Clarification

In a previous post I said I was famously dubious of superstring theory. I am, but I am even more dubious of supersymmetry. Without supersymmetry, superstring theory fails (or one might say, fails worse).

Supersymmetry arises from complex mathetical operations in representation theory that I don't presume to understand. How I judge it by is how one should evaluate any theory of physics: how well its predictions compare with experiment. So far, not very damn well.

The real-world ramification of supersymmetry, as opposed to allegedly "elegant" manipulations of theoretical mathematics, is that for every type of particle (electron, W, Z, quarks and so forth) there must be a "supersymmetrical partner" of the opposite type. By "opposite type" I mean that for every fermion, there must be a partner boson, and for every boson there must be a partner fermion. For the electron, a fermion, there must be a boson called a "selectron". I guess that means that for the photon, a boson, there must be a fermion partner, but I don't remember what it's called. Maybe a photino. (Fermions are the constituents of matter, generally speaking, while bosons are the carriers of force, generally speaking.)

ANYWAY. The point is that supersymmetry predicts the existence of a whole bunch of particles that thus far have never been seen in nature, not in particle accelerators, not in the byproducts of cosmic ray impacts in the upper atmosphere, nowhere. Am I the only person who finds it awfully convenient that every time a particle accelerator reaches the lower edge of the presumed energy of these superpartners and never finds them, that the theory is tweaked to make the superpartners just a little more massive?

Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence, of course, but nevertheless at some point one simply has to admit that the emperor is naked. And if the supersymmetric emperor is naked, so is the superstring emperor (and the Minimally Supersymmetric Standard Model as well, but I don't like it either).