19 January 2013

Cycling and supersymmetry

Once it became evident that Lance Armstrong doped from the time he was a teenager up to the present, it became clear that his whole professional life was built on a lie. So was that of many riders that competed with him. But for years he was protected by the UCI, US and French presidents, businessmen etc.

Once it became clear that supersymmetry is wrong, it became clear that it was a lie from its beginning.  So was the professional life of all competing supersymmetry researchers. But for years, supersymmetry researchers were protected by governments, CERN, physics societies, universities, businessmen, etc.

Armstrong is a liar and a bully and made a career only because he was both.

Seiberg and many other supersymmetry researchers are liars and bullies, and made a career only because they were both. (You can find blog entries were some of these people state that lying and bullying is ok.)

A wise man once said: "Lance Armstrong deserves to be forgotten."

We should take the same stance and say: "Supersymmetry researchers deserve to be forgotten."

18 January 2013

Planning nonsense

Read this, please. It is a description of how accelerator people envisage the future of high energy physics. The idea seems ok. But there is a little issue. Every mentioned "benchmark model" of theoretical research is nonsense. Every single one.

These smart people are planning the next particle accelerator and want to compare its results to nonsense. They could also compare it to flying pigs. They are actually planning to compare the results to nonsense. Thus their whole plan is nonsense as well.

Several of my friends work in companies. They told me that in business, they would get fired if they made or proposed plans based on questionable assumptions. How many of these high energy physicists would get fired?

13 January 2013

The standard model and the perpetuum mobile

The standard model does not explain its 20 parameters and does not contain gravity. The standard model is incomplete. Does the incompleteness of the standard model imply that experimental effects exist that contradict the standard model?


Not at all. The simplest scenario is that some yet unknown theory explains the standard model and its 20 parameters, that the explanation is valid up to an energy region close to the Planck scale, and that is all there is.

Is this scenario real? We do not know. Could the scenario be real? Yes, it could. This simplest scenario has been raised in discussions by various researchers. They always reject it. But all the arguments given by Strassler, Ellis, Arkani-Hamed, and all the other researchers boil down to wishes. They wish that the standard model is not correct. The arguments they give are all of the type "It is impossible that we already know everything."

Wrong, guys. It is well possible. We do have a theory that describes all of particle physics: the standard model. For reasons we do not know, it seems to be correct. Full stop.

It might well be that the search for effects beyond the standard model is similar to the search for the perpetuum mobile. The wish exists. But there is no way to realize it.