Test for String Theory Developed 155
inexion writes "PhyOrg is reporting that SLAC (Stanford Linear Accelerator Center) scientists have found a way to test the revolutionary theory, which posits that there are 10 or 11 dimensions in our universe. This past December, Joanne Hewett, Thomas Rizzo, and student Ben Lillie published an article in Physical Review Letters which shows theoretically how to measure the number of dimensions that comprise the universe. By determining how many dimensions exist, Hewett and Rizzo hope to either confirm or repudiate string theory under specific conditions which would consist of creating and examining 'micro-black holes', which could be formed by smashing two high energy protons together. Using the predicted decay properties of the emitted neutrinos, Hewett and Rizzo solved equations to find that our universe may have more than 10 or 11 dimensions -- too many dimensions to be explained by string theory."
A Lot of 'Theoreticals' (Score:5, Interesting)
None.
How many micro-black holes have we even seen?
None, as it turns out [wikipedia.org].
This is a story of hope and speculation--much like the story of super string theory.
Hell, do we even have the capabilities to smash two high energy protons together?
To be fair, Bosonic Super string theory has room for 25 [wikipedia.org] dimensions but it's flawed with tachyon, the so called imaginary mass.
I'd be interested to know how they intend to measure the micro-black holes.
Re:A Lot of 'Theoreticals' (Score:3, Funny)
Yes, it's routine.
Re:A Lot of 'Theoreticals' (Score:5, Informative)
Well particle accelerators have been smashing high-energy protons together for a long time... but can we smash them hard enough to create micro-black-holes? No.
I'd be interested to know how they intend to measure the micro-black holes.
The LHC has been in the works for a long time, and should come online sometime in 2007. This instrument will be able to probe these questions, and set limits on the possibility of micro-black hole production, as well as extra dimensions.
Re:A Lot of 'Theoreticals' (Score:2)
Re:A Lot of 'Theoreticals' (Score:1)
They hope they decay quickly.
Bear in mind that all they have to work with right now is theory.
Anyone else here read "Thrice upon a time" ?
Re:A Lot of 'Theoreticals' (Score:1)
Re:A Lot of 'Theoreticals' (Score:2)
I dunno... Is this kind of treading on the "igniting the atmosphere" kind of problem with A-bombs.
I mean if make a mini-black hole and drop it on the floor by acident, wouldn't it just absorb more and more mass on the way to the center of the earth.
I know... I know... You can't "drop" a black hole on the floor... But if you could wouldn't it be neat
My God! It's Ed Wood! (Score:5, Funny)
No, no, it's being filmed by Uwe Boll (Score:2)
Boll initially tried to make this into a full feature movie but it lacked something mildly important to Boll--a plot line.
He hired round the clock game designers to code up a game called Bust-A-Move VI: The Black Hole. The game consists of the dinosaurs from Bust-A-Move trying to stop a falling black hole by firing balls at it. The first level contains a kill screen scenario which caused critics
Re:A Lot of 'Theoreticals' (Score:2)
The universe is safe. (Score:5, Informative)
Micro-black-holes are (obviously) very small. Thus, they evaporate very, very quickly. In fact, they are well below the sustainable threshold, and will evaporate much faster than they accumulate new mass. Also note that these micro-black-holes have quite low mass, hence their graviational attraction is pretty much nill. They are "black holes" because their mass density is infinite, and they are thus a singularity, but nothing about "black holes" definitely implies "consumes matter indefinitely" (this only happens for black holes of sufficient size).
So, no, there is no danger with micro-black-holes eating up the entire Earth. Yes, our current theories may be incorrent (you never know), but if micro-black-holes were able to grow without bound, then you'd expect the universe to be littered with black holes all over the place (which is not the case). Thus there's no reason to worry: the LHC will not gobble up the Earth.
Phew!! (Score:2)
Man I'm glad I read this as a
Re:The universe is safe. (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:The universe is safe. (Score:3, Informative)
Re:The universe is safe. (Score:2)
Re:The universe is safe. (Score:2)
Necessity. Necessity is, after all, the mother of invention. Since the observed universe is incompatible with the big bang cosmology absent an early period of rapid inflation, it was necessary to postulate one in order to prop-up the theory.
Re:The universe is ... what? (Score:2, Funny)
Yeah, there's nothing wrong with guestimated probability, or an understanding of the universe based on an uneducated perception. Hell, what's the worst that could happen, anyway? Tho', who among us would recognize a micro-black-hole if we saw one ...?
Oh, well. I hereby declare micro-s
Re:The universe is safe. (Score:2)
Re:The universe is safe. (Score:3, Informative)
So if there was a way to create an indefinitely growing black hole with particle collisions this would have happened over the millions of years that Earth has been around.
Re:The universe is safe. (Score:2, Informative)
Re:The universe is safe. (Score:2)
In the upper Earth atmosphere, and anywhere else cosmic rays meet a celestial body dense enough (a planet, a star, etc.)
Re:The universe is safe. (Score:5, Interesting)
The universe can easily put our best efforts to shame. For example, the Oh My God particle [fourmilab.ch]. If constant bombardment by these sorts of particles hasn't yet destroyed us, it's doubtful anything we do will make it worse.
Re:A Lot of 'Theoreticals' (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:A Lot of 'Theoreticals' (Score:2)
How many black holes have we seen? (Score:2)
Re:A Lot of 'Theoreticals' (Score:2)
None.
I agree about the string theory being, well, just a theory at this stage, but this isn't a sign they aren't there, it's just because we haven't had equipment good enough to experiment at this tiny scale before.
This statement is similar to how one today can say "how many Earth's have we seen? Not many, it's mostly Jupiter's out there". Of course, that's right, but it doesn't actually mean anything, as we haven't had good equipment to detect Earth-siz
The actual scientific paper... (Score:5, Informative)
"Black Holes in Many Dimensions at the CERN Large Hadron Collider: Testing Critical String Theory" JoAnne L. Hewett, Ben Lillie, and Thomas G. Rizzo Phys. Rev. Lett. 95, 261603 (2005)
For those with access to PRL, the doi for the paper is: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.95.261603 [doi.org]
This is the abstract: For those without access to PRL, you can view a different version of the manuscript on arXiv. [arxiv.org]
My comments (with the usual disclaimer: while I am a scientist, I'm not a particle physicist/string theorist, so I would appreciate any corrections to what I say): This work appears significant. String theory is incredibly elegant and fits in very well with other (experimentally verified) theories (quantum field theory, etc.). However, what string theory has always lacked, is experimental backup. The fact that there may be a way to experimentally test one of its predictions/requirements (that of extra dimensions) is truly significant, and will allow these fundamental theories to be advanced way beyond their current speculative nature.
As I understand it, one of the current "problems" in string theory is an over-abundance of theories. There are millions (perhaps even an infinite number) of theory-variants that are all consistent with the current string-theory formalism. Of course only one (or possibly zero) of the theories is right. An experimental test would (I hope!) help pick out which theory variant is the right one... or perhaps tell us that string theory is completely wrong! Either way it's a good thing for science and I look forward to this test being performed at the LHC.
Re:The actual scientific paper... (Score:1)
-Peter
PS: I'm bad at Math.
Re:The actual scientific paper... (Score:2)
But is this infinite number countable -- or is it continuous?
Paul B.
Re:The actual scientific paper... (Score:2)
it's a finite number, some researchers estimated it around 10^^240
Re:The actual scientific paper... (Score:2)
Re:The actual scientific paper... (Score:2)
stack corruption? (Score:2)
Comment removed (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:The actual scientific paper... (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:The actual scientific paper... (Score:4, Informative)
Mod parent up (Score:3, Informative)
Re:The actual scientific paper... (Score:5, Interesting)
In addition to string theory's problems with non-uniqueness you refer to, it seems to me that there's also a problem with string theory as a theory of quantum gravity, because it assumes a smooth background spacetime with the 3+1 ordinary dimensions being flat. But that's just not a reasonable way for a theory of quantum gravity to work. In particular, there are strong model-independent reasons [wikipedia.org] for believing that spacetime must be discrete, not continuous, at the Planck scale. So even if string theory could have all its other problems taken care of, it would still not be a good candidate for a fundamental theory of quantum gravity.
Re:The actual scientific paper... (Score:2)
So? Aren't many experiments just like this? The rest of your complaints I can't comment on, but I see nothing wrong with a test that can disprove the theory. If the test fails, we still have very valuable information (stop working on string theory).
Re:The actual scientific paper... (Score:2)
The basis of that argument is that entropy can never decrease. I was always under the impression that entropy is a statistical law: In any given situation there will be some non-determanistic movement, which will randomly disperse some of the energy. Since there are several orders of magnitude more higher entropic states than lower entropic states in any situation,
Re:The actual scientific paper... (Score:2)
I don't think you're right about the closed system issue, though. Dribbling mass or energy out of the outside world into the black hole should entail an entropy decr
Re:The actual scientific paper... (Score:2)
However, we (as far as I know) can't descibe how to create such a volume or what it would act like once
Re:The actual scientific paper... (Score:2)
Re:The actual scientific paper... (Score:2)
Bill
I'd really like to see string theory .... (Score:2)
Re:I'd really like to see string theory .... (Score:2)
Re: I'd really like to see string theory .... (Score:5, Funny)
Given 11 dimensions to work with, it will be easier to kiss your ass good-bye.
I'd really like to see that. (Score:2)
Given 11 dimensions, you will be able to kiss everyone good bye, at the same time, without knowing it.
Re:I'd really like to see that. (Score:2)
It depends upon what the definition of a theory is (Score:3, Insightful)
Evolutionary "theory," for example, has a substantial quantity of data that suggests the general notion is true. But string theory, at least in the scientific community, does not maintain the same support that most other "theories" have. There are, rather, a number of prominent physisists who believe string "theory" doesn't deserve the theoretical status it has obtained (or at least that's what I've been led to believe).
The question I have, therefore, how was the "theory" part conferred?
Re:It depends upon what the definition of a theory (Score:1)
Re:It depends upon what the definition of a theory (Score:3, Insightful)
Notice that "theory" and "theorem" are different words. Theorems arise from applying rules of inferences to sets of axioms (and previously proven theorems).
In general, the empirical sciences work by induction and hypothesis testing rather than by applying rules of inference to known truths, and thus don't produce theorems.
As others have p
Re:It depends upon what the definition of a theory (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:It depends upon what the definition of a theory (Score:2)
If you think of an underlying mechanism that would explain things (whether we're talking scientific measurements or theology or whatever), you have a theory. If your explanation isn't internally consistent, you do NOT have a theory. If your theory doesn't have anything to distinguish it from other theories that could explain the same results, it is "just a theory". If your theory makes predictions which can
Re:It depends upon what the definition of a theory (Score:3, Insightful)
It is a theory in the mathematical sense similar to Group Theory, Set Theory, or Ring Theory. In mathematics these "theories" really refer to the specific set of axioms assumed. There exist some axioms (well, really, assump
Re:It depends upon what the definition of a theory (Score:2)
Assume I have very little understanding of string theory. Could you please explain this in more detail; exactly what part and why string theory is not falsifiable.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:It depends upon what the definition of a theory (Score:2)
In that case, this also fits the theory of evolution. Evolution attempts to explain the past, but what predictions does it make of the future than could be checked out by experiment? I'm not taking about breeding or adaptation here, but the jumps from simple organisms to more complex. Even more so, why has nobody yet done by diligent effort what suppos
Re:It depends upon what the definition of a theory (Score:3, Insightful)
You are joking, right? The Theory of Evolution does not "attempt to explain the past" - it attempts to explain how one can get from point A to a later point B. We just happen to have mostly developed and verified the theory by looking at As and Bs that are in the past.
When one has access to an overwhelming amount of past evidenc
Re:It depends upon what the definition of a theory (Score:3, Insightful)
The drawback of only having historical data is that there are quite a few holes in that data (IOW the sampling rate is rather low).
Using this data we don't get to see evolution in action, we see only the end result of what we assume/theorize must be evolution.
So in this case, yes we would benefit from 'seeing if it happens again'.
Re:It depends upon what the definition of a theory (Score:2)
It amazes me that there is a debate about evolution in school, because it 'is just a theory', meanwhile christians send their children to sunday school from the age of 3 on up, to prevent the possibility of them ever doubting what they are taught. There they are taught that Elijah went to heaven in a chariot of fire (not the theory of the chariot of fire heaven journey) and other fables (like the time a snake talked to eve
Re:It depends upon what the definition of a theory (Score:2)
Uhm, they pretty much have. Scientists have devised simple forms of RNA which replicate themselves in a nutrient bath. This is the simplest form of life in most theories of the advent of life as far as I know, and so your requirement is met and then some.
Re:It depends upon what the definition of a theory (Score:2)
Re:It depends upon what the definition of a theory (Score:2)
Here's one: If you expose a microbe to a toxin that does not entirely wipe out the microbe, that microbe will gradually evolve to become resistant to that toxin.
Like, say, staph and penicillin.
You can go ahead and run this experiment yourself on non-resistant staph strains; I predict (via the Theory of Evolution) that if you vary the dosage of penicillin until it does not result in a die-off, that any samples you take from t
Re:It depends upon what the definition of a theory (Score:2)
The orginal article was about testing string theory predictions EXPERIMENTALLY, thus determining if I set up condtions A, then result B will follow. If result B does happen, then the theory is on the right track and further tests can be done to refine the theory. If not then the theory gets thrown out or modified and new experiments done to test the refined vers
Re:It depends upon what the definition of a theory (Score:2)
I don't think that the theory of Evolution is saying this. It is basically starting with that there is life already and then it changes. It does not say anything about non-life turning into life. (I'm not even sure how does non-life "survives" or become more adapotable to its environment?)
Re:It depends upon what the definition of a theory (Score:2)
A lot of phenomena of living things are all shoved together under the moniker "evolution". All the things that you and others have described fall under the category of adaptation to the environment.
Re:It depends upon what the definition of a theory (Score:2)
Re:It depends upon what the definition of a theory (Score:2)
Re:It depends upon what the definition of a theory (Score:5, Insightful)
In cases like this, untested ideas about the function of the universe, I personally like the term "model." You can use it to posit the inner workings of the universe and why things happen, but untill the technology is there and the experiments have been run it is not fully a scientific theory. But I believe it does fall within the bounds of model. And the nice thing about this is that with a model, you can make some assumptions that may or may not be true to simply explore how the world would work supposing this is true.
My favorite correlary is light. We have a model of light behaving as a wave, and that model has been proven to be wrong under certain cirumstances. We have a model of light behaving as a particle, and that model can also be proven wrong under certain circumstances. However, the fact that each model is not completely correct does not mean that they are useless. The basis of the model can be used to make further predictions about the way the world works, or even to produce technology through engineering.
Re:It depends upon what the definition of a theory (Score:2)
Re:It depends upon what the definition of a theory (Score:2)
It most certainly is falsifiable - we just don't quite have the technology to test it yet, but by all measures, we appear to be pretty close (hence the article).
Assuming they produce a mini-blackhole with the LHC, if the observations do not match string theory's predictions, then it will have been falsified. They then need to either throw it out, or take it back to the drawing board.
Re:It depends upon what the definition of a theory (Score:2)
That's what I mean by non-falsifiable. For any given conceivable measurement, there is a way to tweak the string theory to get around it. It can be discovered, but it can never be falsified. In this sense it is maximally non-predictive.
-- Bob
Re:It depends upon what the definition of a theory (Score:3, Insightful)
There is no governing body that certifies theories. Saying something is a theroy does not specify how certain it is, how close it is to the "truth", how popular it is, how accepted it is within a group, how does it compare to other theories, how close it is being falsified. "Being worthy of academic discussion" is another idea.
(Some people would be scared because of this, saying that it makes science weak. But it doesn't, because science is about being open to idea
I predict (Score:3, Funny)
Re:I predict (Score:2)
Pixel is a kitten and walks through walls. Someone said "That's impossible! How does he do that?" and the reply was "Well, he's too young to know it's impossible
Even though Pixel is nicknamed "Schrodinger's Cat" I'm sure he plays with String Theory too.
Re:I predict (Score:2)
Missed the asterisk (Score:2)
Of course, if it doesn't decay as they predict, then their test fails and they've proven nothing about string theory. And that's assuming their math is correct.
Re:Missed the asterisk (Score:2)
Wrong. It will prove that there are not more than 11 dimensions. It may provide evidence that there are less, or that there are exactly 11 dimensions as well.
Re:Missed the asterisk (Score:2, Interesting)
String? (Score:2, Funny)
Sincerely, Confused in the Fifteenth Dimension
Re:String? (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:String? Clarification (of a sort) (Score:2)
OT: String theory special on science channel (Score:2)
I'm gonna read the article on wikipedia, maybe I'll get some more information.
Re:OT: String theory special on science channel (Score:2)
Further OT: Jay Leno joke. (Score:2)
A few weeks back Jay Leno observed, "This week in 1933, Adolph Hitler came to power in Germany... thus creating The History Channel."
Re:Further OT: Jay Leno joke. (Score:3, Funny)
Re:OT: String theory special on science channel (Score:2)
There aren't *any* shows where significant amounts of information are passed. It is one of the limitations of the media.
On the plus side "Television" is very good at giving you the impression you are learning something, and it is highly addictive.
(How many people do you know who simply don't have a TV because they don't care for it? Now how many people don't have an X where X is anything else? I will bet dollar for dollar that more people don't have heat in America than d
WTF? (Score:3, Funny)
Since when have we been able to create micro-black holes? Man.....screw lightsabers, i want a gun that shoots micro-black holes!
FYI: String Theory per Wikipedia (Score:4, Informative)
Here is the article:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/String_theor
String Theory question (Score:4, Interesting)
If one day string theory is validated by an actual experiment what consequences will it have for the various interpretations of Quantum Mechanics? Is it going to give more credibility to any one of the interpretations of QM? Or is this a completely orthogonal issue?
Disclaimer: I know nothing about String Theory but methinks that a true Theory of Everything must provide us with an unambiguous answer for the nature of the collapse of a wavefunction, no?
Re:String Theory question (Score:2)
Slightly Misleading Title... (Score:4, Informative)
JoAnne Hewett (one of the original authors) also comments in the blog, saying that the journalists tried to make the work a little more accessible by suppressing important details: As for the headline that is blazened on the SLAC home page - I saw it for the first time when someone drew my attention to it. I knew it was going to cause headaches...
So while this may be solid work, it doesn't seem quite so sexy as it has been made out to be...
New Application (Score:2, Funny)
As scientific theories go... (Score:4, Insightful)
You cannot confirm a theory.
An experiment can either support it or disprove ("repudiate") it.
Scientists never learn (Score:3, Funny)
Test? (Score:2)
not "revolutionary" (Score:2)
A blast from the past... (Score:2)
I remember Tom telling us about supersymmetry (an ancestor of string theory) around 1983. God, I feel old...
Comments from the authors (Score:2, Informative)
The main point is that there are many "ifs", "ands", and "buts" in the paper that did not make it into the news release. Essentially what we showed was that, in a very special set of circumstances it is possible to make a measurement at the LHC which will could possibly determine the number of extra dimensions. If that can be done, then the result will be very important to understanding string theory, since the number of