January 25, 2007
String Test

Will string theory ever be testable? According to this it will be, and soon. The theory is so complex only a handful of people seem to be able to even approximate the equations necessary to understand it, so I'll politely withhold judgment on whether the efforts at experimentation are workable. But it is nice to see that they're trying.

Posted by scott at January 25, 2007 01:56 PM

eMail this entry!
Comments

If it does work out, the first thing I'm going to do is build a new house that doesn't touch the ground (at least in the three dimensions we percieve).

Posted by: Tatterdemalian on January 25, 2007 10:17 PM

You should read the book "The Trouble With Physics" by Lee Smolin (sp? I can't find my copy...I think the cats carted it off somewhere).

It details, step by step, why string theory is not viable, simply because there are too many permutations to be accurately tested, and those that are testable (or will be soon) are ones that could easily be proven through other, less complicated theories.

Another problem is that string theory is reliant on a specific set of variables, well, not being variables at all, but constants. The results of an equation can be made to wildly fluctuate by the introduction of a different space-time configuration.

Basically, if the space-time background is not rigidly held in place, the strings either disappear, or become so large that they are visible to the naked eye. This means that for each space-time configuration, a new set of equations must be created.

What a unifying theory must have, above all, is a background-independent basis for the equations. Without that, there are too many different results for the theory.

I hope that makes some kind of sense. I'm trying to distill a bunch of years of study into a few paragraphs.

If I'm right, the results at the LHC should, once and for all, put to rest the concept that string theory is viable. If the expected results are not found, they will never be found. The constants and variables involved have been pushed to their limit in the last decade with every new particle accelerator built, because none of them show the expected results. The LHC is the last chance, because it's dealing with the largest sub-atomic particles available...the bosons. There's a whole variety of theories involved here, including supersymmetry, which is the basis for string theory.

I'll stop now. *blush*

Posted by: Kat on January 27, 2007 02:54 AM

Thanks! I've spent nowhere near as much time on physics as I do history, but what little I've read, even from its proponents, tracks closely to what you're saying. Definitely something to keep watch on.

Posted by: scott on January 27, 2007 07:33 AM

Something showed up in Scientific American that was talking about this. The premise was that strings don't work, but triangles do. I could get my lazy arse off the coach and grab the magazine to quote it a bit better.

Nor was I able to find it on the site. But go buy the latest article and read it for yourself.

Posted by: ron on January 27, 2007 08:39 AM
Post a comment
Name:


Email Address:


URL:


Comments:


Remember info?