You seem to agree that they’re going to be such terms in a calculation of the CC in supergravity.
![that is not only not right it is not even wrong that is not only not right it is not even wrong](https://dl.acm.org/cms/asset/9dac1fbe-a6cd-4b72-87e9-b35f68e30f77/260111.260210.fp.png)
Yes, maybe I’m wrong, but I do believe that the SUSY breaking scale terms that you have before you couple to gravity are relevant after you couple to gravity. Your theory should have a limit where you treat gravity semiclassically, and will you be able to avoid terms of the SUSY breaking scale showing up in the effective CC?Ĭan you point me to somewhere where someone does a realistic (including supersymmetry breaking) calculation of the CC? In such a calculation, do terms involving the SUSY breaking scale occur as part of the calculation or not? While in supergravity the SUSY breaking scale is not the same as the CC, I’m just not convinced that you’re not going to see effects of SUSY breaking in a calculation of the CC, even in supergravity. Your fondness for ignoring arguments you can’t respond to, but instead making up stupid ones and putting them in the mouth of the person you are having a discussion with is quite remarkable. Yes, but I never made this converse argument. “it is the converse claim: that a theory that is 120 orders of magnitude off is better than one that is 60 orders of magnitude off that is silly.” So, is this true or not? Does the fact that superpartner splittings are at least 100s of GeVs cause a problem for getting a much smaller vacuum energy, or is this irrelevant? “The substance of my comment, if you care to address it, was that the role of the vacuum energy as the order parameter for supersymmetry breaking causes a problem when you couple to gravity and want the measurable vacuum energy to be small.”
That is not only not right it is not even wrong full version#
You continue to ignore the substance of my comment, choosing to drop it from what you quoted, here’s the full version again: I’m well aware that this is no longer true in supergravity, and was careful to state this as a fact about flat space theories without gravity. The distinction I was making between a globally supersymmetric theory and the SM was that in one case the expectation value of the Hamiltonian is an order parameter for supersymmetry breaking, and so can be connected to something measurable, in the other case it isn’t. However, it is the converse claim: that a theory that is 120 orders of magnitude of is better than one that is 60 orders of magnitude off that is silly.
![that is not only not right it is not even wrong that is not only not right it is not even wrong](https://mississippilead.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/self-deception-is-especially-good-when-it-can-be-shared-with-others-or-why-the-electric-car-does-not-have-a-bright-future_61b17ace7e353.jpeg)
Nobody’s claiming that supersymmetric theories are a success in this regard. You can have unbroken supersymmetry with negative cosmological constant, or broken supersymmetry with zero cosmological constant or …Īnd, as Haelfix points out, claiming that being off by 60 orders of magnitude instead of 120 as a point in favor of a theory is just silly. Moreover, in supergravity (where there is actually a measurable question to ask), the vacuum energy is not an “order parameter” for supersymmetry-breaking. So the substance of your distinction (that the vacuum energy is “ill-defined” in the absence of supersymmetry) is incorrect. The vacuum energy is just as unmeasurable in a globally supersymmetric theory as in a nonsupersymmetric theory. The substance of my comment, if you care to address it, was that the role of the vacuum energy as the order parameter for supersymmetry breaking “ill-defined” as stated is perfectly accurate, and implies “unmeasurable”.Sure, the fact that you can’t connect it to something measurable is why it’s ill-defined. TrackBack URL for this Entry: Some Related Entries After reading this book and some of the unfortunate innuendo it contains, one might conclude not that string theorists are honest researchers doing the best they can to understand the nature of the universe, but rather are misguided devotees of a failed cult mired in self-delusion. Woit has instead chosen to write a tendentious account providing little guidance as to why, even in the face of such criticism, so many have chosen to work on string theory. More so, the sociology of modern theoretical physics could provide a fascinating context in which to present a reasonably disinterested discussion of the pros and cons of both string theory as a research program and the way in which modern theoretical physics is pursued.
![that is not only not right it is not even wrong that is not only not right it is not even wrong](https://images.slideplayer.com/24/7519463/slides/slide_7.jpg)
There is certainly a place, then, for these criticisms to also be presented to the public. In the last few years, however, a number of popular books and television shows have made the case for string theory to the public. Its relative domination of the field of fundamental theoretical physics has long led to criticism within the scientific community. String theory, the enormously ambitious and speculative endeavor that has, for the past thirty years, attempted to unify our understanding of quantum mechanics and gravity has failed to live up to its initial promise.