🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <1992Aug6.193240.10620@pollux.lu.se>, magnus@thep.lu.se (Magnus Olsson) writes...
> 
>And, by the way, it's not true that there is no experimental evidence
>for SUSY: there is some indirect evidence, though very weak. Some
>experimental data on the running of coupling constants seems *not* to
>consistent with the standard model, but with certain supersymmetric
>models. Optimistic theorists predict that the lightest supersymmetric
>partners could be found by SSC; pessimists point out that they could
>just as well be 10 times too heavy.

I too have made this argument, in this forum, in the past.  However, 
I have come around to the point of view that too many assumptions are
hidden in the analysis for it to constitute "experimental evidence"
in any but the weakest possible sense.  Most importantly, it presupposes
that unification occurs at a single point - an entirely ad hoc assumption.
Grand Unification is in a weak enough position already, regardless of 
the form, from an experimental point of view to trust any conclusions
based upon it.  But to require additional specific conditions is too much
for me.    

I'll just have to wait for some squarks or selectrons to spop up in some
sdectector somewhere soon before I'm sold.

-Scott
--------------------
Scott I. Chase			"The question seems to be of such a character
SICHASE@CSA2.LBL.GOV		that if I should come to life after my death
				and some mathematician were to tell me that it
				had been definitely settled, I think I would
				immediately drop dead again."      - Vandiver