Super Symmetry

[peter]

Can super symmetry be fitted into the maths of the Standard Model? Even in the face of zero experimental evidence (the 750 whatever spike was the closest we got and that turned out to be statistical anomaly) does it 'work' mathematically in respect of solving any of the big remaining questions of fundamental physics? Is it the only contender for advancement of the field and if not what are it's competitors?

Why should the lack of symmetry of the Standard Model bother us at all (though it has to be a pain in the ass that we have constructed a model that is complete in terms of its mathematics but still doesn't account for 95% of the frikkin matter in the universe which we still can't frikkin see!

[Avatar]

Imaginary I tell you...

--A

[peter]

Ahhh.......! All becomes clear!

[Hashi Lebwohl]

The very idea that some scientists still refer to the Model as a "model" implies that they maintain the illusion that there is some order to the quantum realm. At the quantum level, all we can do is list what particles we have detected to date; attempts to predict or suppositions that "this particle should exist based on the math" are ridiculous. Neither thermodynamic time nor causality exist there, so sometimes things happen for no discernible reason or events happen "backwards".

[peter]

But fundamental physics is a very theory driven process is it not Hashi? The theory bods come up with mathematically backed ideas that the experimental bods put to the test. If experiment throws up repeatable anomalies then the theoreticians will apply themselves to providing mathematical explanations but in the main it is the other way around (I believe).
Super symmetry is more surely than just a mathematical exercise 'that works'; like the Higgs boson, for physicists to have invested so much time into it, there must be a real possibility that it points the way forward for where the experimenters should be training their sights? The aforesaid boson took 49 years to confirm with experiments specifically designed to detect it. That's a lot of time and money and to be prepared to commit that you have to be pretty sure your on to a winner (I'd think).

[Hashi Lebwohl]

No, it isn't anything more than a mathematical model that works, which is why scientists stick with it (as they should until it is superceded by something better).

There is nothing wrong with pursuing this model, of course; I was merely commenting that the name "symmetry" can be misleading and that thinking that something "should" exist can also be misleading. Just because something should exist doesn't mean that it does. Caveat: having said that, at the quantum level anything which can exist, no matter how improbable, does exist.

[peter]

Caveat accepted Hashi: I look forward to where physics is headed at the moment - as one young guy said in a program I saw recently " This is the most exciting time, in the most exiting area of mankind's study - ever!"

[Vraith]

thinking that something "should" exist can also be misleading. Just because something should exist doesn't mean that it does.

Well...there's misleading and misleading [and misleading, etc....?]
In this case should and must are precise synonyms.
The Model isn't only mathematical---it's math backed up/paralleled by massive amounts of material results. So if something should be and isn't...
You've made a "simple" calculations error.
Or there is undiscovered math/matter that negates/alters the solution to "may exist when..." or "does not exist because"
Or the model is "incomplete," in some Godel-esque way, so you can't know why what "must" actually isn't...except by using another system to fill in the gap.
Or it is fundamentally false.
From our "what do we know?" position, some of those are much more serious than others.
I suspect some Godelian analog just because I find it hard to fathom the possibility of so much correctness, so many accurate predictions, such a number of real, working, practical uses/technologies arising from a totally false model.