You know, I do have other interests.
My comment at the moment was-
Fields have different expressions depending on how you interact with them.
Nothing so hard about that.
But the Standard Model is only as useful as Newtonian Mechanics. Good for some things, not so much for others.
This is the kind of pithy insight that has some of my acquaintance begging me to get a crack habit twitter account.
Well, I have one and a few blogs that I frequent which leads me to gratefully accept affirmations of sanity.
Supersymmetry Fails Test, Forcing Physics to Seek New Ideas
By Natalie Wolchover, Scientific American
November 29, 2012
As a young theorist in Moscow in 1982, Mikhail Shifman became enthralled with an elegant new theory called supersymmetry that attempted to incorporate the known elementary particles into a more complete inventory of the universe.
“My papers from that time really radiate enthusiasm,” said Shifman, now a 63-year-old professor at the University of Minnesota. Over the decades, he and thousands of other physicists developed the supersymmetry hypothesis, confident that experiments would confirm it. “But nature apparently doesn’t want it,” he said. “At least not in its original simple form.”
…
“Supersymmetry is such a beautiful structure, and in physics, we allow that kind of beauty and aesthetic quality to guide where we think the truth may be,” said Brian Greene, a theoretical physicist at Columbia University.
…
“I think it is a mistake to focus on popular versions of supersymmetry,” said Matt Strassler, a particle physicist at Rutgers University. “Popularity contests are not reliable measures of truth.”
1 comments
Author