LQG & SUSY Particles: Are They Connected?

[Mentat]

I don't know if this has been covered on another thread (haven't been back to this particular forum for some time), but I was wondering (this wondering is, of course, due to my inexcusable ignorance of loop quantum gravity): Are supersymmetric partner particles any part of the LQG paradigm?

I ask because it seems that string theorists are keeping their fingers crossed in the hope that Fermilab or the new particle-accelerator in CERN will discover sparticles, but I have no idea what the loopists think of this, or how much stock they put into this particular possibility.

Any information is appreciated.

 

[alexsok]

Are supersymmetric partner particles any part of the LQG paradigm?

No they're not. Supersymmetry can be incorporated in the LQG framework, but the formalism doesn't pose it as a pre-requisite for the theory to be consistent (that concerns extra dimensions and other new phenomena postulated by string theory as well).

Remember that supersymmetry hasn't been found yet, but here's hoping LHC (Large Hadron Collider - scheduled to commence it's operation sometime in 2007, in case someone needed a quick refresh could provide that last piece of evidence :)

p.s
I would suggest you to keep track of both of these exciting developments, as the latest results indicate they could merge sometime in the future, though don't take my word for it :)

Also, in case you're connived by the theory, you could give Rovelli's latest book (still not finished, but a draft is pretty much complete - as of December 30th) a spin :)

http://www.cpt.univ-mrs.fr/~rovelli/book.pdf

Enjoy! :)

 

[Mentat]

Originally posted by alexsok
No they're not. Supersymmetry can be incorporated in the LQG framework, but the formalism doesn't pose it as a pre-requisite for the theory to be consistent (that concerns extra dimensions and other new phenomena postulated by string theory as well).

Thanks, alexsok. I'm more of a SMT enthusiast, but I'm trying to be open-minded to LQG as well.

Does this mean, though, that the discovery of sparticles would lend greater credence to M-Theory, while doing very little to LQG?

p.s
I would suggest you to keep track of both of these exciting developments, as the latest results indicate they could merge sometime in the future, though don't take my word for it :)

You mean LQG and SMT?

Also, in case you're connived by the theory, you could give Rovelli's latest book (still not finished, but a draft is pretty much complete - as of December 30th) a spin :)

http://www.cpt.univ-mrs.fr/~rovelli/book.pdf

Enjoy! :)

Interesting stuff...I haven't read the whole thing yet, but he seems like a pretty good writer (the exposition keeps one interested, which is what you want in a book that covers such a complex topic).

 

[alexsok]

Does this mean, though, that the discovery of sparticles would lend greater credence to M-Theory, while doing very little to LQG?

The discovery of supersymmetry, more commensurate than the uncovering of life on Mars, would go a long ways towards lending credit to M-Theory, and would as some people said, "change our view of the physical world", but it wouldn't be able to prove that string theory is correct just yet (as Brian Green said).

Purportedly, it should bring about a certain amount of excitement if you will, for those people laboring on LQG, even though it's formalism is completely and utterly determined without it (and Nature is still baulking us despite the numerous "we're almost there" comments at various conferences).

Frankly, i myself believe string theory holds a stout basis, and a fruitful future, and even if someday it would be proven wrong, much of the drudgery would be left intact for novel ideas! :)

You mean LQG and SMT?

Yep, those two :)
One interesting thing to note though, is that most people tend to lean towards M-Theory (as opposed to LQG), courtesy of the immense mathematical intricacies and incredible difficulties, but painstaking precision of the calculations (the theorists managed to come up with an elegant way to count the microstates of the black holes, not sure if LQG attained a similar result - although it's crucial to mention that LQG has quite a few portentous aces up it's sleeves), this is definately not for the laymen among us :)

Interesting stuff...I haven't read the whole thing yet, but he seems like a pretty good writer (the exposition keeps one

interested, which is what you want in a book that covers such a complex topic).

He is the leading pioneer on the theory, so it's no wonder his book pretty much covers it all in a coherent and comprehensible manner! :)