> The observation of the apparent non-existence of something (supersymmetry, in this case) is at least as important as the existence of something. Human imagin

> The observation of the apparent non-existence of something (supersymmetry, in this case) is at least as important as the existence of something. Human imagination can create a large number of theories. It isn't as valuable to prove the non-existence of something you have imagined up than proving the existence of something you have imagined up. Sure, in this case, it was pretty important to prove an idea (supersymmetry) wrong because it was so widely accepted. But, insofar as physics is an empirical science, not it's important to reflect, how did it happen in the first place that an idea with no empirical support became so widely held? What can be improved in the culture and habits of physics and physics funding. Which traditions should be reconsidered.