the ancient Egyptians knew the world was spherical - only the uneducated thought it was flat.

Re:Shortsightedness is a weakness (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#37233002)

Shut up, we can't let secular humanists discover that people weren't moronic flat earthers before secular humanism was created. They might throw a tantrum.

Re:Shortsightedness is a weakness (1)

TheRaven64 (641858) | more than 3 years ago | (#37233096)

To be fair, the uneducated accounted for about 95% of the population in the time period that you're discussing. Literacy levels were very low, and the Catholic church was working hard to maintain this.

Re:Shortsightedness is a weakness (1)

steelfood (895457) | more than 3 years ago | (#37232252)

It's one thing to fail because of religious, cultural, or whatever dogma hindering knowledge acquisition. It's a completely different thing when most professional, career scientists at the top of their field, pursuing the unknown while trying to remain as unbiased as possible, are calling it quits. the latter means that while there might be value in more experiments, that value is not enough to justify the cost, i.e. they'll revisit the idea if new evidence shows up in other experiments to warrant it.

To put it another way, the most important test have been conducted, and the results are not favorable. If the theory still ends up being useful, it would only be useful for a few edge cases. And as such, it may not actually describe anything previously unknown.

That having been said, it's not quite time to write off the Higgs quite yet. There's still a ways to go before the range of energy the Higgs is supposed to show up in is exhausted. You are talking about the Higgs when you say particle, right?

Re:Shortsightedness is a weakness (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#37232378)

First of all, just because it was well known that many people during the dark ages thought the earth was flat doesn't mean that the whole world thought the earth was flat. Nowadays because of the Internet everyone has the opportunity to learn the same knowledge, but back then you had portions of the world believing in different things. There were always people that knew the earth was a sphere, that knew it revolved around the sun, and that knew that physical matter was an illusion. The fact that their ideas weren't popular at the time doesn't mean that they weren't there. Much of what is being "discovered" now, was pretty much written a long time ago. Ancient theories about matter are now being verified, but what does that mean about how these theories were created?

Re:Shortsightedness is a weakness (1)

Oligonicella (659917) | more than 3 years ago | (#37232466)

If matter is illusion, please stand with your eyes closed and allow me to walk up behind you with a ball-peen hammer. Matter is axiomatically not illusion because it doesn't react to your perceptions, your perceptions react to it.

Re:Shortsightedness is a weakness (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#37232640)

If matter is illusion,

Those religions never said it was an illusion, that's a mis-translation by someone with a very limited understanding. What they say, is that our perception of matter is an illusion. We understand and perceive the universe through the use of metaphor and symbolism, and it was an understanding that the Model of Reality each of us stores in our skulls bears very little resemblance to what is actually going on.

Re:Shortsightedness is a weakness (3)

sjames (1099) | more than 3 years ago | (#37232358)

It's not quite like that. We know that if this class of theory is correct the particles in question MUST exist and that they will be detectable in the given energy range by a known signature. They aren't there.

So whatever theory is more correct will either not predict these particles or will predict them at an energy we have yet to reach.

They went sailing for the edge of the world so they could hold a mirror over the edge and prove there was a turtle holding it up. Instead, they went all the way around and came back to the starting point, so the flat earth theory must be discarded.

Maybe... (0)

MrEricSir (398214) | more than 3 years ago | (#37232204)

...the LHC itself is just an illusion!!!!11

Re:Maybe... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#37232212)

Inception was a bad movie, not a life choice.

Re:Maybe... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#37232382)

Mod parent up insightful!

hmm (1)

ThorGod (456163) | more than 3 years ago | (#37232206)

I seem to remember a physics colloquium speaker discussing the likely energies for the higgs-boson back in 2005-6. He made it sound unlikely that it would be seen at any of the energies created at the LHC. It could require a much, much more massive particle accelerator to find the HB.

Re:hmm (1)

JamesP (688957) | more than 3 years ago | (#37232884)

Not really

It is my understanding that other accelerators excluded Higgs at a higher energy range (>180GEv) (not sure how they did that)

Overstating (2)

tylersoze (789256) | more than 3 years ago | (#37232250)

Calling SUSY "all but dead" is overstating the case just a little. *Minimal* SUSY appears to not fit the data, but that doesn't mean another version of SUSY might be the right answer. SUSY is one of those things, like string theory, that I think a lot of physicists are going to have a tough time letting go of until they are thoroughly disproven, assuming that ever happens. The problem is we're kind of getting to the point where it's hard to test these theories since it requires energies we have no hope of ever achieving in order to investigate them experimentally, unless we are clever and find other consequences of the theory at lower energies, like the B-meson decay.

Re:Overstating (4, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#37232346)

I am a particle physicist (with no leanings for or against SUSY variants), and I have to agree totally. Calling SUSY "all but dead" is absurd, at this point.

1. Minimal SUSY has had theoretical difficulties (without needing experimental difficulties) for more than a decade now.

2. The SUSY ecosystem is really quite vast. In some sense, it's a shame that it has such a simple name/acronym. Minimal SUSY is really a rather uninteresting modification to the Standard Model, anyhow.

3. The potential for the LHC to shed light on whole ranges of SUSY models (with or without an answer regarding the Higgs field) is understood by physicists to be something which is more likely to be tested (read: ruled out) at the 14 TeV center-of-mass scale.

The decision run the LHC for two years and *then* upgrade in 2013 was made primarily because of the potential to bracket the Higgs at ~ 4 to 5 sigma with ~ 5 fb^-1 of collision data. Anyone who attended (or read slides from) Chamonix 2010 or 2011 can see this rather plainly.

Re:Overstating (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#37232454)

You have been trolled, have a nice day

was going off the reporter's words (1)

decora (1710862) | more than 3 years ago | (#37232952)

The original link in the Pallab Ghosh article (removed at edit time) was for this story:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-14680570 [bbc.co.uk]

"Results from the Large Hadron Collider (LHC) have all but killed the simplest version of an enticing theory of sub-atomic physics."

Re:Overstating (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#37232550)

Wtf. The summary called MSSM dead. SUSY != MSSM, and "all but dead" is the opposite of "dead".

Re:Overstating (1)

maxwell demon (590494) | more than 3 years ago | (#37232674)

"all but dead" is the opposite of "dead".

From the Oxford dictionaries: [oxforddictionaries.com]

all but

  1. very nearly:the subject was all but forgotten
  2. all except:we have support from all but one of the networks

Here, the first definition applies.

Supersymmetry or just Minimal Supersymmetry? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#37232268)

There's a range of possible supersymmetry schemes. Sure, considering minimal supersymmetry first, but if reality doesn't correspond, well, then perhaps all that's been excluded is minimal supersymmetry, the simplest possible way of extending the standard model with supersymmetry.

Secondly, and suspiciously, otherwise quite complicated-looking 32-generator extended supersymmetry theories automagically include a graviton. And we do live in a universe with gravity, after all, so, um, maybe minimal supersymmetry was never the most likely really.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extended_supersymmetry [wikipedia.org]

Leads to some interesting questions, then. (-1)

Ralph Spoilsport (673134) | more than 3 years ago | (#37232464)

What if it's all wrong, and there's no way we can find out? What if science is actually just "a likely story" that is "correct enough" for what we need to do (in terms of engineering) and cannot, in and of itself, tell us what the universe is? One might come up with reasons / excuses, but if the math is broken, and there is no practicable test, leading to - basically "we're done here" - then would we be entering a new historical era of "after science"?

Well if they keep having disagreements (1)

backslashdot (95548) | more than 3 years ago | (#37232488)

If they keep having disagreements they are going to have to sort it with a mediator. Like maybe a neutral Z boson.

Was it ever alive? (1)

Urkki (668283) | more than 3 years ago | (#37232510)

FTFS: "and for all practical purposes, the Supersymmetric Extension of the Standard Model of Physics is dead."
Was it ever alive for any practical purposes?

Re:Was it ever alive? (1)

JockTroll (996521) | more than 3 years ago | (#37232790)

And I didn't even know it was sick.

Wait (3, Insightful)

427_ci_505 (1009677) | more than 3 years ago | (#37232552)

Has Netcraft confirmed that the model is dead?

SUSY remains at the top, BBC article is shoddy (1, Interesting)

lumidek (1147365) | more than 3 years ago | (#37232554)

The BBC article is a piece of shoddy journalism. The LHC has moved the minimal energy at which new physics may occur to higher levels. However, it has done so not only with supersymmetry but with all other possible theories of new physics, see http://motls.blogspot.com/2011/08/supersymmetry-and-irrationality-of-bbc.html [blogspot.com] Supersymmetry remains the most viable candidate for new physics to be found. Only the constrained versions of the MSSM, the Minimal Supersymmetric Standard Model, have been ruled out for a priori sensible values of the parameters. But it's not even true that the whole MSSM has been eliminated. Many other non-SUSY models of new physics have been moved by the data to much higher energies than SUSY - which includes Kaluza-Klein and Randall-Sundrum gravitons, small black holes, leptoquarks, preons, and many others. It's just a flawed interpretation that the data so far present a case to switch from SUSY to something else. If something, they indicate that *no* new theory is needed to describe doable experiments.

admittedly, i am old and grumpy (1)

decora (1710862) | more than 3 years ago | (#37233024)

This is from the article you linked to:

"Eminent SUSY phenomenologists Gordon Kane told the following to the SUSY-hating Marxist blogger Tommaso Dorigo:"

" it's just a flawed idea to ask experimenters - such as the CMS boss Mr Jordan Nash - about "our understanding". He doesn't seem to have too deep an understanding of the parameter spaces of supersymmetric theories. This is not a surprising criticism; he is an experimenter, after all. . . . Mr Ghosh shouldn't have asked experimenters about theoretical questions."

"Maybe Nature abhors the huge percentage of leftists in the current Academia so She won't give them any new and important secrets to be discovered - and She will give the last secrets to the last conservative white males on the periphery of the institutionalized science only. "

"most typical SUSY opponents are old and grumpy hippie assholes "

"Mr Ghosh should splash himself down the drain because his work is a pile of garbage."

Supersymmetry not dead... (0)

forand (530402) | more than 3 years ago | (#37232740)

Supersymmetry was not proposed to provide a possible dark matter particle. Supersymmetry grew out of attempts to reduce the needed parameters of the standard model, e.g. to explain the weak scale. It was only later that it was noticed that the lightest supersymmetric particles could make ideal dark matter particles. Furthermore, current LHC results most certainly do NOT rule out supersymmetry. The measurements have just reduced the allowed phase space for certain realizations of the theory.

Finally, experimentalists never have the last word on whether a theory is truly dead or not. Theorist have shown time and time again that they are capable of coming up with novel ways of saving a theory. Only when the theory requires something which is then falsified does a theory die (or it becomes too complex relative to other theories). That has not happened. Even the BBC article includes lots of hedging.

Supersymmetry and irrationality of the BBC (1)

Freddybear (1805256) | more than 3 years ago | (#37232896)

http://motls.blogspot.com/2011/08/supersymmetry-and-irrationality-of-bbc.html [blogspot.com]

The BBC has placed supersymmetry next to the carbon dioxide and the AGW "deniers" as the ultimate enemies of Gaia. A would-be journalist, Mr Pallab Ghosh, chose this title:

        LHC results put supersymmetry theory 'on the spot'

The reality is that after 2/fb or so (pronounce: "two inverse femtobarns") that have been analyzed by each major detector of the LHC, no sign of new physics has been detected. It's still a beginning of the experiment and the total number of collisions inside the LHC will grow by orders of magnitude and the energy will be doubled, too. Each year of operation will have a comparable to chance to find something new as the first year. Or just a little bit smaller.

It's because the total amount of energy deposited in the final products of the LHC inelastic collisions is growing more or less exponentially and new physics has a pretty much uniform chance to emerge at the logarithmic energy scale.

It's the beginning but the LHC has already falsified many particular models with new phenomena predicted below 1 TeV or so - or, more precisely, with new phenomena visible in the first two inverse femtobarns. There have been lots of papers talking about possible observations in this region because many people liked things "behind the corner" that could have been a recipe for a quick journey to fame. It didn't work. ;-)

The experiments have surely not "punished" supersymmetry more than any other bottom-up theory even though many ignorant and deluded laymen such as Mr Ghosh are self-evidently obsessed with this utter misconception...

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?