From: phfrom@nyx.uni-konstanz.de (Hartmut Frommert)
Subject: Re: Superbashing (was Re: SARFATTI LECTURES ON SUPER PHYSICS #1)
Organization: Dept. of Physics, University of Constance
Date: Wed, 12 Aug 1992 13:55:40 GMT

A bit late since I was off-line for some time, but..

--------------------
sawyer@utahep.uta.edu (Lee Sawyer) writes:

[..]
> OK I saw the smiley, but...
>1) Supersymmetry is the most logical extension of the Standard Model
>   that I know of. 
 
You should specify why an extension is needed, or should be taken into 
consideration. The Standard Model [i.e., 3-2-1 theory (GSW-SU(2)xU(1) +
QCD-SU(3) gauge fields) with one Higgs field] or its generalizations
(to larger groups and more Higgs fields) fit well with the known HEP 
observations and can be taken as a base for all non-gravitational physics.
To include gravity (classically first), put this model into curved spacetime
[...]. This is possible in a straightforward manner *without* notion of
any supersymmetry. So there's no experimental, phenomenological, or 
theoretical evidence for SS. (See also John C. Baez's posting)

Note that the Standard Model (or the extensions mentioned) *needs* the Higgs 
(or some more complicated analog) for gauge boson masses, while neither
supersymmetry nor superstrings have a comparable status. So there *is*
theoretical evidence for the Higgs (also see J.J. Thaler's post). 

>                   There seems to be circumstantial support for it,
>   it naturally predicts dark matter, 

As is wellknown, dark matter arises also from many other theories in an
unambitious manner. 

>                                      "demystifies" (to use Gordan Kane's
                                          ^^^^^^^
Why did I always miss the "myth" of Higgs fields/particles ?

>   term) the Higgs sector, and seems to predict the eventual unification
>   of the EM, weak, and strong coupling constants (the famous Amaldi plot).

The coupling constants are also related in the SU(5) and other GUT's without
a new concept like SS

>   I am confident that nature will be found to be supersymmetric, given
>   a reasonable collider to perform the search at. This leads to...

I feel rather sure that supersymmetry, though of math'l interest, is not
present in nature.

>2) The SSC [...]

is simply a new device for investigating physics at new, higher quantum
energies. You may expect, or hope, to detect this or that (I assume there's 
strong evidence for t-quark detection, and some not-too-bad chance to find 
the GSW Higgs particle ..), but you can't be sure what you'll find in 
advance. As I posted semi-recently, I don't believe in a "great desert",
though I also don't believe in supersymmetry (nor in superstrings). SSC
is surely not intended to "confirm" SS. (see also J.J. Thaler's posting)

[..]
-------------------
jbaez@riesz.mit.edu (John C. Baez) writes:
[..]
>>[Superstrings]
[..]
>My objections to superstrings in their original formulation is that they
>are simply a way of piling up in a heap all the ideas in particle physics 
>that have not yet made a confirmed prediction -- namely, supersymmetry,
>Kaluza-Klein models (extra dimensions rolled up in a little ball, for
>the nonexpert), and string theory.  
[..]
>Some of the mathematical spinoffs of string theory, [..] show
>interesting mathematical relationships with quantum gravity.  [..]
>I'm certainly not opposed to
>playing around with math in hopes that it winds up describing reality.

Well said. I second this (assume with many others).
--
 Hartmut Frommert, Physics, Univ of Constance, | + Whale killing is murder. +
 P.O.Box 55 60, D-W-7750 Konstanz, Germany | + Eat whale killers, not whales.
 E-Mail: <phfrom@dknkurz1.bitnet> or <phfrom@nyx.uni-konstanz.de>
+    "Windows NoT" expands in German to "Windows Noch Teurer"
+                                                ^even   ^more expensive
Xref: sparky sci.physics:13120 sci.skeptic:14705 alt.folklore.science:3070