http://www.physorg.com/news89894430.html
It is a bit hyped-up to say this is a test of string theory in particular. The authors lay out some bounds on some foundational ideas of relativistic quantum mechanics. String theory is within this general class. I"m pretty sure people knew about bounds set by such general assumptions and that in this sense string theory could be falsified. The usual complaint, though, is that string theory does not appear to be falsifiable *relative to* other possibilities within the general principles we assume. So even though tests on our general principles are important and interesting, this complaint stands.
It looks like they have themselves covered, whatever happens.
I have never been a fan of "colliders" for many reasons the foremost of which is simply this: No-one is in a position to judge the quality and purity of experiments that have no control subject or parallel process. These "Mighty Magnet" builders have spent un-told Billions and who can say what the results truly mean?
Also consider this scenario: A scientist stakes his reputation and the public's funds on an experiment that proves him dead wrong; Does he confess?
Not Bloody Likely!
Also consider this scenario: A scientist stakes his reputation and the public's funds on an experiment that proves him dead wrong; Does he confess?
Not Bloody Likely!
QUOTE (aphex2+Feb 6 2007, 01:21 PM)
... string theory does not appear to be falsifiable *relative to* other possibilities within the general principles we assume...
In certain sense the string theory was falsified already. Some variants of string theory are considering the deviations from ISL for gravity force due the presence of hidden dimensions. These deviations were tested experimentally recently, and the result were negative.
Annoyed by Werner Heisenberg's claims that, though lacking in some specifics, he had a wonderful unified theory (he didn't), Pauli sent letters to some of his physicist friends each containing a blank rectangle and the text, "This is to show the world that I can paint like Titian. Only technical details are missing."
Because no one knows what so called "M-theory" or superstring theory exactly means, its beauty & elegance is that of Pauli's painting. Even if a consistent M-theory can be found, it may very well turn out to be something of great complexity and ugliness. The general problems is, the string theory is so vague, so it claim nearly everything in at least one of its scenarios (...and it does so, occasionally), simply because of lack of fixed list of postulates, which is defining the subject of scientific theory in normal case.
By such way, the string theory is nonfalsifiable in common sense and as such is serving as a subject of belief like flying spaghetti monster and/or as a drain for money, then whatever else.
In certain sense the string theory was falsified already. Some variants of string theory are considering the deviations from ISL for gravity force due the presence of hidden dimensions. These deviations were tested experimentally recently, and the result were negative.
Annoyed by Werner Heisenberg's claims that, though lacking in some specifics, he had a wonderful unified theory (he didn't), Pauli sent letters to some of his physicist friends each containing a blank rectangle and the text, "This is to show the world that I can paint like Titian. Only technical details are missing."
Because no one knows what so called "M-theory" or superstring theory exactly means, its beauty & elegance is that of Pauli's painting. Even if a consistent M-theory can be found, it may very well turn out to be something of great complexity and ugliness. The general problems is, the string theory is so vague, so it claim nearly everything in at least one of its scenarios (...and it does so, occasionally), simply because of lack of fixed list of postulates, which is defining the subject of scientific theory in normal case.
By such way, the string theory is nonfalsifiable in common sense and as such is serving as a subject of belief like flying spaghetti monster and/or as a drain for money, then whatever else.
QUOTE (Zephir+Feb 9 2007, 10:28 PM)
In certain sense the string theory was falsified already. Some variants of string theory are considering the deviations from ISL for gravity force due the presence of hidden dimensions. These deviations were tested experimentally recently, and the result were negative.
Still repeating stuff I've already explained to you, eh Zeph?
Some versions of string theory predict a deviation from the inverse square law of gravity (and electromagnetism) at small distances. The actual distance the violation occurs is not set is stone but a parameter of the theory. The experiment you are talking about has put an upper limit on the violating distance of about 0.1mm. All this means is that the parameters which are input into string theory have been constrained slightly. It certainly hasn't disproved them and even if it had, it would only have been one or two possible forms of the theory.
But rather than actually take such explaination on board and try to be unbiased, you prefer to just repeat things you know to be a lie because you are under the false impression that by showing string theory to be false it somehow elevates AWT, just as Creatonists think that showing evolution wrong automatically makes them right. Utterly flawed logic.
Still repeating stuff I've already explained to you, eh Zeph?
Some versions of string theory predict a deviation from the inverse square law of gravity (and electromagnetism) at small distances. The actual distance the violation occurs is not set is stone but a parameter of the theory. The experiment you are talking about has put an upper limit on the violating distance of about 0.1mm. All this means is that the parameters which are input into string theory have been constrained slightly. It certainly hasn't disproved them and even if it had, it would only have been one or two possible forms of the theory.
But rather than actually take such explaination on board and try to be unbiased, you prefer to just repeat things you know to be a lie because you are under the false impression that by showing string theory to be false it somehow elevates AWT, just as Creatonists think that showing evolution wrong automatically makes them right. Utterly flawed logic.
QUOTE (Zephir+Feb 9 2007, 10:28 PM)
Annoyed by Werner Heisenberg's claims that, though lacking in some specifics, he had a wonderful unified theory (he didn't), Pauli sent letters to some of his physicist friends each containing a blank rectangle and the text, "This is to show the world that I can paint like Titian. Only technical details are missing."
You do realise that your point is much much more applicable to AWT than string theory? String theory has demonstrate it can provide excellent models of some parts of reality, it's ability to open up new avenues of research in already well establised QCD and gives models for cosmological considerations too. It's proven that it's very much a worthy line of research.
AWT hasn't demonstrated it can model ANYTHING, you provide no result and derive nothing from your postulates. You just try to hind behind animations and comments like "I'm not paid for this".
AWT hasn't demonstrated it can model ANYTHING, you provide no result and derive nothing from your postulates. You just try to hind behind animations and comments like "I'm not paid for this".
QUOTE (Zephir+Feb 9 2007, 10:28 PM)
The general problems is, the string theory is so vague, so it claim nearly everything in at least one of its scenarios (...and it does so, occasionally), simply because of lack of fixed list of postulates, which is defining the subject of scientific theory in normal case.
You obviously have trouble understanding the difference between having an adjustable parameter and being able to claim just about anything. There's plenty of adjustable parameters in QCD, but it can't claim anything it likes.
But then I don't expect you to appreciate such a subtle of scientific theories, you've never done them.
But then I don't expect you to appreciate such a subtle of scientific theories, you've never done them.
Silly string.
Silly String theory is that the fastest way to get thrown out of a convention hotel is to drink 6oz of grain alcohol and be handed an aerosol can with an equal net weight in Silly String.
QUOTE (AlphaNumeric+Feb 10 2007, 01:55 AM)
Still repeating stuff I've already explained to you, eh Zeph?
Try to explain it to Dr. Woit and Sir Penrose at first, OK? Just click to the book cover picture for the furher reading..
Try to explain it to Dr. Woit and Sir Penrose at first, OK? Just click to the book cover picture for the furher reading..
QUOTE (Zephir+Feb 10 2007, 08:32 PM)
Try to explain it to Dr. Woit and Sir Penrose at first, OK? Just click to the book cover picture for the furher reading..
The problem is Zephir, you often read other people's comments and misunderstand them because you don't bother to actually learn about the physics itself (or you have tried and realised it's beyond you) and so can't grasp some of what they say.
As my last post explained, having not found an inverse square violation doesn't falsify string theory, but sets bounds on it's parameters. If you wanted to say a slightly misleading statement which is 'technical' true, you'd say that some versions of string theory have been falsified, though they've been no more falsified than versions of quantum electrodynamics which have the mass of the electron as 1 kilogram, since the inverse square violation distance is a parameter, just as the mass of an electron is. I'm certain Penrose and Woit get the difference, even if you don't.
You also say things like "It can't be right, the strings oscillate and they are massless". You'll find that you have that conceptual problem but people like Woit and Penrose don't, because they can see beyond Newtonian dynamics.
The points you raise are almost invariably flawed parroting of other people on topics you didn't bother to understand. Yes, string theory has a few problems but you rarely bring up any of the valid ones. Infact, if you actually bothered to learn string theory or supersymmetry or any other 'beyond the standard model physics' you'd be in a position to talk about much more problematic aspects of those theories. Instead you don't bother or (as I much more expect) you are unable to learn them so you continue to just 'snip at their heels' with your misconceptions and parroting other peoples views on things you don't understand.
The problem is Zephir, you often read other people's comments and misunderstand them because you don't bother to actually learn about the physics itself (or you have tried and realised it's beyond you) and so can't grasp some of what they say.
As my last post explained, having not found an inverse square violation doesn't falsify string theory, but sets bounds on it's parameters. If you wanted to say a slightly misleading statement which is 'technical' true, you'd say that some versions of string theory have been falsified, though they've been no more falsified than versions of quantum electrodynamics which have the mass of the electron as 1 kilogram, since the inverse square violation distance is a parameter, just as the mass of an electron is. I'm certain Penrose and Woit get the difference, even if you don't.
You also say things like "It can't be right, the strings oscillate and they are massless". You'll find that you have that conceptual problem but people like Woit and Penrose don't, because they can see beyond Newtonian dynamics.
The points you raise are almost invariably flawed parroting of other people on topics you didn't bother to understand. Yes, string theory has a few problems but you rarely bring up any of the valid ones. Infact, if you actually bothered to learn string theory or supersymmetry or any other 'beyond the standard model physics' you'd be in a position to talk about much more problematic aspects of those theories. Instead you don't bother or (as I much more expect) you are unable to learn them so you continue to just 'snip at their heels' with your misconceptions and parroting other peoples views on things you don't understand.
PhysOrg scientific forums are totally dedicated to science, physics, and technology. Besides topical forums such as nanotechnology, quantum physics, silicon and III-V technology, applied physics, materials, space and others, you can also join our news and publications discussions. We also provide an off-topic forum category. If you need specific help on a scientific problem or have a question related to physics or technology, visit the PhysOrg Forums. Here you’ll find experts from various fields online every day.
To quit out of "lo-fi" mode and return to the regular forums, please click here.