It looks like on mobile the description cuts off before the link to the full talk, so we're posting it here too - ua-cam.com/video/dB7d89-YHjM/v-deo.html
That video does not mention supersymmetry (at least by name) at all? Did you link to the wrong video? Edit: I see you mentioned in another comment that this was from the QA section at the end, and that this is how that topic ended.
SUSY is not yet definitively ruled out, but if there was something to it, you'd really have expected to see some sort of evidence of it by now. There is still (just) room for some versions at energies just beyond what the LHC has been running at, but they weren't generally well regarded even by SUSY enthusiasts. Then again, you do experiments to see what the actual result is, sometimes you are surprised
@@talltroll7092 What do you mean by "some" evidence? Of all the particles predicted by SUSY, we already discovered 50%. If that isn't evidence, what is?
@@hugo3222 We've discovered exactly zero particles predicted by SUSY. The Higgs is not related to SUSY, and even if it were, SUSY predicts one supersymmetric particle for all the ones we have found in the Standard Model, about a dozen or so
@@talltroll7092 1000% agree with your estimation. Even the mass of the Higgs agrees. Our first and most important clue in the exclusion of Susy was the 126Gev mass itself, well over what it should of been for supersymmetric models.
This was a question from the Q&A and that's how it ended. As to why we're doing clips? With the lockdown in place and most of our staff on furlough, we are not filming any talks in the theatre, so we are repurposing some of our older material. This gives people who may have missed the original a chance to revisit it.
Maybe it's just me, but I still can't find the whole SUSY video. When I click on the link above it takes me to the video "What happened at the beginning of time"
Yeah, he doesn't cover this at all in the linked video. Something's up with that. I'd love to find the full talk somewhere! Edit: Ah, I see: From The Royal Institution: "This was a question from the Q&A and that's how it ended." . Got it.
The prediction is not that you find it just somewhere one day, if you keep looking. The prediction was to find it at very specific energy levels and the predictions were simply wrong. And in that, the search has been long over.
Well, then... that obvious question is, "What happens to current Physics, if there IS no such thing as SUSY?" How does this impact QM? it appears to be a part of the Standard Model, it also appears to be a necessary part of String Theory, etc. So basically how much trouble would Physics be in, if this is the case?
Hey guyssss....... can you make a video on zero-point energy i.e, harnessing the energy of the particles that pop in out out of existence(quarks i guess)
I’m under the impression that the current understanding is that it is impossible to extract said energy, as in, to use it as an energy source. If you mean something else by “harness”, such as “do something useful which in some way relies on our understanding of it”, that is a different question I guess, and may be possible.
This one is not one of the Christmas Lectures, but if you'd like an overview of everything we have available, please check out our archive - www.rigb.org/christmas-lectures/watch
Well there is just one universe and the idea, that everything is governed by 4 completely independent things is relatively unreasonable. That means there is a ToE and thus also a GUT, it's just not as "easy" as everyone thought it would be.
what else they supposed to do? keep on it another 50 100 years till maybe the build a accelerator powerful enough to see these things if they exist at all? as they missed more marks and the bar got pushed out of the park, they lost any hand they had. now they need 2 3 jumps in the LHC to even be in the area of superstring stuff. and the far cheaper was to do it is to look up for the collisions we need. they be able to do that before anyone going to dump trillions more into the LHC and running it. and that is going to take time. and meanwhile dark matter seeking goes how? maybe.
I think most particles are actually bozos. That's why the universe is a bit meh. My calculations suggest that the b-field interacts strongly with people.
So basically they are not sure and rebranding a new category? Cause they are losing confidence in this theory more and more. With scientist it will always be yes and no? Its funny thinking about it. Its like they are the predesposition theory (i misspelled it i know)
"Losing confidence" is a strange way to phrase it. If I have a more or less working theory and after a while some predictions of that theory turn out to be false, then I would say that I "lose confidence" in the theory. But what if I have a theory that so far has not made any single prediction that has been confirmed by observation? How do I "lose confidence" in such a theory?
Well, technically speaking, String theory is independent on SUSY. On the other hand, you are correct in that if we know for sure that SUSY is not correct, then 40+ worth of research in String theory goes in fumes and we are back to bosonic string theory with its many inconsistencies, i.e. pretty much back to square one.
It looks like on mobile the description cuts off before the link to the full talk, so we're posting it here too - ua-cam.com/video/dB7d89-YHjM/v-deo.html
That video does not mention supersymmetry (at least by name) at all? Did you link to the wrong video?
Edit: I see you mentioned in another comment that this was from the QA section at the end, and that this is how that topic ended.
Hang on. The answer to these questions in titles are supposed to always be no. Not yes.
Hehe
Oops.
Theoretically, there's a video titled "Is Supersymmetry Still Alive?" but we haven't observed it yet.
SUSY was a pleasant sounding theory and that made people want it to be true. Thankfully there are still scientists that follow the data.
SUSY is not yet definitively ruled out, but if there was something to it, you'd really have expected to see some sort of evidence of it by now. There is still (just) room for some versions at energies just beyond what the LHC has been running at, but they weren't generally well regarded even by SUSY enthusiasts. Then again, you do experiments to see what the actual result is, sometimes you are surprised
@@talltroll7092 What do you mean by "some" evidence?
Of all the particles predicted by SUSY, we already discovered 50%.
If that isn't evidence, what is?
@@hugo3222 We've discovered exactly zero particles predicted by SUSY. The Higgs is not related to SUSY, and even if it were, SUSY predicts one supersymmetric particle for all the ones we have found in the Standard Model, about a dozen or so
@@talltroll7092 1000% agree with your estimation. Even the mass of the Higgs agrees. Our first and most important clue in the exclusion of Susy was the 126Gev mass itself, well over what it should of been for supersymmetric models.
Quick answer: yes.
Long answer: YAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAS!
Pretty sure split susy is still in play
@@Lantalia Weakly Modified Newtonian Dark Supersymmetry is definetly still in the race
No
Thanks for the teaser video!
We need super Asymmetry to abolish this chaos. TBBT fans will understand.
This is such a human story, would make a great Netflix doc!
Thanks for linking the full talk, but why ever upload this video at all? It ended before he said anything.
This was a question from the Q&A and that's how it ended. As to why we're doing clips? With the lockdown in place and most of our staff on furlough, we are not filming any talks in the theatre, so we are repurposing some of our older material. This gives people who may have missed the original a chance to revisit it.
@@TheRoyalInstitution fair answer. Thanks for the content.
Supersymmetry is Dead. Superdupersymmetry Lives.
Is there the full lecture vdo?
It's linked in the description.
@@rolfs2165 Thanks!
I watched the video linked in the description and I didn’t see the part in this video anywhere in it?
Is supersymmetry was real, we would probably have known some superpartner pairs of particles even before we formulated the theory of supersymmetry.
No not supersymmetry!!! Oh the loss, oh the humanity.
Is this talk based upon the book 'Mathemagic' by Number Cult?
Patience my man ...patience.
Selectron has selected - Death! *pew*
No super-symmetry particles and no 11 dimensions detected. Hmmm.... not looking good after 40+ years of searching.
Maybe it's just me, but I still can't find the whole SUSY video. When I click on the link above it takes me to the video "What happened at the beginning of time"
Yeah, he doesn't cover this at all in the linked video. Something's up with that. I'd love to find the full talk somewhere!
Edit:
Ah, I see: From The Royal Institution: "This was a question from the Q&A and that's how it ended." . Got it.
When is the full talk coming
4 months ago, see the link in the description. ;)
It's no good asking me!
Who came up with those names? Starbucks?
Symmetry is nice on the small scale, but as you get bigger in size the less symmetrical things remain.
I was just talking about this the other day at a BLM rally.
😂😂
supersymetry sounds awfully like supremacy. be careful you don't get your photino kicked in there buddy. 😉😂
Oh, I thought this was a whole new talk
smart science man explaining why supersymmetry is dead and bad:
Me: 🍿
Is Supersymmetry Dead? Mostly.
Ok that was short. Fortunately there's a link here to more talk.
What a talk
What is he trying to tell us is the idea of string theory is hanging on by a thread. 😂
Ba dum tss
Got 'em.
Why was this in my recommended?! UA-cam thinks I'm smarter than I actually am... 😂
Was that Anthony Magnabosco in the front row?
He is there to practice Street Epistemology with anyone that still believes in Supersymmetry
Nice talk Robert Clooney Jr.
Does this mean that SUGRA and superstring theories are dead too?
As I understand (but I don't understand anything), string theory is by definition at least as dead as SUSY is, because the former requires the latter.
Darth Quantum Wow and SUGRA is the 11 D “low energy” limit of M theory.
zeeboson? maybe zebeboson? what are it ?
Just because it hasn't been proved yet doesn't mean that it is not correct.
The prediction is not that you find it just somewhere one day, if you keep looking. The prediction was to find it at very specific energy levels and the predictions were simply wrong. And in that, the search has been long over.
Where's the rest of the talk?
In the description.
Interesting thx
Well, then... that obvious question is, "What happens to current Physics, if there IS no such thing as SUSY?" How does this impact QM? it appears to be a part of the Standard Model, it also appears to be a necessary part of String Theory, etc. So basically how much trouble would Physics be in, if this is the case?
Supersymmetry is definitely not a part of the Standard Model.
Hey guyssss....... can you make a video on zero-point energy i.e, harnessing the energy of the particles that pop in out out of existence(quarks i guess)
Virtual Particles
I’m under the impression that the current understanding is that it is impossible to extract said energy, as in, to use it as an energy source. If you mean something else by “harness”, such as “do something useful which in some way relies on our understanding of it”, that is a different question I guess, and may be possible.
@@drdca8263 yes I mean just the same thing
Hello
wat
안녕하세요
저는 영어학원에서 Christmas Lecture 를 찾아보라고 해서
짧은 것을 찾다가 이 동영상을 보게 되었는데요
뭐라는지 모르겠네요 ;;
뭐 그렇다구요 허허허
이것은 물리학의 "초대칭"모델에 대한 물리 강의입니다. 그것은 크리스마스와 관련이 없습니다.
(this is from Google translate, from English to Korean. I don't know how accurate it is)
@@nni9310 It's one of the Christmas Lecture. If you don't know about Christmas Lecture, don't say to me,please
This one is not one of the Christmas Lectures, but if you'd like an overview of everything we have available, please check out our archive - www.rigb.org/christmas-lectures/watch
@@오-d6v Sorry, my mistake.
Neutrinos and neutralinos?
they're getting desperate for names.
There is no graviton all this BS relies on this particle existing.
write F to pay respect to SUSY and GUTs
Well there is just one universe and the idea, that everything is governed by 4 completely independent things is relatively unreasonable. That means there is a ToE and thus also a GUT, it's just not as "easy" as everyone thought it would be.
F
I can't believe the time has finally come to where supersymmetry specialists are really questioning this outloud on a platform like this
what else they supposed to do?
keep on it another 50 100 years till maybe the build a accelerator powerful enough to see these things if they exist at all?
as they missed more marks and the bar got pushed out of the park, they lost any hand they had.
now they need 2 3 jumps in the LHC to even be in the area of superstring stuff. and the far cheaper was to do it is to look up for the collisions we need. they be able to do that before anyone going to dump trillions more into the LHC and running it. and that is going to take time.
and meanwhile dark matter seeking goes how? maybe.
I think most particles are actually bozos. That's why the universe is a bit meh. My calculations suggest that the b-field interacts strongly with people.
NOOOOOOOOOOOOOO NOT THE HECKIN NEUTRALINOS! THE FERMIONIC PHOTINOS!
Igblon dead
So basically they are not sure and rebranding a new category?
Cause they are losing confidence in this theory more and more.
With scientist it will always be yes and no? Its funny thinking about it. Its like they are the predesposition theory (i misspelled it i know)
"Losing confidence" is a strange way to phrase it.
If I have a more or less working theory and after a while some predictions of that theory turn out to be false, then I would say that I "lose confidence" in the theory.
But what if I have a theory that so far has not made any single prediction that has been confirmed by observation? How do I "lose confidence" in such a theory?
Yes. Not even wrong.
Seen it
We so want, or at least some want. "The theory of everything". Clue. Not even close. Still, have to keep trying. Good luck with that. :) :) :)
Weird flex,I am first
Therefore, string theory is also dead. Because supersymmetry is a prerequisite for the mathematics of strings to correctly model the universe.
Well, technically speaking, String theory is independent on SUSY. On the other hand, you are correct in that if we know for sure that SUSY is not correct, then 40+ worth of research in String theory goes in fumes and we are back to bosonic string theory with its many inconsistencies, i.e. pretty much back to square one.
@@37metalgearsolid Technically speaking, string theory will never die, because it is independent of reality.
Hu Go - Its independence from reality is also its Achilles heel: it can't be tested
1st