Hilbert's Hotel

Diskussionsforum zur Unendlichkeit: Theismus, Atheismus, Primzahlen, Unsterblichkeit, das Universum...
Discussing Infinity: theism and atheism, prime numbers, immortality, cosmology, philosophy...

Gamestudio Links
Zorro Links
Newest Posts
AlpacaZorroPlugin v1.3.0 Released
by kzhao. 06/30/24 02:01
Lapsa's very own thread
by Lapsa. 06/26/24 12:45
Executing Trades on Next Bar Open
by Zheka. 06/20/24 14:26
A simple game ...
by VoroneTZ. 06/18/24 10:50
Face player all the time ...
by bbn1982. 06/18/24 10:25
Zorro Beta 2.61: PyTorch
by jcl. 06/10/24 14:42
New FXCM FIX Plugin
by flink. 06/04/24 07:30
AUM Magazine
Latest Screens
The Bible Game
A psychological thriller game
SHADOW (2014)
DEAD TASTE
Who's Online Now
3 registered members (AndrewAMD, bigsmack, dr_panther), 1,204 guests, and 7 spiders.
Key: Admin, Global Mod, Mod
Newest Members
Mino, squik, AemStones, LucasJoshua, Baklazhan
19061 Registered Users
Previous Thread
Next Thread
Print Thread
Rate Thread
Page 5 of 5 1 2 3 4 5
Re: Superstring Theory [Re: AlbertoT] #160438
10/27/07 19:32
10/27/07 19:32
Joined: Mar 2003
Posts: 5,377
USofA
fastlane69 Offline
Senior Expert
fastlane69  Offline
Senior Expert

Joined: Mar 2003
Posts: 5,377
USofA
What Brian Greene states is not an experiment but an upper limit of string theory particles will be in this range. That is a FAR cry from stating that if we find these particles, it's proof of string theory. If you'll note, you'll see that no where in that quote does it say that this will prove String Theory!

What String Theory needs for proof is the following:

1) A particle not predicted by the Standard Model that is predicted by String theory.
2) An effect not predicted by the Standard Model that is predicted by String theory.

His quote says neither of the above.
In short, genreating particles in the 100 or 1000 GEV range it is not a proof of String Theory.



Here is an article describing the best (only?) test of String Theory at LHC. Notice that it doesn't test the theory itself but rather it's mathematical foundation. As well, it can't prove the theory true, but can prove it false. In other words, if the test fails, string theory fails. Period. But if the test passes, then String Theory is on good ground, but not proven (there may be other theories with the same foundation but different results).

http://www.physorg.com/news88786651.html

This test is the only test that I'm aware of at LHC that even hopes to touch on String Theory.

Re: Superstring Theory [Re: fastlane69] #160439
10/27/07 20:06
10/27/07 20:06
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 1,245
A
AlbertoT Offline
Serious User
AlbertoT  Offline
Serious User
A

Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 1,245
Quote:


This test is the only test that I'm aware of at LHC that even hopes to touch on String Theory.




Well, you finally admit that LHC might , at least, touch the theory of string

Re: Superstring Theory [Re: AlbertoT] #160440
10/27/07 20:21
10/27/07 20:21
Joined: Mar 2003
Posts: 5,377
USofA
fastlane69 Offline
Senior Expert
fastlane69  Offline
Senior Expert

Joined: Mar 2003
Posts: 5,377
USofA
Quote:

This test is the only test that I'm aware of at LHC that even hopes to touch on String Theory.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Well, you finally admit that LHC might , at least, touch the theory of string




Fair enough, .but not in the sense we've been talking about though.

It touches upon the mathematical foundations that String Theory is based upon but it doesn't directly directly say anything about string theory itself. Like the article states, even if the test is valid, it doesn't say anything about String Theory, merely some of the foundations that it (and several other theories) are based upon are valid.

So it touches on String Theory the way that the Standard Model touches upon String Theory: if the higgs boson is not found, SM and Strings fail. But if the Higgs boson is found, it doesn't prove that string theory is right, merely that it isn't wrong "yet".

So this passing this test may give String Theory more room to breath but that is a far cry from actually proving anything about it's validity.

Page 5 of 5 1 2 3 4 5

Moderated by  jcl, Lukas, old_bill, Spirit 

Kompaktes W�rterbuch des UnendlichenCompact Dictionary of the Infinite


Powered by UBB.threads™ PHP Forum Software 7.7.1