Professor Matt Strassler commented: “… I would never advise a student not to learn it [SUSY], even if never shows up in an experiment. Same with extra dimensions and string theory; these are powerful tools of great value, even if they have nothing to do with nature directly. … I’d rather have my readers understand that string theory, supersymmetry, and extra dimensions are more likely to be false than true. And that’s what the word “speculative” is meant to imply. … This is to counter the impression given by many proponents of these ideas that they are more likely to be true than false… or even that they’re obviously true and it’s just a matter of little experimental details.”
I am definitely following your leadership on this but will go one step further, formally saying that both M-theory and SUSY (with s-particles) are wrong. Of course, I must not say this with the tongue in cheek but must use some concrete “material” evidences. First, let the Standard Model be the reference point.
a. A theoretical framework (such as M-theory) which has a base beneath the SM, its key mission must be the reproduction the SM. By failing this mission, it is a failed contraption. Of course, if no one can succeed, then it can still beg for a last chance. But, if there is a success, no more excuse should be given.
Do we have one success around? We do not need a LHC or a new machine to get the answer. A Google “search” can give us an answer in a fraction of a second. G-strings use the different “language” (different from Standard Model language) to “spell-out” all 48 SM particles. That is, the answer was not put in its base. And its “spelling” can be proofread checked by a 5th grader who knows no physics. This proofread-check is a concrete material evidence.
b. A theoretical framework (such as SUSY (with s-particle)) which has a base above SM, its key mission is going beyond the SM, and all data of SM is not able to check its validity. But, if all the “beyond-missions” are easily accomplished by another pathway, then SUSY should be cut out by the Occam’s razor. There are at least three concrete material evidences for cutting out SUSY.
1. There is another pathway to accomplish those missions, thus cutting out by Occam’s razor. One example is about the “dark matter” which could be wholly accounted for internally by the SM-sphere (soccer-ball model) without needing one additional SUSY-sphere. Some theoretical arguments on this can also be searched with Google machine.
2. If SUSY is totally disjoint from this universe, it is then totally irrelevant to this universe. If it is linked to this universe (even very weakly), it still must make a contact with the SM-sphere. A solid theoretical argument can be presented as the concrete material evidence that that “contact-point” must be at the “weak-scale”. But, not only is there no “contact” at the weak scale, but the LHC data shows that no sign of any linkage to the SM-sphere below 1 Tev. which is much higher than the weak scale already.
3. The recent LHC B-meson decay data also rules out any SUSY-“hidden”-linkage to this SM-sphere.
With these three concrete material evidences, I am very comfortably saying that SUSY (with s-particle) is wrong. In addition to the big gadget (such as LHC), physics can be done with paper and pencil. In the Phil Gibbs’ blog (http://blog.vixra.org/2013/07/18/naturally-unnatural/#comment-33919 ), a new methodology of physics (beauty-contest) was discussed. Furthermore, SUSY (with s-particle) can be viewed from a different angle, the old grandmother.
Of course, the old grandmother has no ability to know whether the SUSY (s-particle) is correct (adopted by nature) or not. But, she can easily see that SUSY (s-particle) is a stupid idea.
Being not able to understand the deep definition for “symmetry” in physics, she can understand it with an easier language. Let one ball (perfect sphere) rotating on its center and a very fine laser beam hits the ball while the beam reflects on a screen. During the rotation, if the laser dot on the screen does not move, then all those points which are swept by the beam are symmetrical somehow.
a. For a perfect ball, the laser dot on the screen will never move. She can describe this in two ways,
i. infinite degree of symmetry,
ii. zero (0) point symmetry break.
b. If that perfect ball is punched and has a needle-hole, then she can find, at least, one occasion that the laser dot will move. That is, the infinite degree of symmetry is no more, and there is at least one (1) symmetry break.
c. If a few ditches are scratched on the ball surface (forming a soccer ball like pattern), she will notice that the “symmetry break” increases. That is, she will conclude that more patches on the ball the lesser degrees of symmetry.
For the Standard Model, it has 48 elementary particles which can be described as a (4 x 4 x 3) cube. And, this cube can be represented as a patched ball. If these 48 particles can be represented by a code of (3 x 3 x 2) cube, then this new cube has higher degrees of symmetry. On the other hand, if we double the 48 to 96, then the degrees of symmetry will be reduced.
With this understanding, the old grandmother cannot see that the SUSY (with s-particle) can be a higher symmetry. It should be a lower symmetry.
If this SUSY (s-particle) is not placed on the original ball but is on a new ball, then the entire system becomes a dumbbell which has very low symmetry from any “stand-point”. In fact, there is no way to convince the grandmother that SUSY (with s-particle) has higher degrees of symmetry than without it.
Well, I will not try to convince the grandmother. I know that SUSY (s-particle) is wrong, as there is no room for SUSY (with s-particle) in G-strings. The above is also available at (http://profmattstrassler.com/2013/07/31/a-few-stories-worth-a-comment/#comment-71566 ).
Then, both Ed Witten and Arkani-Hamed might be making all kinds of sense on their saying (SUSY and multiverse) to physicists. But, an old grandmother would like to ask two simple questions.
She has learned two concrete material facts about *this* universe.
a. There are 48 Standard Model matter particles, verified by tons of test data.
b. She herself is alive, and life needs a computing device to maintain an ordered envelop (the body) in the torrent of entropy (going to disorder).
The two questions are very simple.
1. Can these two [Ed Witten and Arkani-Hamed] find the theoretical *base* of the 48 SM particles of *this* universe from their zillion multiverse? Note: she is not interested in those other-verses which she is not lived in.
2. Is the computing device which supports her life embedded in the physics laws of *this* universe? Or, she picked it up from somewhere else?
These are indeed two very simple questions. Yet, they are still not fair questions if no one else can answer them. A great answer is available at (https://tienzengong.wordpress.com/2013/09/02/is-there-nothing-else-offering-a-viable-alternative-to-m-theory/ ).
The above is available at (http://profmattstrassler.com/2013/08/21/search-day-1/#comment-76949 ).