LHC spots no black holes, eliminates some versions of string theory(arstechnica.com)
arstechnica.com
LHC spots no black holes, eliminates some versions of string theory
http://arstechnica.com/science/news/2010/12/lhc-spots-no-black-holes-eliminates-some-versions-of-string-theory.ars
1 comments
Is it my understanding that, in such high level physics, getting something proven wrong is never a detriment.
As it stands, string theory is not even wrong.
There is no scientific proof of it, even though there are many careers based on it. It can make a good living, like religion to priests.
This is just the usual HEP PR mill.
There is no scientific proof of it, even though there are many careers based on it. It can make a good living, like religion to priests.
This is just the usual HEP PR mill.
As far as I understand (not being a mathematician/physicist), it's a unification framework rather than one theory. As a framework, it's not right or wrong, but can be fertile or infertile (akin to what philosophy is to logic, string theory would be to physics). If a (the?) TOE is found among string theories, the approach would have been fertile.
String theories are not quite like religion in that they are falsifiable, just usually not falsifiable within current technical possibilities. This experiment in the OP falsified one of the lower energy possibilities.
With this in mind, though, it may be more useful to support research closer to applied fields. That is, if public money is supporting the string theory industry, a cut in that direction would be appropriate.
String theories are not quite like religion in that they are falsifiable, just usually not falsifiable within current technical possibilities. This experiment in the OP falsified one of the lower energy possibilities.
With this in mind, though, it may be more useful to support research closer to applied fields. That is, if public money is supporting the string theory industry, a cut in that direction would be appropriate.
There's definitely hard-to-understand ("high level) physics and easier stuff, but the former shouldn't get extra breaks just because it's overcomplicated... It should be a detriment.
It should be a detriment
If by this you mean that this should pressure the researchers to look for elegant ways to simplify the theory, I agree. But we have to wade through the muck first.
On the other hand we have to keep in mind that such a desire for simplicity (or at least elegance) is really a "human condition" and a judgement. There is no a priori reason why the "ultimate" theory shouldn't be, to our minds, extraordinarily complicated.
If by this you mean that this should pressure the researchers to look for elegant ways to simplify the theory, I agree. But we have to wade through the muck first.
On the other hand we have to keep in mind that such a desire for simplicity (or at least elegance) is really a "human condition" and a judgement. There is no a priori reason why the "ultimate" theory shouldn't be, to our minds, extraordinarily complicated.
That's exactly what I meant.
You're right that theories (whether they're "ultimate" or just effective theories) don't have to be simple. In fact, as a physics student I spent many semesters studying QFTs, QED, SM and QCD (our current proven and accepted theories) at University, and believe me, they're not simple or beautiful or whatever. (At least not in the sense that a programmer would call something simple or beautiful.)
Whoever tells you that they are is trying to sell you a pop.sci. book or article.
You're right that theories (whether they're "ultimate" or just effective theories) don't have to be simple. In fact, as a physics student I spent many semesters studying QFTs, QED, SM and QCD (our current proven and accepted theories) at University, and believe me, they're not simple or beautiful or whatever. (At least not in the sense that a programmer would call something simple or beautiful.)
Whoever tells you that they are is trying to sell you a pop.sci. book or article.
Beauty is in the eye of the beholder. When I studied quantum physics, I definitely thought it was beautiful, in the same way that I find some algorithms astonishingly elegant.
Simple though? No. They are not simple.
Simple though? No. They are not simple.
To your point of the beholder: I find/found the ideas of quantum mechanics beautiful, but I find the Hamiltonian formulation of classical mechanics much more beautiful. I see QM as sort of messy...
...until second quantization (and some Dirac-notation formulations of perturbation theory). Those I enjoyed.
...until second quantization (and some Dirac-notation formulations of perturbation theory). Those I enjoyed.
"Make everything as simple as possible, but not simpler."
What are you trying to say by quoting this famouse line? That it can't be made simpler? How do you know that?
"Never rise to speak till you have something to say."
"Never rise to speak till you have something to say."
The fact that it looks complicated should not be a reason to reject it. It may just be as simple as it can possibly/reasonably be.
This applies to software as well.
This applies to software as well.
From TFA:
Contrary to some reports, this result doesn't mean the death of string theory, only the particular flavor that predicted black holes at these energies...