3 ms·

Supersymmetry and String Theories. Two theories that are not even not even wrong. Their proponents dance and shift in the prevailing intellectual currents suc

Supersymmetry and String Theories. Two theories that are not even not even wrong. Their proponents dance and shift in the prevailing intellectual currents such that there's no possibility they could EVER be proven wrong. There's no null result, no complete experimental failure, that could ever possibly convince them they might, just might, have made an error.

shepardrtc 10y ago
I think you're trivializing the process through which these theories are created. This is incredibly difficult stuff. There is very, very difficult math involved and there are very difficult tests that have to be done with very expensive machines. These things aren't just made on a lark while have a pint or two one afternoon. And even while creating them, there is no guarantee that even if the math is correct that the theory is correct. Theorists know this. But they do it anyway because we need them to. Its hard work and they don't get enough recognition for it (aside from the few that make it on TV).
- effie 10y ago
  > But they do it anyway because we need them to. Its hard work and they don't get enough recognition for it (aside from the few that make it on TV). They certainly don't do it because "we need them to". That's not how theoretical physicists and mathematicians think. It's more of a quest for the holy grail for some and more of an interesting puzzle to solve for the others. That's why some of them just can't stop, even if it's overwhelmingly clear that we have no way to create and probe the extreme conditions where something new and unexpected that would guide the theory could happen. Just because the math is hard does not mean they should get more recognition for it - one should look at the fruits of the work for that. It's not wrong to get occupied with solving famous puzzles, but everything in proportion.
bbctol 10y ago
I'd say string theory has had more dancing proponents than supersymmetry by a long shot. Supersymmetry can be tested--that's what the LHC was for--and as the evidence mounts against it, proponents are right to change their theories.
raattgift 10y ago
"no null result, no complete experimental failure" Well, here, have a look at all the nice excluded theories. https://twiki.cern.ch/twiki/bin/view/AtlasPublic/SupersymmetryPublicResults https://twiki.cern.ch/twiki/bin/view/AtlasPublic/Supersymmet... https://twiki.cern.ch/twiki/bin/view/CMSPublic/PhysicsResultsSUS https://twiki.cern.ch/twiki/bin/view/CMSPublic/PhysicsResult... And here's Michael E Peskin (of the Supersymmetry Working Group) quoted on the late 2015 results: http://www.nature.com/news/lhc-sees-hint-of-boson-heavier-than-higgs-1.19036 http://www.nature.com/news/lhc-sees-hint-of-boson-heavier-th... "To theoretical physicist Michael Peskin of the SLAC National Accelerator Laboratory in Menlo Park, California, the most relevant part of the talks concerned the failure to find a supersymmetric particle called a gluino in the range of masses up to 1,600 GeV (much farther than the 1,300-GeV limit of run 1). This pushes supersymmetry closer to the point at which many physicists might give up on it, Peskin says." The "not even wrong" label does not actually apply to your impolite comment; it's just wrong.

shepardrtc 10y ago

I think you're trivializing the process through which these theories are created. This is incredibly difficult stuff. There is very, very difficult math involved and there are very difficult tests that have to be done with very expensive machines. These things aren't just made on a lark while have a pint or two one afternoon. And even while creating them, there is no guarantee that even if the math is correct that the theory is correct. Theorists know this. But they do it anyway because we need them to. Its hard work and they don't get enough recognition for it (aside from the few that make it on TV).

effie 10y ago
> But they do it anyway because we need them to. Its hard work and they don't get enough recognition for it (aside from the few that make it on TV). They certainly don't do it because "we need them to". That's not how theoretical physicists and mathematicians think. It's more of a quest for the holy grail for some and more of an interesting puzzle to solve for the others. That's why some of them just can't stop, even if it's overwhelmingly clear that we have no way to create and probe the extreme conditions where something new and unexpected that would guide the theory could happen. Just because the math is hard does not mean they should get more recognition for it - one should look at the fruits of the work for that. It's not wrong to get occupied with solving famous puzzles, but everything in proportion.

bbctol 10y ago

I'd say string theory has had more dancing proponents than supersymmetry by a long shot. Supersymmetry can be tested--that's what the LHC was for--and as the evidence mounts against it, proponents are right to change their theories.

raattgift 10y ago

"no null result, no complete experimental failure" Well, here, have a look at all the nice excluded theories. https://twiki.cern.ch/twiki/bin/view/AtlasPublic/SupersymmetryPublicResults https://twiki.cern.ch/twiki/bin/view/AtlasPublic/Supersymmet... https://twiki.cern.ch/twiki/bin/view/CMSPublic/PhysicsResultsSUS https://twiki.cern.ch/twiki/bin/view/CMSPublic/PhysicsResult... And here's Michael E Peskin (of the Supersymmetry Working Group) quoted on the late 2015 results: http://www.nature.com/news/lhc-sees-hint-of-boson-heavier-than-higgs-1.19036 http://www.nature.com/news/lhc-sees-hint-of-boson-heavier-th... "To theoretical physicist Michael Peskin of the SLAC National Accelerator Laboratory in Menlo Park, California, the most relevant part of the talks concerned the failure to find a supersymmetric particle called a gluino in the range of masses up to 1,600 GeV (much farther than the 1,300-GeV limit of run 1). This pushes supersymmetry closer to the point at which many physicists might give up on it, Peskin says." The "not even wrong" label does not actually apply to your impolite comment; it's just wrong.