18 July 2011

No Gluinos - still no supersymmetry

This summer is fun. The extremely conservative predictions of the strand model are being confirmed: no susy, no Higgs, no new particles, no microscopic black holes, no new interactions - nothing new at all. Almost every day, a new confirmation comes up.

Today, it is the lack of gluinos in the search by CMS. The standard model seems indeed complete, just as the strand model predicts. Go on, strands!

12 comments:

  1. Clara,

    How can the Standard Model be considered complete when it may predict the wrong mechanism for EWSB, it does not explain the origin of particle masses, couplings and mixing angles, the source of discrete symmetry breaking and dark matter, the source of the hierachy problem, the origin of anomalies and when it says absolutely nothing about gravitation? Standard Model is, at best, an effective theoretical framework that will need further development and refinement.

    Cheers,

    Ervin Goldfain

    ReplyDelete
  2. Yes, it is not complete - I got carried away. I meant to say that it is correct.

    Now the strand model explains all the issues you mention and predicts that the standard model is correct up to energies very close to the Planck energy. That is what I meant to say.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Clara,

    I have a different take on the validity of the strand model, as I described on Phil's blog. To give just a couple of examples, the strand model does not account for, say, the g-2 muon anomaly, the physics of chiral symmetry breaking or di-muon channels.

    It is also my view that there are currently no sound arguments or experimental evidence suggesting that Standard Model will survive beyond a deep TeV scale, possibly around 100 TeV or so.

    Ervin

    ReplyDelete
  4. Clara, can you have a look at my presentation about renormalizations, please? It is on a very elementary level and I hope you will be able to get the point. I would like to learn your opinion whether it is comprehensible and convincing to you.

    https://docs.google.com/leaf?id=0B4Db4rFq72mLZDBmMjVhN2QtZWM0Yy00YTBjLWIwMmEtNDU4N2E2ZjY4NjNj&hl=en_US

    ReplyDelete
  5. Vladimir, all formulas display incorrectly on my macintosh running firefox ...

    ReplyDelete
  6. Clara, it's a PowerPoint presentation, should be downloaded and viewed with PowerPoint software or compatible (Open Office). It is the Google viewer who does not display the formulas properly.

    ReplyDelete
  7. So, Clara, it is too difficult for reading?

    ReplyDelete
  8. Vladimir,

    your ppt does not show formulas in open office either. (If you want to be read more, please only provide pdf files with all fonts embedded.)

    I tried to read the whole nevertheless. I must admit that I do not understand what you want to argue, and your slides have no summary that explains what you achieved.

    I understand that you do not like renormalization, a feeling shared by many others.
    My opinion is that there are so many ways to achieve the same results that renormalization achieve, without the problems that renormalization has. This topic would only be interesting if alternative results would yield better agreement with experiments than the usual one. But they do not, they give the same results.

    I also think that we will not learn how to unify gravity and particle physics by exploring renormalization, because renormalization and all the alternative ideas assume that space is continuous. This means that all these ideas eliminate gravity from the start, because they eliminate space-time foam.

    I think renormalization is wrong, because it neglects foam, but I also think that it is wrong only at very high energy, not at any measurable one.

    Cheers,

    Clara.

    ReplyDelete
  9. Clara, I submitted two "copies" of my talk in a PDF format (one with comments, the other without them, just slides). I show that first we advance a wrong coupling and then we "fix" it, but we do not reach the correct understanding. See introduction and all the references to PDF copies here: http://www.science20.com/qed_reformulation_feasible/blog/ultimate_explanation_renormalizations-81791

    ReplyDelete
  10. Vladimir, it might be true that we do not reach the correct understanding. My point is that even if we did reach the correct understanding of renormalization, we will not achieve any progress towards unification. I suspect that this is the main reason why most people are not so eager to pursue this issue.

    ReplyDelete
  11. OK, I see you do not want to read it. Clara, coupling equations is a unification ;-) There is no other way of unification.

    ReplyDelete
  12. Vladimir,

    as I wrote, I did read your presentation. I just happen to think that there IS another way of unification, and that renormalization plays little role in it.

    ReplyDelete