🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <1992Aug4.135508.18583@galois.mit.edu>, jbaez@riesz.mit.edu (John C. Baez) writes...
>Anything that calls itself "super" is likely to be a bunch of baloney.
>E.g.:  
> 
>supersymmetry (in particle physics)
>superconducting supercollider
>superstrings
> 
> 
>:)

 OK I saw the smiley, but...
1) Supersymmetry is the most logical extension of the Standard Model
   that I know of. There seems to be circumstantial support for it,
   it naturally predicts dark matter, "demystifies" (to use Gordan Kane's
   term) the Higgs sector, and seems to predict the eventual unification
   of the EM, weak, and strong coupling constants (the famous Amaldi plot).
   I am confident that nature will be found to be supersymmetric, given
   a reasonable collider to perform the search at. This leads to...
2) The SSC, whether you feel it is worth the investment or not, is the
   tool to do the job. LHC experiments _might_ be able to detect the Higgs 
   in multilepton channels, but give up on doing any missing Et searches.
3) Superstrings. Here is a new one for this forum : I do not know enough
   about superstrings to comment on the validity of the theories. Anyone
   out there with a nonsnide insight on the state of the art in superstring
   theories ?
       ================
         Lee Sawyer

         Dept of Physics
         Univ. of Texas
               at Arlington