La supersymétrie : un outil heuristique hier d'accord, une phénoménologie pour demain ... peut-être, mais la géométrie spectrale non commutative, pourquoi pas maintenant ?
... for understanding how quantum field theory works overall, this is beside the point: supersymmetry as a tool for studying quantum field theory is here to stay. As a teacher of quantum field theory, I will say this: anyone wanting to understand quantum field theory fully must study supersymmetry. It’s not optional.
... pour comprendre globalement comment la théorie quantique des champs marche, il n'y pas de doute possible : la supersymétrie, vue comme outil pour l'étude des théories quantiques des champs est là pour rester. En tant que professeur de théorie quantique des champs, je dirai ceci : tous ceux qui veulent comprendre la théorie quantique des champs doivent étudier pleinement la supersymétrie. Ce n'est pas une option.
Matt Strassler, Quantum Field Theory, String Theory, and Predictions (Part 7) posted on November 20, 2013 | 43 Comments
(Il vient en complément à un court billet écrit sur un autre blog).
Voici maintenant le commentaire qu'il m'inspire :
Thank you prof. Strassler for this synthetic and pedagogical defence of supersymmetry as a heuristic tool to improve : i) our understanding of the quantum field theories forged IN THE PAST and ii) build plethora of models for TOMORROW. But don't you think that TODAY, at a time with only one Higgs boson and no superparticle detected by LHC so far (in agreement with null results of dark matter chasing experiments), it is time to focus instead on the possible conceptual reasons for the success of the only validated effective quantum field theory namely the Standard Model ? Now that (astro)physicists can reach so high energies and explore so huge amount of the unknown (but mostly empty!) universe don't you think that priority should be put on mathematical and phenomenological consistency check of quantum theories ? Does supersymmetry ever help to deal with this topic ? My view is probably very naive but it seems to me that supersymmetry is not only a beautiful tool to enlarge the plato cave that fits with our prejudices (built on former empirical and mathematical experiences) but to say it crudely, it is also the most powerful tool physicists invented to sweep the dust under the carpet!
Voici la réponse de Matt Strassler !
“it is time to focus instead on the possible conceptual reasons for the success of the only validated effective quantum field theory namely the Standard Model”Yes, I agree with this statement, personally. This is what I’m doing. But it’s not easy… people have considered this for over 30 years and I don’t think there is a convincing story.However, as I emphasized, studying supersymmetry has been extremely helpful in learning to understand quantum field theory in general. Several of my best ideas for dealing with non-supersymmetric field theories came from studying supersymmetric ones. I have just been reading up on the most powerful new tools for studying non-supersymmetric theories intwo spatial dimensions, many of which relied upon results and/or insights that emerged in supersymmetric contexts. So I think your statement “it is also the most powerful tool physicists invented to sweep the dust under the carpet!” really is too crude, not only in its tone but in its content. It’s much more elaborate and subtle than that.
Thank you for the fast feedback. I don't aim at being rude to SUSY, as you understand perfectly, the more so as it could show up "in our face" at any time from future experiments or from data currently processed by tenacious physicists.
On the theoretical side, nevertheless I have the feeling that supersymmetry has been oversold by the media and science outreach in general. I can understand that other mathematical tools, inspired by quantum physics, like quantum groups, Hopf algebra and non commutative geometry for instance are very hard to popularize but they seem to be less studied by theoretical physicists as well while they have proved to be useful : i) to envision a mathematically coherent picture of renormalization, ii) to calculate the quantum numbers of the discovered Higgs boson and iii) to build possibly phenomenologicaly coherent SO(10) grand unified theory-like models (sorry for loosing non experts, I don't intend to be pedantic, just specific)....
Voir par exemple ici la dernière remarque de Matt Strassler ...