Results 1 to 3 of 3

Thread: What is Supersymmetry?

  1. #1
    Senior Member Adam Bomm's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2013
    Posts
    2,622
    Thanks
    2,169
    Thanked 1,099 Times in 809 Posts

    What is Supersymmetry?

    Has anyone ever wondered? As for me, I thought it was similar to Superstrings but as it turns out the latter is actually a consequence of Supersymmetry which, in turn, is another term for the Grand Unified Theory. It is an extension of The Standard Model Theory which is the extant explanation of Cosmic structure. It has some very interesting characteristics in its nature which hold some very profound philosophical implications in my opinion, if one chooses to apply them in the given context.

    Incidentally, Super everything lays in a field of study titled, Research in Progress (RIP) which sounds rather dire but does exemplify the process of which most theories are subjected. Anyway, the proper starting point is a quick explanation of ‘standard symmetry’ which might not be surprising in its telling but nevertheless is illuminating.

    A number of fundamental particles are explained by the non-extended theory. Leptons, quarks, and fermions are comprised of derivations of one another, or in other terms, representative examples of decay of one another into particles of the other types which is characteristic of all matter particles, inherently unstable and requiring the ‘forces’ to maintain stability and concomitant symmetry. The quantum fields represented by the weak, strong forces and electromagnetism, have explanatory equations that are applied in a range of roughly a -1 times 10 raised to the 15th power. A very small range but still much larger than the Planck range which is a 10 raised to the 35th power. The Planck range is in mathematical terms a literal equivalent to the visible world’s black hole. As a child staring up at the stars I always wondered if the atomic world and the cosmic world were analogues of one another. Well, for all the others that wondered, there you have it. In any case, for the standard model this represents a hmm moment for physicists because it gaps a really huuggge quantum range (between the Planck constant and the 'normal' range of nuclear forces) that is largely unexplained but also begs for a theoretical explanation (e.g. supersymmetry).

    The gravitational force operates in the macroscopic range and has as its ‘gluon’ particle the graviton, whereas in the quantum field arena of the weak force the ‘gluons’ are the W and Z bosons. Gluons have the property of energy exchange which maintains the balance between the given particles and which maintains the symmetry of the system. The electromagnetic and strong force mediators are the photon.

    Interspersed with these properties is the notion of superstrings, something theorized as a ‘natural’ consequence but cannot with current technologies be validated by an empirical process. I suppose the theory presumes that the mediating fields must in some physical sense be connected to the field particles, hence, strings or superstrings.
    In a nutshell this was the import of the Higgs boson and the need for the current testing technology. The discovery of the Higgs field mediator at the predicted mass level was instrumental to the starting step in empirically validating supersymmetry as It predicted a ‘new’ kind of mass that has effects across different field type boundaries. I don’t know if I have mentioned prior but a ‘field’ is defined by its particles and gluons.

    But, in truth, the interesting aspect of all of this is the one observed mechanism that can be explained by none of the extant theories.

    All of the above attributes of The Standard Model are divided into three families. These three families are composed of essentially the same building blocks, i.e. quarks, leptons, and fermions with the exception that each family’s particles are of different masses. The mystery to physicists is why three when one would have been sufficient. I’ve always been struck by the triune nature of cosmic symmetry and apparently why it exists is an enduring mystery to science. For myself, I was immediately struck by the comparison of ‘nature’ and the spiritual Trinity. A ‘suspicious’ parallel. Now it seems I can add some evidential speculation to my theory or as I would tend to describe it, my philosophy. The science community has only wonder as to why this ‘creation model’ is threefold redundant . But my ‘extension’ to the philosophical argument has an intuitive if not a highly speculative explanation. Three families of fundamental building blocks, all possessing the quality inherent to The Standard Model, symmetry, yet without apparent ‘need’ or requirement as the wellspring of our anthropomorphic cosmos. We have creation exhibiting the Trinity expression and we have three creation families exhibiting symmetry. There is only one way for three to be symmetrical and that is if two of the in question objects possess integral qualities of the third. Does this sound familiar to anyone? God, Jesus, and the Holy Spirit are three spiritual entities, all separate consciousness’ but still forming a single entity, an entity some refer to as God.


    Finally, there is Supersymmetry and what it proposes for nature at the Planck range. Theory suggests that at infinitesimal small distances and energies all the forces exhibit identical behaviors. Something that will never be an empirical proven fact but would be a satisfactory theoretical resolution to the question of what and how even if not why and would also be a satisfactory analogous solution to the conditions at the time of the Big Bang. I should mention that critical to acceptance of any theory is its ability to offer satisfactory mathematical domain and range solutions that span the spectrum of fields of study, which as mentioned before include the space boundaries of the Planck distance, nuclear range, and cosmic distance.

    Supersymmetry, in short, predicts another category of symmetrical properties functioning at a different range of influence and possessing a number of ‘super particles’ that are for the most part fleeting things that almost immediately decay into different types of super particles. The decay process occurs very quickly until it reaches the level of super particle that is the least dense or massive, if you will, and therefore can no longer decay and results in a stable particle. A stable particle existing in a field with a ‘mediating’ quality that is not observable such as the photon or even standard bosons. Hence, we have energies and masses that are separate from the easily observable standard energies and masses and as a result the Supersymmetry theory predicts dark energy and dark matter.
    Last edited by Adam Bomm; 10-02-2016 at 06:49 PM.

  2. #2
    In Memory Fredkc's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    567
    Thanks
    108
    Thanked 1,035 Times in 443 Posts

    Re: What is Supersymmetry?

    Ok, I got as far as " I thought it was similar to...." before I knew I was over my head. Read most of it, hoping something would hit me over the head... didn't get much better.

    So I Googled "Supersymmetry" (1,180,000 hits). Einstein said, "If you can't explain it to a 5-yr old, you don't understand it, yourself."

    Then, the 5th one on the list didn't sound too scary. Even had the right title, for a start.

    Introduction to Supersymmetry
    By Hitoshi Murayama
    at UC Berkeley

    20th century physics has seen two major paradigm shifts in the way we understand Mother Nature. One is quantum mechanics, and the other is relativity. The marriage between the two, called quantum field theory, conceived an enfant terrible, namely anti-matter. As a result, the number of elementary particles doubled. We believe that 21st century physics is aimed at yet another level of marriage, this time between quantum mechanics and general relativity, Einstein's theory of gravity. The couple has not been getting along very well, resulting in mathematical inconsistencies, meaningless infinities, and negative probabilities. The key to success may be in supersymmetry, which doubles the number of particles once more.

    Why was anti-matter needed? One reason was to solve a crisis in the 19th century physics of classical electromagnetism. An electron is, to the best of our knowledge, a point particle. Namely, it has no size, yet an electric charge. A charged particle inevitably produces an electric potential around it, and it also feels the potential created by itself. This leads to an infinite "self-energy" of the electron. In other words, it takes substantial energy to "pack" all the charge of an electron into small size.

    On the other hand, Einstein's famous equation says that mass of a particle determines the energy of the particle at rest. For an electron, its rest energy is known to be 0.511 MeV. For this given amount of energy, it cannot afford to "pack" itself into a size smaller than the size of a nucleus. Classical theory of electromagnetism is not a consistent theory below this distance. However, it is known that the electron is at least ten thousand times smaller than that.

    What saved the crisis was the existence of anti-matter, positron. In quantum mechanics, it is possible to "borrow" energy within the time interval allowed by the uncertainty principle. Once there exists anti-matter, which can annihilate matter or be created with matter, what we consider to be an empty vacuum undergoes a fluctuation to produce a pair of electron and positron together with photon...

    Gonna have to go away for awhile, see if it gets any clearer.
    "Life IS mystical! Its just that we're used to it." - Wolf, the movie
    "Dad, if God is everywhere then, when he's in a piece of paper, is he squished?" - My daughter, age 7

  3. The Following User Says Thank You to Fredkc For This Useful Post:

    Adam Bomm (10-01-2016)

  4. #3
    Senior Member Adam Bomm's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2013
    Posts
    2,622
    Thanks
    2,169
    Thanked 1,099 Times in 809 Posts

    Re: What is Supersymmetry?

    Hey Fred,

    Just for kicks, I spent some time trying to improve my 'presentation' of the information. I made it 'flow' a little better which might help. But then i have the '5-year old' problem anyway. In fact, I would drive my 5-year old crazy with my explanations until when 5 became 10 and she just started laughing at me.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •