With this and the last tenable vestiges of SuperSymmetry burning up in CERN things are changing.
posted on 12/03/2012 2:54:29 PM PST
(Acerbic by Nature, not Nurture)
SuperSymmetry and QED aren't comparable in any sense. SS has always been speculative; it's attractive for some amthematical reasons but not mainstream. QED is as mainstream in particle physics as you get. It's not too far off to call it "The Central Dogma" (as molecular biologists refer to DNA.)
But there's nothing in this article that indicates that QED is in trouble, only that photomeission wavelengths differ from those predicted purely by QED. A much more likely explanation than the BIG HEADLINE that QED "might" be wrong is that there are other energy effects not accounted for by the experimenters.
That doesn't grab headlines or generate grant money, so they aren't going to broadcast the more pedestrian (and likely) explanation.
posted on 12/03/2012 4:05:01 PM PST
(Shut 'er down Clancy. She's pumpin' mud.)
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson