3 ms·
Experimenters always were more skeptical; I hypothesized asking phenomenologists for a reason. I like Adam Falkowski's description of what it was like in [1] (a
by T-A 1y ago
Experimenters always were more skeptical; I hypothesized asking phenomenologists for a reason. I like Adam Falkowski's description of what it was like in [1] (about the end of dedicated SUSY working groups at CERN):
the existence of SUSY was almost a fact for a bulk of researchers working on the topic. This certainly was reflected in hiring practices, and you had a large group of top researchers whose entire publication list was tied to supersymmetry
[1] https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/supersymmetrys-long-fall-from-grace/ https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/supersymmetrys-lo...
- refulgentis 1y agoI don't disagree but you choosing contrarianism to show you're clever and know a lot here (which worked!) made it sound like CERN was expecting a SUSY particle or whatever (which it wasn't)
- T-A 1y ago> you choosing contrarianism ? > to show you're clever and know a lot ?!? I contribute to discussions when I have the time and think I have something relevant to say. HN is hardly the right place to show off about physics, and trying to do so anonymously would be particularly pointless. > made it sound like CERN was expecting a SUSY particle That's not what I wrote. My point was explicitly about expectations on the theory side. Perplexed.