Comments on: Supersymmetry: Looking in Nature's Mirror http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/physics/blog/2012/07/supersymmetry-looking-in-natures-mirror/ The physics of nothing, everything, and all the things in between. Mon, 17 Jun 2013 16:00:00 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.4 By: G.D. http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/physics/blog/2012/07/supersymmetry-looking-in-natures-mirror/#comment-1036 G.D. Mon, 13 Aug 2012 16:21:00 +0000 http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/physics/blog/?p=881#comment-1036 You truely wrote: "While the Standard Model states that the Higgs boson gives subatomic particles their mass, it is quite silent on the specific masses held by each particle. Further, it doesn’t explain why so many different types of particles exist, nor does it explain why there are three forces and not two or 20." This is answered in just now published theoryofsomething.com . Be the first to check it it out! Mass and Gravity is fully explained in the ToS. And it is not a crackpot theory - its hands-on and supported. Even good old F=ma is derived for the first time. Have a look! You truely wrote: “While the Standard Model states that the Higgs boson gives subatomic particles their mass, it is quite silent on the specific masses held by each particle. Further, it doesn’t explain why so many different types of particles exist, nor does it explain why there are three forces and not two or 20.”

This is answered in just now published theoryofsomething.com . Be the first to check it it out!

Mass and Gravity is fully explained in the ToS.
And it is not a crackpot theory – its hands-on and supported.
Even good old F=ma is derived for the first time. Have a look!

]]> By: Don Lincoln http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/physics/blog/2012/07/supersymmetry-looking-in-natures-mirror/#comment-1018 Don Lincoln Thu, 02 Aug 2012 15:04:00 +0000 http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/physics/blog/?p=881#comment-1018 I strongly disagree that WIMP cosmology is a failure, indeed I would characterize at as a strong (albeit incomplete) success. Further, supersymmetry is not failed either. By the logic invoked here, the Higgs theory would be a failure, as it took 48 years to find it (probably). It is clear that we should fund a broad spectrum of physicists so as to explore innovative ideas. However we should not forget that physics is ultimately an experimental science. Theorists are inexpensive. Empirical confirmation of their ideas takes a lot more money. The current problem isn't new physical ideas...after all, theorists are very clever lads and lasses and generate all sorts of new ideas...the problem is finding out >>which<< of the ideas are true. I strongly disagree that WIMP cosmology is a failure, indeed I would characterize at as a strong (albeit incomplete) success. Further, supersymmetry is not failed either. By the logic invoked here, the Higgs theory would be a failure, as it took 48 years to find it (probably).

It is clear that we should fund a broad spectrum of physicists so as to explore innovative ideas. However we should not forget that physics is ultimately an experimental science. Theorists are inexpensive. Empirical confirmation of their ideas takes a lot more money. The current problem isn’t new physical ideas…after all, theorists are very clever lads and lasses and generate all sorts of new ideas…the problem is finding out >>which<< of the ideas are true.

]]> By: Robert Oldershaw http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/physics/blog/2012/07/supersymmetry-looking-in-natures-mirror/#comment-1017 Robert Oldershaw Thu, 02 Aug 2012 14:56:00 +0000 http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/physics/blog/?p=881#comment-1017 I agree that donating money to the cause of scientific research aimed at bettering our understanding of nature is a wonderful thing to do. My only complaint is that all the money went to celebrity physicists who have given us the physics equivalent of the "bridge to nowhere", i.e., failed string theory (no predictions in 44 years), failed "WIMP" cosmology (decades of negative results), and failed supersymmetry theory (LHC has falsified evrything predicted so far). If you like the status quo glass-bead games, that's your choice. But if you want theoretical physics to wake up from its long period of torpor, I suggest you fund younger physicists who are willing to explore new paradigms. Robert L. Oldershaw http://www3.amherst.edu/~rloldershaw Fractal Cosmology Discrete Scale Relativity I agree that donating money to the cause of scientific research aimed at bettering our understanding of nature is a wonderful thing to do.

My only complaint is that all the money went to celebrity physicists who have given us the physics equivalent of the “bridge to nowhere”, i.e., failed string theory (no predictions in 44 years), failed “WIMP” cosmology (decades of negative results), and failed supersymmetry theory (LHC has falsified evrything predicted so far).

If you like the status quo glass-bead games, that’s your choice. But if you want theoretical physics to wake up from its long period of torpor, I suggest you fund younger physicists who are willing to explore new paradigms.

Robert L. Oldershaw

http://www3.amherst.edu/~rloldershaw

Fractal Cosmology

Discrete Scale Relativity

]]> By: Don Lincoln http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/physics/blog/2012/07/supersymmetry-looking-in-natures-mirror/#comment-1005 Don Lincoln Wed, 01 Aug 2012 19:06:00 +0000 http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/physics/blog/?p=881#comment-1005 I am not a unabashed fan of SUSY, it has some attractive properties. It remains a credible (although clearly unproven) theory. I am not a unabashed fan of SUSY, it has some attractive properties. It remains a credible (although clearly unproven) theory.

]]> By: John Anderson http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/physics/blog/2012/07/supersymmetry-looking-in-natures-mirror/#comment-1004 John Anderson Wed, 01 Aug 2012 19:03:00 +0000 http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/physics/blog/?p=881#comment-1004 Supersymmetry hasn't garnered much support from experiments. The proton is stable (at least with a half-life of 10^33 years) despite predictions that it should decay. So far no Lightest Supersymmetric Particle has been discovered at the LHC to explain dark matter. I long for the old days when a prediction could be tested in a year or so like when Yang and Lee challenged parity conservation of the weak force and Madame Wu showed it wasn't conserved in a matter of months. Supersymmetry hasn’t garnered much support from experiments.
The proton is stable (at least with a half-life of 10^33 years) despite predictions that it should decay.
So far no Lightest Supersymmetric Particle has been discovered at the LHC to explain dark matter.
I long for the old days when a prediction could be tested in a year or so like when Yang and Lee challenged parity conservation of the weak force and Madame Wu showed it wasn’t conserved in a matter of months.

]]> By: Don Lincoln http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/physics/blog/2012/07/supersymmetry-looking-in-natures-mirror/#comment-1001 Don Lincoln Tue, 31 Jul 2012 21:07:00 +0000 http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/physics/blog/?p=881#comment-1001 What video? What video?

]]> By: Richard Mitnick http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/physics/blog/2012/07/supersymmetry-looking-in-natures-mirror/#comment-1000 Richard Mitnick Tue, 31 Jul 2012 21:02:00 +0000 http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/physics/blog/?p=881#comment-1000 So, where is the video? So, where is the video?

]]> By: Anand Deo http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/physics/blog/2012/07/supersymmetry-looking-in-natures-mirror/#comment-999 Anand Deo Mon, 30 Jul 2012 18:55:00 +0000 http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/physics/blog/?p=881#comment-999 What actually makes it important for us to have higgs bosons to provide the particles the mass they have, any relation to quantum gravity or the graviton? What actually makes it important for us to have higgs bosons to provide the particles the mass they have, any relation to quantum gravity or the graviton?

]]>