Why NOT SUSY (s-particle)?

The ORIGINAL (before adding any lifesaving patchworks with religious prayers) SUSY has been ruled out by the 2016 LHC data. A while back, most of M-string theorists were still insisting that the failure of SUSY will have zero implication on the validity of M-string theory.

Yet, on September 15, 2016, Quanta Magazine published an article: The Strange Second Life of String Theory, which states,

{String theory has so far failed to live up to its promise as a way to unite gravity and quantum mechanics.

At the same time, it has blossomed into one of the most useful sets of tools in science. https://www.quantamagazine.org/20160915-string-theorys-strange-second-life/ }.

 

However, {why not SUSY (s-particle)?}

Unless this question is answered THEORETICALLY (not just by any CURRENT test data), we cannot truly rule out the SUSY.

 

In order to answer this question theoretically, I should first ask a different question, {Why SUSY?}

 

Section one: Why SUSY?

There are two good motivations, one {why not?}, one {why shouldn’t?} and most importantly {what else?}

 

First, two great motivations:

One, Standard Model is 100% unambiguously incomplete, {not encompassing gravity, dark energy/dark mass, cosmology constant, naturalness issues, etc.}

Two, quantum mechanics and General Relativity are totally incompatible.

That is, SUSY can be the crack filling answer for these issues.

 

Second, {why not?}

Standard model is totally successful on describing the ‘particle world’ by using a base of {gauge symmetry + Poincare group}. Then, a simple (one step) extension of this base to Super Poincare (SUSY) not only is mathematically valid but is also the most logically sound step for a stop cracks design to mend the incompleteness of SM. If nature does not make this choice, why not?

 

Third, {why shouldn’t?}

The fermions and bosons are totally different in SM. But, why? There can be two answers.

One, the difference between fermions and bosons is INTENSIONAL and fundamental. Then, there must be a mechanism to produce that difference. But, no such mechanism was and still is on the horizon in the mainstream physics.

Two, the difference between fermions and bosons is superficial, not fundamental. Then, there should have a mechanism to smooth out that superficial difference. And, SUSY does this job perfectly.

If SUSY is already a good (great) answer for the question, why shouldn’t it be?

 

Fourth, {what else?}

In the mainstream physics, SUSY is {the only game in town}.

 

Section two: a brief history

The CALLING for SUSY is for a SM cracks filling measure. With this calling, SUSY should appear at weak-scale; that is, SUSY particles are supposed to be discovered over 20 years ago (at LEP).

When that failed, the SUSY devotees moved their goal post to higher energy and swear for its inevitable discovery at Tevatron.

When that failed, they swear again for its appearances at LHC run 1.

After that failed again, they moved the goal post to the LHC run 2.

Of course, they failed on that too.

Now, they are moving the goal post all the way to China, putting their fantasy wish on the not yet build ‘Great Collider’.

This ‘goal post moving show’ not only becomes a big joke for science but is the greatest SHAME for physics.

 

Section three: why NOT SUSY, one:

Can SUSY move the goal post to higher energy indefinitely? The answer is a big NO.

Simply, SUSY is totally (100%) useless for fulfilling its ORIGINAL calling, filling the cracks of Standard Model.

One simple (very simple) crack is the naturalness/fine tuning issue.

The obvious ‘naturalness’ issues are:

Hierarchy issue: the difference between weak coupling and gravity is over 30th order of magnitude.

Cosmology Constant: it is over at least 120th order of magnitude smaller than 1.

Higgs boson mass: it is too light for the M-string quantum gravity.

 

The obvious ‘fine-tuning’ issues are:

Alpha = 1 / (137.0359…): the slightest change on electron and/or proton masses will change this number dramatically.

Planck CMB data (DE=69.22 % 、D=25.90 % 、V=4.86 %):

 

These issues can be written out with 4 simple hashtags, as below.

#how2CalculateAlpha

#how2CalculatePlanckCMBdata

#how2CalculateHiggsbosonMass

#how2CalculateCosmologyConstant

 

Yet, SUSY of any kind (with it hundreds of varieties) cannot QUANTITATIVELY derive those (four) numbers. That is, SUSY is wrong and useless at the beginning. Even if nature implemented SUSY of any kind at very high energy, it is still not the answer for the current questions.

 

Section four: why NOT SUSY, two:

Yes, there is an ‘ELSE’. Those four ‘#how2’ are PRECISELY calculated (derived), see https://tienzengong.wordpress.com/2016/08/26/vision-eulogy-the-post-checkmate-temper-tantrum-fit/

 

Section five: why NOT SUSY, three:

Some detailed PHYSICS discussions about {why no SUSY} are available below:

http://prebabel.blogspot.com/2013/11/the-hope-of-susy-parousia.html ,

https://tienzengong.wordpress.com/2013/09/08/natures-master-key-cuts-out-susy-the-undead/ ,

https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/try-again-part-2-susy-jeh-tween-gong?trk=pulse_spock-articles

 

Finally: the second life of M-string theory

As SUSY is the SOUL of M-string theory {except bosonic string theory (which encompasses no matter), all other consistent string theories are supersymmetric}, how can M-string theory survive as a PHYSICS theory while SUSY is dead?

See https://tienzengong.wordpress.com/2016/09/11/the-era-of-hope-or-total-bullcrap/

 

Of course, CONGRATULATION on its rebirth as hammer life, but the greatest condolence for the DEATH of M-string physics.

 

eggcarton327

 

The era of hope or total bullcrap

The 2016 data (from LHC, LUX, IceCube, etc.) has very much ruled out the dominant paradigms of the theoretical physics of the past half a century: the {SUSY, WIMPs, sterile neutrino, extra-large dimensions, etc.}.

Science is supposed to be a truth-searching machine. But, in the past 45 years, physics (especially the theoretical physics) has been dominated by the M-string theory and its derivatives, SUSY, extra-large dimensions, etc.

This dominance is motivated and supported by the following issues.

One, the super successful of the Standard Model and its obvious incompleteness.

Two, the discovery of dark mass and dark energy.

Three, the discovery of a positive Cosmology Constant.

Four, the totally incompatibility between Quantum principle and General Relativity, while both of them are totally empirically valid  (without a single failure on their predictions).

Five, the hierarchy issue.

Six, the naturalness issue.

Section one: the naturalness and fine-tuning issues

In physics, naturalness is defined as the dimensionless ratios between free parameters or physical constants appearing in a physical theory should take values “of order 1”. That is, a natural theory would have parameter ratios with values like 2.34 rather than 234000 or 0.000234.

This ‘naturalness’ criterion is obviously not discovered in nature but is a human cooked-up desire. This desire came from the failure that the mainstream physics model must hand-put in many parameters in its equations; that is, the desire to avoid the ‘fine-tuning’ any of those parameters.

The ‘naturalness’ and ‘fine-tuning’ are thus closely related but can still form some subgroups.

The obvious ‘naturalness’ issues are:

Hierarchy issue: the difference between weak coupling and gravity is over 30th order of magnitude.

Cosmology Constant: it is over at least 120th order of magnitude smaller than 1.

Higgs boson mass: it is too light for the M-string quantum gravity.

The obvious ‘fine-tuning’ issues are:

Alpha = 1 / (137.0359…): there is no way of calculating this value in the mainstream physics.

Planck CMB data (DE=69.22 % 、D=25.90 % 、V=4.86 %): again, there is no way of calculating these numbers in the mainstream physics.

These are facts. In summary, the ‘naturalness’ issue is all about the following four issues.

#how2CalculateAlpha

#how2CalculatePlanckCMBdata

#how2CalculateHiggsbosonMass

#how2CalculateCosmologyConstant

Section two: SUSY, fulfilling the ‘naturalness-desire

With all the known incompleteness {no gravity, no dark energy, no dark mass, no Cosmology Constant, Hierarchy issue, etc.} of Standard Model, it is totally successful in its own domain, without a single failure. Standard Model is based on ‘gauge symmetry’ + ‘Poincare group’. So extending {‘gauge symmetry’ + ‘Poincare group’} to Super Poincare (SUSY) is mathematically valid. And, it can well be the play dough needed to fill up the cracks of the Standard Model. Why should nature not take such a simple step, especially while SM is very much incomplete? This simple question can easily turn SUSY into a religion.

In addition to some minor successes, SUSY was vindicated by Super String theory. The original String theory is all about the bosonic string. After ‘adapting’ SUSY kid, Super String theory becomes capable of addressing the fermionic string. If Super String theory is correct, how can SUSY not be?

Section three: the revolutions and great successes of the Super String theory

The claimed successes:

One, all the known string theories included a massless spin-two particle that obeyed the correct Ward identities to be a graviton. That is, string theory can be the candidate of quantum gravity, a TOE.

Two, only string theory is able to accommodate chiral fermions like the neutrino; that is, string theory is truly a consistent theory of gravity.

Three, super string theory naturally accommodate SUSY and extra dimensions.

Four, the maximum spacetime dimension in which one can formulate a consistent supersymmetric theory is eleven.

Five, Calabi–Yau manifolds are the compactifications that preserve a realistic amount of supersymmetry.

Six, the low-energy string vibrational patterns (wavelength and amplitude) on Calabi-Yau space correspond to our familiar elementary particles (fermions and bosons). One of the vibrational states of a string corresponds to the graviton. The hole in the Calabi-Yau space represents the family of particles, 3 holes, 3 generations.

That is, {Super string theory, SUSY and Calabi–Yau manifolds} are mutually vindicating one another.

The first revolution:

The confirmation that the 10 dimensional theory is the only valid theory, with superstring theory is 10-dimensional and supergravity theory 11-dimensional. Two dualities (S and T) were discovered.

S-duality: a relationship which says that a collection of strongly interacting particles in one theory can, in some cases, be viewed as a collection of weakly interacting particles in a completely different theory

T-duality: a string propagating around a circle of radius R is equivalent to a string propagating around a circle of radius 1/R in the sense that all observable quantities in one description are identified with quantities in the dual description

The second revolution:

D-branes were discovered to represent the higher-dimensional objects.

The compactification of extra dimensions must use Calabi–Yau manifold.

Then, AdS/CFT correspondence was discovered:

First, to relate string theory to another type of physical theory, such as a quantum field theory.

Second, to relate 11-dimension supergravity to 10-dimension superstring.

Finally, it unified all different superstring theories into an M-string theory.

eggcarton257

{Note: M-string unifies those six string theories in SPIRIT, not in formal formalism (no unified equation).}

Furthermore, the AdS/CFT correspondence leads to the discovery of holographic principle which became the dominant tool for dealing with the ‘black hole’ issue.

The third revolution (Not yet claimed):

The large number of possibilities (about 10 ^ 500) arises from different choices of Calabi–Yau manifolds (together with Monstrous moonshine) and different values of generalized magnetic fluxes over different homology cycles leads to the great idea of ‘multiverse’ physics. As this large number is NP complete, no practical (or theoretical) chance of any kind to find the answer {which vacuum corresponds to our (this) universe). That is, ‘multiverse physics’ is now by definition a ‘theology’ which is deemed true regardless of the empirical evidences, as there cannot be any evidence at all (guaranteed by the NP completeness).

This conclusion firmly states that the four tasks below are impossible.

#how2CalculateAlpha

#how2CalculatePlanckCMBdata

#how2CalculateHiggsbosonMass

#how2CalculateCosmologyConstant

On the question: {How can the cosmological constant be so close to zero but not zero?}

Answered by Ed Witten: {I really don’t know. It’s very perplexing that astronomical observations seem to show that there is a cosmological constant. It’s definitely the most troublesome, for my interests, definitely the most troublesome, observation in physics in my lifetime. In my career that is. See http://www.superstringtheory.com/people/witten.html }.

Section four: how can all these go wrong?

M-string theorists do admit a few shortcomings on their own.

One, it does not have a consistent formulation (such as Newton’s law or Einstein’s GR equation) to make contact (describe) this real universe. {Note: in this sense, it is not yet physics, but is claimed as the best HOPE.}

Two, it does not know how to define string theory in a single theory (regardless of the claim of M-string). It does also not know whether there is any principle by which string theory selects its vacuum state. Unlike in quantum field theory, string theory does not have a full non-perturbative definition, so many of the theoretical questions that physicists would like to answer remain out of reach.

Three, the goal of string theory is to find a solution of the theory that reproduces the observed spectrum of elementary particles, with a small cosmological constant, containing dark matter and a plausible mechanism for cosmic inflation. But, this goal is far beyond the horizon at this moment.

Four, there is so far no experimental evidence that would unambiguously point to any of these models being a correct fundamental description of nature.

Yet, all these shortcomings are just hiccups for growth pain. When these hiccups are over, then ‘Long Live the M-string’.

Can these hiccups go away?

The general critics has pointed out three fallacies.

One, pseudoscience fallacy: no prediction, emphasized by Peter Woit and Lee Smolin.

Two, self-failing fallacy: failed its stated missions, see Carlo Rovelli’s talk, slide 16.

See https://medium.com/@Tienzen/indeed-the-m-string-theory-is-a-total-bullcrap-for-the-following-reasons-ca9a44931938#.qugm959un

Three, Gordon Kane’ moving sign post fallacy: see http://www.math.columbia.edu/~woit/wordpress/?p=7964

See http://prebabel.blogspot.com/2013/11/the-hope-of-susy-parousia.html

I will add a few obvious fallacies.

One, the Hat-trick fallacy: without adding any additional ingredient, simply stretching a point into a string reaches (creates) the domain of gravity, becoming a TOE. This is a magic, not physics.

See https://tienzengong.wordpress.com/2016/03/16/nothingness-vs-nothing-there-the-quantum-gravity/

Two, the mirage fallacy:

One of the vibrational states of a string corresponds to the graviton.

Only string theory is able to accommodate chiral fermions like the neutrino; that is, string theory is truly a consistent theory of gravity, the quantum gravity.

Super string theory naturally accommodate SUSY and extra dimensions.

But, what is graviton? What is quantum gravity? What is SUSY and extra dimension? These ALL are physics mirages NOW.

eggcarton269

Three, long live the King fallacy: anything associated with M-string which failed has been and must be cut. SUSY failed, long live the M-string. Extra dimensions failed, long live the M-string.

Except Bosonic string theory (which encompasses no matter), all other consistent string theories are supersymmetric (see note). Yet, the total failure of SUSY is claimed to be no consequence on M-string.

See https://tienzengong.wordpress.com/2015/05/15/paul-steinhardts-remorse-popperianism-and-beauty-contest/

Four, the greatness of math fallacy: the validity of a physics theory was never depending upon the math it was using. Yet, some new math was inspired by and from M-string theory, such as the {Calabi–Yau manifold and Monstrous moonshine}. How can M-string be wrong if its math children are valid?

eggcarton275

Five, the squire victory fallacy:  the squire of M-string {Ads/CFT correspondence, holography principle, condensed physics, etc.} are all victorious. How can the squires be victorious while the master knight fails?

eggcarton276

Six, hot air fallacy: M-string claims that the low-energy string vibrational patterns (wavelength and amplitude) on Calabi-Yau space correspond to our familiar elementary particles (fermions and bosons). Where is the list for this {particle/music note} description?

eggcarton279

See, G-strings/particles at http://www.prequark.org/

See, G-strings/particles at http://www.prequark.org/

Seven, useful hammer fallacy: although the hammer (M-string) was wrong as the description of nature (should not be worshiped), it is still very useful tool for little chores.

See https://profmattstrassler.com/2013/09/17/did-the-lhc-just-rule-out-string-theory/#comment-86626

However, all the above fallacies will be removed if the M-string can solve the ‘naturalness’ issue by deriving (or calculating) the followings:

#how2CalculateAlpha

#how2CalculatePlanckCMBdata

#how2CalculateHiggsbosonMass

#how2CalculateCosmologyConstant

Thus, I have offered a prize award of $10,000 for anyone who is able to derive those nature constants, see http://tienzen.blogspot.com/2016/08/two-thumbs-up.html

Section five: era of hope or bullcraps?

If M-string theorists can claim this $10,000 prize, then the era of the past half a century is indeed the era of HOPE.

If M-string theorists claim the ‘only game in town’, then it is the era of BULLCRAP.

This ‘only game in town’ claim becomes ‘dishonesty fallacy’ if those four calculations were done long ago and are available online for long time.

All fallacies are excusable. But, this ‘dishonesty fallacy’ cannot be excused.

Here is one of the BEEF.

 

The cyclic universe (C-multiverses) with different initial conditions while having the same physics laws and nature constants is the central point in the book “Super Unified Theory; ISBN 9780916713010, US Copyright number TX 1-323-231”.

The simultaneous-coexist-multiverse (S-multiverse, with different physics laws and nature constants) is totally wrong.

See http://scientiasalon.wordpress.com/2014/06/05/the-multiverse-as-a-scientific-concept-part-ii/comment-page-1/#comment-3158 and https://medium.com/@Tienzen/it-multiverse-is-a-theoretical-conjecture-one-that-makes-sense-but-it-isn-t-a-scientific-4abe8a8ac63

Note:

Type I: Supersymmetry between forces and matter, with both open and closed strings, no tachyon, group symmetry is SO(32)
Type IIA: Supersymmetry between forces and matter, with closed strings only, no tachyon, massless fermions spin both ways (nonchiral)
Type IIB: Supersymmetry between forces and matter, with closed strings only, no tachyon, massless fermions only spin one way (chiral)
Type HO: Supersymmetry between forces and matter, with closed strings only, no tachyon, heterotic, meaning right moving and left moving strings differ, group symmetry is SO(32)
Type HE: Supersymmetry between forces and matter, with closed strings only, no tachyon, heterotic, meaning right moving and left moving strings differ, group symmetry is E8 x E8

 Copyright © September 2016 by Tienzen (Jeh-Tween) Gong