LHC Discovery Maims Supersymmetry, Again

0

This is one discovery that will likely excite and disappoint physicists in equal measure. Large Hadron Collider (LHC) scientists have confirmed the detection of an ultra-rare subatomic decay for the first time, a decay that is predicted by the Standard Model. Unfortunately for supersymmetry proponents, that’s one hefty blow against their theory.


But before we can understand the bad news, it’s best to start with the good news.

The Good: Standard Model Glory

On its ongoing mission to explore the most primordial of matter of the Universe, the LHC slams particles (usually protons, sometimes higher-mass hadrons like lead nuclei) together at close to the speed of light. By doing this, for the briefest of moments, the energy conditions that existed shortly after the Big Bang are created. From this energetic soup, particles that were last seen buzzing around the ancient universe some 13.75 billion years ago condense from the blast of energy, like raindrops condensing inside a raincloud.

By their nature, these newly-condensed particles buzzing inside the LHC’s monstrous detectors are unstable, so they quickly decay into other particles. These decays are extremely important to physics as they provide a very privileged view into how particle interactions worked during the earliest moments of the universe and bolster decades of scientific theory.

Written By: Ian O’Neill
continue to source article at news.discovery.com

NO COMMENTS

  1. This can only be classified as bad news if you are conducting science for the furtherance of your own ego and ideas and not for the furtherance of knowledge. This information is nothing but good news, unless you’re religious about your science.

    • In reply to #1 by aquilacane:

      This can only be classified as bad news if you are conducting science for the furtherance of your own ego and ideas and not for the furtherance of knowledge. This information is nothing but good news, unless you’re religious about your science.

      I think the vast majority will accept and respect the new observations and the overwhelming data. If not, tough nuggies. Reality is what it is regardless of hurt feelings.

      If they want to be taken seriously as scientists, they have no choice in the matter.

    • In reply to #1 by aquilacane:

      This can only be classified as bad news if you are conducting science for the furtherance of your own ego and ideas and not for the furtherance of knowledge. This information is nothing but good news, unless you’re religious about your science.

      It’s bad news if you want to make an unexpected discovery and advance the field of fundamental physics. Without some experimental result to determine how the standard model is wrong or is incomplete (which we know it is, since it doesn’t include gravity, dark matter, or dark energy), then our knowledge won’t advance.

    • In reply to #1 by aquilacane:

      This can only be classified as bad news if you are conducting science for the furtherance of your own ego and ideas and not for the furtherance of knowledge. This information is nothing but good news, unless you’re religious about your science.

      Well, it’s bad news if you were hoping for some evidence that would help explain dark matter. It’s not good news if what it tells you is “well, you don’t actually know anything more after doing this experiment than you did before it. You only confirmed what you thought was the case.” Good news in science is always “we learned something really interesting.” Here, we learned that we aren’t getting anywhere in terms of explaining dark matter.

  2. For my part I’ll wait until Professor Matt Strassler returns from a break and updates his “Of Particular Significance” blog, profmattstrassler.com. He has a habit of correcting a lot of these types of articles for being sensationalist or at least exaggerating a case. A very good site for those who are interested in particle physics and written in a quite accessible manner.

  3. It may be just the science-popularisation-jornalism, but “from this energetic soup, particles that were last seen buzzing around the ancient universe some 13.75 billion years ago condense from the blast of energy” cannot be entirely true, as one of the main arguments against those who believed LHC could create a dangerous micro-singularity, was that collisions like these happen all the time as cosmic rays hit our atmosphere.

Leave a Reply