even if super-symmetry isn’t ‘the answer’… it’s a very practical answer if it can be made to work easily.

Well I could be mistaken, but I think that’s his main point. Instead of focusing on the intricate balance of all the parts [of which we only know the scantest details about; we’ve barely touched neutrinos.. .and our measuring tools are necessarily limited in scope because we are stuck on the earth with all of its flaws] or focusing on possibilities that we can never prove, focus on what we _do_ know and _can_ work with.

The other areas stray us away from things that are pragmatic and useful. Consider that he works for CERN. They had to convince several countries to invest I-don’t-know-how-much-money into this project. It has to have pragmatic, practical, tangible benefit. It’s not _just_ pure science. It _must_ lead to things we can do stuff with.

Consider: How useful is it to follow a multiverse line? It’s great for science fiction, but will it build better machinery?

Or consider the anthropic principle. Finely tuned for life is great for religious and philosophical debates but it doesn’t solve any future technology either.

In short, like you said, they side-step the hard problems needed to be financed and faced head on with whatever the best of technology and theory we can throw at it.

Standard Model doesn’t sell books. Multiverse and anthropic principle sells books.

Standard model isn’t sexy. It’s not marketable to the masses like us, but it’s marketable to governments with deep pockets. And… it works.

I think that’s why he’s sticking to it so firmly and even if super-symmetry isn’t ‘the answer’… it’s a very practical answer if it can be made to work easily.

Leave a comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *


one − = 0

Leave a Reply