Posted on 01/25/2007 9:01:26 AM PST by Ben Mugged
For decades, scientists have taken issue with "string theory"-a theory of the universe which contends that the fundamental forces and matter of nature can be reduced to tiny one-dimensional filaments called strings-because it does not make predictions that can be tested. But researchers at the University of California, San Diego, Carnegie Mellon University, and The University of Texas at Austin have now developed an important test for this controversial "theory of everything." Described in a paper that will appear in the January 26 issue of the journal Physical Review Letters L, their test involves measurements of how elusive high-energy particles scatter during particle collisions. Most physicists believe those collisions will be observable at the Large Hadron Collider, or LHC, a subatomic particle collider scheduled to be operating later this year at the European Laboratory for Particle Physics, or CERN.
"Our work shows that, in principle, string theory can be tested in a non-trivial way," explained Ira Rothstein, co-author of the paper and professor of physics at Carnegie Mellon.
~snip~ "The beauty of our test is the simplicity of its assumptions," explained Grinstein of UCSD. "The canonical forms of string theory include three mathematical assumptions-Lorentz invariance (the laws of physics are the same for all uniformly moving observers), analyticity (a smoothness criteria for the scattering of high-energy particles after a collision) and unitarity (all probabilities always add up to one). Our test sets bounds on these assumptions."
He added, "If the test does not find what the theory predicts about W boson scattering, it would be evidence that one of string theory's key mathematical assumptions is violated. In other words, string theory-as articulated in its current form-would be proven impossible."
(Excerpt) Read more at spacedaily.com ...
[Visualize photo of kitten with ball of yarn here]
The LHC should have been built in America and have been in operation for a decade already.
And if the tests fail, they'll just change the parameters.
If you have all the feathers you can carry, can you carry one more??
I thought they added an 11th dimension to String theory and now call in M theory (membrane theory) and this is where the theory of parallel universes comes from.
They run their models in a variety of dimensions from four to 26. Sometimes one dimension.
It all assumes that there is such a thing as a W boson, and that it does what they theorize that it does. I don't think that there is any doubt about that among quantum physicists, but the discovery of the W boson, like much of the rest of particle physics, is heavily dependent upon the accuracy of the prior theoretical framework.
Is there anyone who supposes there can be a successful physical theory that doesn't have these characteristics? I only hope this explanation has been dumbed down because it doesn't sound impressive to me.
It's undergrad math.
Boondoggle. Well killed.
The USA killed the supercollider and the Apollo program and is now in the process of falling behind the rest of the world leaders in science and engineering.
do I believe in?
one!!! in the process of falling behind the rest of the world leaders in science and engineering.
A moose once dated my sister.
The chef is here. Good eats for everyone.
'La bonne cuisine est la base du véritable bonheur.' - Auguste Escoffier
(Good food is the foundation of genuine happiness.)
LonePalm, le Républicain du verre cassé (The Broken Glass Republican)
Pres Bush mentioned math and science education during the SOTU address. Hillary! appears to have no interest in math or science at all. The pupils would do much better at math and science if there were some hope of actually being employed in math or science, even if it is, ughh, FedGov science programs. Math and science are adequately taught in government schools, but interest in attending math and science class is waning.
Maybe they will finally unravel this knotty problem.
There are finite dollars to invest in basic science. Should we pick a few super projects or spread it out in many more smaller projects? I think the latter is more inspiring to aspiring scientists.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.