Supersymmetry has failed every test to date

[Michael Mozina]

https://www.livescience.com/no-signs-su ... lider.html
https://arxiv.org/abs/2010.14293

One of the detectors at the LHC is called ATLAS, for "A Toroidal LHC ApparatuS" (yes, it's a little clumsy as acronyms go, but it's an awesome name). The ATLAS collaboration, made up of hundreds of scientists from around the world, have released their latest findings in their search for supersymmetry in a paper appearing in the preprint journal arXiv.

And their results? Nothing. Nada. Zilch. Zero.

After years of searching and loads of accumulated data from countless collisions, there is no sign of any supersymmetric particle. In fact, many supersymmetry models are now completely ruled out, and very few theoretical ideas remain valid.

It's worth nothing that almost all of the "popular" mathematical models related dark matter, including various WIMP models and axion models are based on now *falsified* supersymmetry models, and the whole concept of of "mathematical beauty" is pretty much eliminated at this point. What's left at the bottom of the popularity supersymmetry barrel is actually quite messy, ugly, and highly unlikely to be explored in real experiments in my lifetime. We simply cannot explore the remaining SUSY models at LHC, mostly because they were conveniently dreamed up recently to surf the remaining gaps in the energy states that are possible to explore using existing equipment.

Astronomers don't actually care about math or the results of actual "tests" of such models. If they did care about real "science", the whole concept of exotic forms of dark matter would be dead and buried by now. The standard particle physics model has passed every conceivable test at LHC, right down to some of the most rare and unusual particle interactions and predictions. On the other hand, SUSY theory and other non standard particle physics models have been a complete bust. They've failed over and over and over and over and over again.

It is simply irrational at this point to "assume" that mainstream mass estimation technique based on light intensity have every been even close to accurate. We already know for a fact that the mainstream has been *grossly* underestimating the number of entire stars in distant galaxies by a factor of between 3 and 20 times depending on the size of the star and the type of galaxy. We've also found more mass in the form of ordinary plasma and gas halos around our own galaxy in the last 10 years than all the mass in the stars combined. There's no 'missing mass' anymore and there's no need at all for exotic forms of matter to explain any remaining "missing mass" even if that were still the case.

Over the course of my lifetime, astronomy has simply de-evolved from being a form of actual "science" to becoming nothing more than a metaphysical faerie tale. Nothing about astronomy theory works right in the lab, it's utterly useless at actually 'predicting" anything correctly in the distant universe, and it's Hubble constant estimate is internally self conflicted to boot. It's just sad to see how far down the metaphysical rabbit hole the BB theory has gone over the last 60 years. Astronomy isn't a form of "science" anymore, it's a metaphysical dogma which defies any logical means of falsification.

[JHL]

After years of searching and loads of accumulated data from countless collisions, there is no sign of any supersymmetric particle. In fact, many supersymmetry models are now completely ruled out, and very few theoretical ideas remain valid.

Mostly off-topic: I keep waiting for - for want of a better word - a philosophical discussion of the break between material and molecular, where it's acknowledged that everything smaller than the molecule - or thereabouts - is granted a status amounting more or less to magic. Meaning that smaller than a point things do what they do not because of material cause and effect, but just because they do.

This notion will rankle all sorts of deeply rigorously scientific rules, definitions, and viewpoints. It's still problematic, however, and may have reached its zenith with the Higgs Boson, which was preliminarily given the unexplained property of lending all the particles mass. The premise, while assumed, is logically incoherent even to the point of absurdity, at least as a mechanism. At best it is an act of faith akin to belief.

The sheer impossibility of an entire universe constructed of an infinite matrix of relationships between an infinite sea of "particles" with no ascertainable contact but every utterly faithful action between one another has to be the greatest leap of faith imaginable. And yet here we are referring to it as if it were to us scientific, and therefore somehow, akin to material.

Of course it's neither. It is however a philosophical problem no matter our obsession with presuming it's separated off into the realm of guys with lab coats. Guys and lab coats themselves made of the immaterial material of everything else...

[Michael Mozina]

After years of searching and loads of accumulated data from countless collisions, there is no sign of any supersymmetric particle. In fact, many supersymmetry models are now completely ruled out, and very few theoretical ideas remain valid.

Mostly off-topic: I keep waiting for - for want of a better word - a philosophical discussion of the break between material and molecular, where it's acknowledged that everything smaller than the molecule - or thereabouts - is granted a status amounting more or less to magic. Meaning that smaller than a point things do what they do not because of material cause and effect, but just because they do.

This notion will rankle all sorts of deeply rigorously scientific rules, definitions, and viewpoints. It's still problematic, however, and may have reached its zenith with the Higgs Boson, which was preliminarily given the unexplained property of lending all the particles mass. The premise, while assumed, is logically incoherent even to the point of absurdity, at least as a mechanism. At best it is an act of faith akin to belief.

The sheer impossibility of an entire universe constructed of an infinite matrix of relationships between an infinite sea of "particles" with no ascertainable contact but every utterly faithful action between one another has to be the greatest leap of faith imaginable. And yet here we are referring to it as if it were to us scientific, and therefore somehow, akin to material.

Of course it's neither. It is however a philosophical problem no matter our obsession with presuming it's separated off into the realm of guys with lab coats. Guys and lab coats themselves made of the immaterial material of everything else...

Well, if it makes you feel any better, I'm inclined to agree with you as it relates to even the standard model of particle physics being more or less an "act of faith", and I share your skepticism about the concept of the Higgs Boson lending mass to all particles. In fact I tend to believe that bundles (organized pairs) of electrons and positrons in orbit around each other join themselves into various complex arrangements to create the different subatomic particles in the standard model. In fact we know that when we slam positrons and electrons together in the lab, we are able to create subatomic particles.

https://home.cern/science/accelerators/ ... n-collider

It's probably the case that under the right conditions, such subatomic particles (collections of positrons and elections) can join and create entire protons and neutrons. We also observe that when neutrons decay, we end up with a proton and an electron and some amount of leftover momentum/energy. The problem is, there simply isn't a mathematical model (yet) based on electron/positron pairing that mathematically explains what we observe in the lab nearly as well as the standard particle physics model, so for the time being at least, I chose to "pick my battles".

At least with the standard particle physics model, there's a reliable way to make mathematical predictions about the outcome of various collisions, and those mathematical estimates are *amazingly* accurate. If we're going to replace the standard model with something "better", we are going to need to be able to make at least as accurate predictions about the outcome of actual experiments as the standard particle physics model.

The empirical difference between standard particle physics model and the LCDM model is that the standard particle physics model is indeed very useful in terms of predicting the outcome of actual laboratory experiments, whereas the LCDM model is utterly useless in the lab, and useless at predicting observations at high redshift as well.

So for now at least I choose to pick my battles. It's unlikely IMO that the standard particle physics model is going to be replaced anytime soon, particularly after the predictive success of the standard particle physics model in LHC experiments. In fact every attempt to replace the standard particle physics model failed miserably in the lab, particularly SUSY theories.

It's bad/hard enough to try to point out the *obvious* flaws in the LCDM cosmology model, but if I also tried to poke holes in the standard particle physic model, I would come across as though I don't believe in "science" at all, and there wouldn't be any "easy" or logical way to attack the LCDM model.

i think for the time being at least, it's far "better" to simply note that at least the standard particle physics model is very scientifically useful in it's ability to make real predictions about the outcome of various empirical experiments, whereas the LCMD model is a useless piece of junk, both in terms of predicting the outcome of empirical laboratory experiments, and in terms of predicting what we observe at high redshift. The big bang model is an *epic* fail on every level.

I ultimately do believe that a QM oriented "theory of everything" will eventually tie all the four known forces together under the umbrella of EM fields, but for now at least I haven't yet seen a theory of everything that I'm comfortable with. I also don't see any logical way to attempt to undermine *both* the standard particle physics model *and* the entire field of astronomy.

Particle physics works quite well in the lab, whereas the LCDM model is a much easier scientific target because it's utterly useless at actually "predicting" anything anywhere.

I have to admit that while I'm not fully satisfied with the standard particle physics model, it does indeed work very well in the lab in terms of making accurate predictions. That puts the standard model squarely into the realm of real "science" IMO, even if I think it will eventually be replaced with a "theory of everything".

The scientific strength of the electric universe/plasma cosmology model is that it's entirely compatible with both the general relativity theory of gravity *and* it is fully compatible with the standard particle physics model, whereas ultimately the LCDM model isn't fully compatible with *either* of those scientific models. When astronomers try to explain the "inflation" phase of the "big bang", they are forced to ultimately *abandon* GR theory in favor of various quantum mechanical concepts, so ultimately the big bang model is not even fully compatible with GR theory. If astronomers stuck *exclusively* with GR theory to explain gravity, the whole physical universe would have imploded into a "black hole" instantly.

It's a lot "simpler" IMO to simply pick my battles and focus on the ridiculous and sorry state of astronomy for the time being. If and when I see a QM/EM oriented definition of gravity or particle physics that works "better" in controlled experiments, I'll be happy to embrace it. For now however, I embrace GR theory to explain gravity and I embrace the standard particle physics model to explain particle physics because they both correctly predict the outcome of various controlled laboratory experiments.

What really blows my mind, is that the big bang model is ultimately incompatible with both GR theory and the standard particle physics model, and those are the two most "successful" models in physics in terms of empirical predictive value.

IMO the greatest strength of the electric universe model is that it's entirely compatible with *both* GR theory *and* the standard particle physics model, *and* it will be compatible with whatever other QM oriented descriptions of atoms and gravity that might come along.

The greatest weakness of the big bang model (including inflation) is that it's not fully compatible with *either* GR theory or the standard particle physics model.

[paladin17]

Mostly off-topic: I keep waiting for - for want of a better word - a philosophical discussion of the break between material and molecular, where it's acknowledged that everything smaller than the molecule - or thereabouts - is granted a status amounting more or less to magic. Meaning that smaller than a point things do what they do not because of material cause and effect, but just because they do.

Obviously it depends on definition of "material" in the first place.
I would propose a more general observation to what you've provided: I would claim that it is the removal of an object in question from everyday experience is what causes most problems. You don't deal with stars/galaxies and electron clouds on a daily basis - they only appear under a very specific and carefully focused narrative.
Ergo, if an object we construct to describe reality (where an object is really only a placeholder for all of its effects combined) is out of our traditional domain, it would behave "strangely" or even "magically". But one can perceive the situation from another point of view, where it would become almost a tautology: since if this object needs such special conditions to reveal itself, it probably is "strange" and "unnatural" in the first place. I mean, it is the way we construct it in the first place.

A narrower remark can be made about particle physics in particular, where this construction of objects is perhaps the most obvious (many in the EU community know the brilliant book "Constructing quarks" by A. Pickering, which carefully studies the phenomenon). How we tend to insert "new particles" to explain certain observations - just like we insert a "stone" (or a "table" or an "apple") to describe the observed sensory input, perceived in all its entirety as coming from a single source.
I simply cannot see how one can describe the modern gnoseological landscape without adopting a constructivist (or any related) philosophy. It fits extremely well with how society actually operates in the world. Knowledge is a bunch of stories we tell each other about the world, and science is simply a practice of producing objects that play part (among other things) in those stories etc.

[antosarai]

(...)
What really blows my mind, is that the big bang model is ultimately incompatible with both GR theory and the standard particle physics model, and those are the two most "successful" models in physics in terms of empirical predictive value.

IMO the greatest strength of the electric universe model is that it's entirely compatible with *both* GR theory *and* the standard particle physics model, *and* it will be compatible with whatever other QM oriented descriptions of atoms and gravity that might come along.

The greatest weakness of the big bang model (including inflation) is that it's not fully compatible with *either* GR theory or the standard particle physics model.

Does not the EU model according to Thunderbolts Project explicitly entirely denies relativity theory and quantum theory?

There is no spacetime, gravity is not a force but a subproduct of electromagnetic induced nuclear dipoles?
No "C" constant; electric force is instantaneous?
All physical phenomema are based only on two stable, structured positive and negative charged particles?
There is no anti-matter, no creation or annihilation, no entanglement?
...

[Earl Sinclair]

Back to particle physics and the atomic model - you guys have probably already seen this, but holy cow it's REALLY interesting - a new proposed model of the atom nucleus and how the electrons interact, etc. - and not needing a separate "strong" and "weak" forces inside the atom:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sJKW9VNo2BU

Talk about ELEGANT. And, the explanation about how the larger atoms interact in the same way as smaller ones in their periodic table groupings makes absolute sense.

I've always had a hard time visualizing how compounds "shared electrons" using the standard model. This whole thing makes the electron "orbits" completely understandable in a mechanical way.

And, the only force needed to make elements stick together is the electrostatic force.


Earl

[Michael Mozina]

(...)
What really blows my mind, is that the big bang model is ultimately incompatible with both GR theory and the standard particle physics model, and those are the two most "successful" models in physics in terms of empirical predictive value.

IMO the greatest strength of the electric universe model is that it's entirely compatible with *both* GR theory *and* the standard particle physics model, *and* it will be compatible with whatever other QM oriented descriptions of atoms and gravity that might come along.

The greatest weakness of the big bang model (including inflation) is that it's not fully compatible with *either* GR theory or the standard particle physics model.

Does not the EU model according to Thunderbolts Project explicitly entirely denies relativity theory and quantum theory?

I don't believe Birkeland or Alfven, Peratt, Lerner or Bruce believed that to be the case. I'm sure that there are some EU proponents that believe that is the case, and who promote a "theory of everything" under the umbrella of EM fields, but circuit theory as applied to plasma in space is fully compatible with GR theory, QM and the standard model of particle physics.

There is no spacetime, gravity is not a force but a subproduct of electromagnetic induced nuclear dipoles?

Well, pretty much all of physics is "interested' in a theory of everything, so why would I not expect there to be EU proponents who also prefer such a model?

The thing about the EU community is that it is very diverse in terms of beliefs and ideas. We don't enforce "group think" with quite the same vigilance as mainstream astronomy. Frankly I think that's a good thing.

[JHL]

Very generally - and not to go off-topic again - your remarks above again remind me of the inherent mystery of all things, where the very large is made of the very small; the very small being ineffable and immaterial - all Dancing Wu Li Masters-like - with materialism caught in the middle as if in a conscious or purposeful matrix, the matrix where also happens mind.

Mind being the exception to or the interruption in materialism, we could project back into the cosmology - it being made from the very small - the virtually entirely experimental nature of models, in the present case the LCDM.

In other words, it seems there is merit to the conscious admission that building a cosmos on a slew of what, with little concern to how and none to why - they being the undeniable realizations caught up in the quantum - gives things like the LCDM model (and the EU) a necessary added component.

That component is that all models must be freighted with the conscious admission that we do not and shall not know how the universe works - there's that word, how - because all we've ever done is calculate a rickety parallel what. We have in no way established a reality per all our cosmological constructs as we have arranged a material parallel to them. The mathematical model that gets some half of an unseen freight train right is not at all a freight train.

That all rapidly looks like a raging set of semantics but I propose it's not. It's not because ultimately the entire cosmological premise, construct, and state, as we think we know it, reverts to or stems from or reflects back the quantum, and there things simply do what they do. There are "rules" where if X does this Y somehow must do that, but there are no other involvements, involvements that define the rest of Aquinian, arrow-of-time reality. If X does that and Y will do that, that is an act of faith of a sort, a faith that the next time it will again and so on.

Back to your point (as it struck me): if the very small is as unknown as it is, then the very large cannot, to any reasonable set of conclusions, be known, which is more or less what I think you're tacitly implying. We have models, each of which can be entirely upended when more turtles down in the quantum murk pop up their heads.

And it's either turtles all the way down or turtles down to X level below which is nothing. Heck of a thing to make a universe out of and in my opinion, no thing to base certainty on...

[JHL]

Mostly off-topic: I keep waiting for - for want of a better word - a philosophical discussion...

Obviously it depends on definition of "material" in the first place.

It absolutely does, even to the degree that the whole notion evaporates - either reality is a projected abstract or it's a concrete material, so to grasp for the right words, with cosmology then reverting, through many orders of magnitude, to its mystical quantum constituents. Whether we care to see any of this as an unacceptable philosophical diversion or a valid science is a purely arbitrary decision. The universe simply doesn't care. That we know of.

I would propose a more general observation to what you've provided: I would claim that it is the removal of an object in question from everyday experience is what causes most problems. You don't deal with stars/galaxies and electron clouds on a daily basis - they only appear under a very specific and carefully focused narrative.
Ergo, if an object we construct to describe reality (where an object is really only a placeholder for all of its effects combined) is out of our traditional domain, it would behave "strangely" or even "magically". But one can perceive the situation from another point of view, where it would become almost a tautology: since if this object needs such special conditions to reveal itself, it probably is "strange" and "unnatural" in the first place. I mean, it is the way we construct it in the first place.

I can't begin to understand the perspective of either the quantum scientist or the cosmologist, but as you allude, from one perspective everything is strange - it must be because surely much of it utterly is. Maybe I'm proposing to not make any certain proclamations about one manifestation of popular mathematical constructs as to how they necessarily describe the universe's mechanisms. We do tend to speak in almost purely mechanical terms where the cosmos goes, with the tiny foundational bits its made from being left to their own devices to some degree.

A narrower remark can be made about particle physics in particular, where this construction of objects is perhaps the most obvious (many in the EU community know the brilliant book "Constructing quarks" by A. Pickering, which carefully studies the phenomenon). How we tend to insert "new particles" to explain certain observations - just like we insert a "stone" (or a "table" or an "apple") to describe the observed sensory input, perceived in all its entirety as coming from a single source.
I simply cannot see how one can describe the modern gnoseological landscape without adopting a constructivist (or any related) philosophy. It fits extremely well with how society actually operates in the world. Knowledge is a bunch of stories we tell each other about the world, and science is simply a practice of producing objects that play part (among other things) in those stories etc.

Nicely put. Knowledge is a bunch of assertions we make using imperfect tools, although in this vein, science is then the rigorous application of a short set ephemeral, agreed, vetted abstracts, where somehow those terms do not contradict themselves.

[Solar]

And then there is Sabine Hossenfelder who puts the apparent inability to learn from what does not work while continuing to use the same method of "inventing a lot of particles that you can add..." into perspective:

"There is no reason this method should work and it does, as a matter of fact, not work - but they have done this for decades and still have not learned that it does not work." - Sabine Hossenfelder

Particle Physicists Continue Empty Promises

[Michael Mozina]

Very generally - and not to go off-topic again - your remarks above again remind me of the inherent mystery of all things, where the very large is made of the very small; the very small being ineffable and immaterial - all Dancing Wu Li Masters-like - with materialism caught in the middle as if in a conscious or purposeful matrix, the matrix where also happens mind.

Mind being the exception to or the interruption in materialism, we could project back into the cosmology - it being made from the very small - the virtually entirely experimental nature of models, in the present case the LCDM.

In other words, it seems there is merit to the conscious admission that building a cosmos on a slew of what, with little concern to how and none to why - they being the undeniable realizations caught up in the quantum - gives things like the LCDM model (and the EU) a necessary added component.

That component is that all models must be freighted with the conscious admission that we do not and shall not know how the universe works - there's that word, how - because all we've ever done is calculate a rickety parallel what. We have in no way established a reality per all our cosmological constructs as we have arranged a material parallel to them. The mathematical model that gets some half of an unseen freight train right is not at all a freight train.

That all rapidly looks like a raging set of semantics but I propose it's not. It's not because ultimately the entire cosmological premise, construct, and state, as we think we know it, reverts to or stems from or reflects back the quantum, and there things simply do what they do. There are "rules" where if X does this Y somehow must do that, but there are no other involvements, involvements that define the rest of Aquinian, arrow-of-time reality. If X does that and Y will do that, that is an act of faith of a sort, a faith that the next time it will again and so on.

Back to your point (as it struck me): if the very small is as unknown as it is, then the very large cannot, to any reasonable set of conclusions, be known, which is more or less what I think you're tacitly implying. We have models, each of which can be entirely upended when more turtles down in the quantum murk pop up their heads.

And it's either turtles all the way down or turtles down to X level below which is nothing. Heck of a thing to make a universe out of and in my opinion, no thing to base certainty on...

We seem to be pretty much on the same page.

I think the part that bothers the most about astronomy today is the "certainty" with which astronomers present the big bang model. They treat it as "fact" rather than a hypothesis which may not be accurate, and they refuse to even *listen* to alternatives to their beliefs or any criticism of their beliefs. I can't tell you how many times I've heard an astronomers falsely claim: "We know dark energy/matter exists because..." without a second thought about the validity of their model or the validity of their various numerous assumptions.

Particle physicists at least seem to leave the door open for scientific alternatives to the standard particle physics model, albeit mostly concepts involving additional metaphysical components and pure guess work. In that sense it's a more open minded community IMO.

[Michael Mozina]

And then there is Sabine Hossenfelder who puts the apparent inability to learn from what does not work while continuing to use the same method of "inventing a lot of particles that you can add..." into perspective:

"There is no reason this method should work and it does, as a matter of fact, not work - but they have done this for decades and still have not learned that it does not work." - Sabine Hossenfelder

Particle Physicists Continue Empty Promises

Thanks for that link. I had not seen that particular video yet. Ouch. That was a scathing rebuke, and well worth watching. I think Sabine is probably the only truly "honest' physicist left on planet Earth right now. That was a refreshing change from all the hype and hoopla we see in physics today. I really like Sabine.

I think it's hysterical and quite telling that they also accuse her of being "anti-science" simply because she'd rather spend our public tax dollars on more worthwhile science projects. That seems to be the mainstream's "go to" method of attacking anyone and everyone who doesn't believe their hype, their dogma and their metaphysical nonsense. I loved the various quotes that she cited about what particle physicists expected to find at LHC vs. what they actually found.

SUSY theory isn't even "science' anymore. It's just another form of unalsifiable dogma.

[JHL]

I think the part that bothers the most about astronomy today is the "certainty" with which astronomers present the big bang model. They treat it as "fact" rather than a hypothesis which may not be accurate, and they refuse to even *listen* to alternatives to their beliefs or any criticism of their beliefs. I can't tell you how many times I've heard an astronomers falsely claim: "We know dark energy/matter exists because..." without a second thought about the validity of their model or the validity of their various numerous assumptions.

Actually they're right ... which makes your point: Dark energy/matter exists because they invented it to balance the model; and if the model balances, then QED!

[paladin17]

And, the only force needed to make elements stick together is the electrostatic force.

Unfortunately, it is impossible - see Earnshaw's theorem.
The model has other flaws as well (e.g. mysteriously vanishing magnetic moment of electron when it is "inside" a neutron).

"There is no reason this method should work and it does, as a matter of fact, not work - but they have done this for decades and still have not learned that it does not work." - Sabine Hossenfelder

Is there an alternative?
One could propose a "simple theory of everything", maybe. But then again there are hundreds and thousands of such theories already, so does this method work?..

Thanks for that link. I had not seen that particular video yet. Ouch. That was a scathing rebuke, and well worth watching. I think Sabine is probably the only truly "honest' physicist left on planet Earth right now. That was a refreshing change from all the hype and hoopla we see in physics today. I really like Sabine.

Sounds like an example of a confirmation bias.

[JHL]

One could propose a "simple theory of everything", maybe. But then again there are hundreds and thousands of such theories already, so does this method work?..

If that's the case then so-called science owes everyone a standard disclaimer: Here go monsters. No more elaborations on the status quo as sole authority; no more rejecting those other theories out of hand; no more grants based on favoritism; none of that.

That science must also disclaim itself as a mathematical abstract and not a concrete reality - the word science has to return to its dictionary definition.

Lastly, if no method works then they're all equal in that condition. No more exemptions because of momentum or status.