Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

“Religious Devotion” to Super Symmetry

arroba Email

In this week’s issue of Nature Physics, a small article appears highlighting the discoveries—or, rather, the lack of discoveries—at the LHC in Geneva, Switzerland. As they have amped up their energies, more massive particle should have been discovered. Supersymmetry (SUSY) theory predicts symmetrical partners to the standard model’s particles, but of more mass. But they’re not finding any.

Here’s a few (for us) interesting quotes:

SUSY’s utility and mathematical grace have instilled a “religious devotion” among its followers, says Adam Falkowski, a theorist at the University of Paris-South in France. But colliders have failed to turn up direct evidence of the super particles predicted by the theory.

And, then:

“This is a big political issue in our field,” [adds] Alessandro Strumia, a theorist at the University of Pisa in Italy. “For some great physicists, it is the difference between getting a Nobel prize and admitting they spent their lives on the wrong track.” Ellis agrees: “I’ve been working on it for almost 30 years now, and I can imagine that some people might get a little bit nervous.”

At least in physics, you can set up lab conditions to test your theory—the only way to move beyond a “religious devotion” to the theory. But, alas, with Darwinism, there are no such lab conditions that can be set up since it is essentially an ‘historical’ science. Certainly much work, fine work, has been, and is being done in labs throughout the world. But this work essentially undermines the theory of evolution as Darwin promoted it. Why is Darwinism still around? Because of “religious devotion” to it, despite its inabilities to give plausible meaning to what modern biological inquiries are everyday demonstrating. And we all know it.

bornagain77: I think I agree with you to some extent. Then things get cloudy. My hunch is that they won't find the "Higg's boson", but simply because they Standard Model is clumsily erected. And, yet, the clumsiness, in my view, results from not being able to integrate enough mathematical realities so as to deal with the kinds of infinities that are found everywhere. Let's remember, for example, that QM must be "renormalized" because of the "infinite number of infinites" that charged particles present. There's a mathematical ploy that allows one to get around the problem (thus obscuring it) while still being able to find the right answers to experimental setups. So, in this regard, yes, the idea of a "Higgs's Boson" is perhaps like trying to encapsulate infinity---which, as they say, is an oxymoron. I think that the final answer is this: that we live in an expanding universe that is everywhere expanding; thus, to arrive at "the beginning" requires plowing through a veritable "infinite number of infinities". For the human mind, for finite creatures, this is simply impossible. "But for God, all things are possible." PaV
PaV, far be it from me to say I have a firm grasp on what they are trying to do with super symmetries, but in their quest to find the 'God particle', especially the 'God particle', are they not committing the same logical fallacy as string and m-theory are? PaV are they not in fact trying to do what Godel proved cannot be done? THE GOD OF THE MATHEMATICIANS - DAVID P. GOLDMAN - August 2010 Excerpt: we cannot construct an ontology that makes God dispensable. Secularists can dismiss this as a mere exercise within predefined rules of the game of mathematical logic, but that is sour grapes, for it was the secular side that hoped to substitute logic for God in the first place. Gödel's critique of the continuum hypothesis has the same implication as his incompleteness theorems: Mathematics never will create the sort of closed system that sorts reality into neat boxes. http://www.faqs.org/periodicals/201008/2080027241.html Gödel’s Incompleteness: The #1 Mathematical Breakthrough of the 20th Century Excerpt: Gödel’s Incompleteness Theorem says: “Anything you can draw a circle around cannot explain itself without referring to something outside the circle - something you have to assume to be true but cannot prove "mathematically" to be true.” http://www.cosmicfingerprints.com/blog/incompleteness/ bornagain77

Leave a Reply