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.






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/ ,



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.