This site is not maintained. Click here for the new website of Richard Dawkins.


← Higgs boson hunters scent their elusive quarry at the LHC

Alex, adv. diab.'s Avatar Jump to comment 22 by Alex, adv. diab.

Comment 20 by DavidMcC :

Comment 15 by Alex, adv. diab. The Standard Model has new, more extensive symmetries which are necessary to describe weak interactions, and these symmetries suddenly forbid things that were allowed in the subset of the theory which didn't have those symmetries.

... And yet particle decay depends on symmetry VIOLATION by the weak interaction.

Of course, without electroweak symmetry breaking and in the absence of elementary particle masses, decays look very differently. What you are referring to however, are different symmetries which are completely absent in the weak interactions, C and P symmetry, which are something entirely different from the electroweak symmetry which is supposed to be broken by the Higgs.

Aren't you standing things on their heads here, because it is the very LACK of complete symmetry that allows particle decays that would otherwise be forbidden: article

There are a number of conservation laws that are valid for strong and electromagnetic interactions, but broken by weak processes. So, despite their slow rate and short range, weak interactions play a crucial role in the make-up of the world we observe.

Note the word, "broken", which presumably applies in the absence of supersymmetry theory, which allows for your "hiding" as opposed to "breaking".

Actually, this has nothing to do with the concept of supersymmetry. There may not be supersymmetry in nature at all, while all that was said above remains valid.

You still have to explain the asymmetry of supersymmetry w/r to particle masses.

If you assume supersymmetry in the first place, you have to explain how you hide/spontaneously break it, but it might not be there at all.

Mon, 12 Dec 2011 17:20:56 UTC | #898282