Exploring Superstrings in the Lab 312
ultracool writes "Physicists at Utrecht University in the Netherlands have come up with a way of observing a superstring by utilizing Bose-Einstein condensation (BEC). A one-dimensional BEC in an optical lattice is rapidly rotated, causing a quantized vortex to form. The bosonic part of the superstring consists of this vortex line. Inside the vortex, they would trap an ultracold cloud of fermionic atoms. Hopefully this will allow observation of the supersymmetry between bosons and fermions, thus providing the first experimental evidence to support superstring theory."
Supersymmetry != string theory (Score:5, Insightful)
Any string theorists out there want to chime in?
NOT *really* superstrings *or* supersymmetry! (Score:5, Insightful)
The system that these folks propose to study (quantized vorticity in a Bose-Einstein condensate) can be described with the same type of mathematics that is used in superstring theory. The proposed experiments would test the validity of the math. These experiments would say nothing about whether the math of superstring theory is a valid description of the world!
A similar situation would be the following: observing a weight on a spring would confirm the math behind simple harmonic oscillators. It would not, however, tell me anything about whether the vibrational modes of the sun obey those same equations.
Analogy != equivalence!
I hope they dont "believe" in it either.... yet (Score:4, Insightful)
That beleive stuff is for tooth fairies and god(s)
Re: Why was this posted? (Score:2, Insightful)
Frankly, I'm a little bit annoyed by the treatment of scientific theories as 'absolute truths'. It's been a while since I studied physics, but basically, it works as follows:
You have empirical evidence: things you can feel, touch, hear, smell, see, etc. Beyond that, you have NOTHING. To be more precise: speculation (theory). The best theories are simply the ones that best, or most easily explain empirical findings (what you can see, touch, smell, etc.)
So the power of say, Einstein's relativity theories is not that they're 'true', but that they are theories that offer the most simple, and/or general explanation of everything we can see, hear, feel, etc. On a scale ranging from sub-atomic to inter-galactic.
Not that I'm trying to bash the parent poster in any way. I would be thrilled if something like the String Theory would gain in strength. But why? Not because it would be 'true', but because it could offer a single, unifying explanation about an incredible number of phenomena we see, feel, hear, measure, etc. A minimal set of rules that explains how our universe works. And (between the lines) offer some hints about the true nature of our universe.
But in the end: THEORY. Because I can't feel atoms or sub-atomic particles, or know anyone that can. Nor can I touch gravity waves, or imagine the speed of light in my head. But a few (relatively, no pun intended) simple rules that explain everything I could ever see, touch, hear, smell or feel, would be really, really awesome.Re:Supersymmetry != string theory (Score:5, Insightful)
Dude, proof only exists within closed formal systems. The universe does not come with an end-user-license promising that any observation *ever* can be repeated, e.g. that the sun comes up tomorrow, or that protons don't decay into Mars Bars.
What we've learned about the universe is that physical observation is highly (some say unrealistically) compressible. We write down a small set of rules (quantum electrodynamics is the best example) and then we find that trillions of physical measurements taken from just about any situation we can think up are *consistent* with the small set of rules we've written down. This doesn't mean the set of rules we've written down it the smallest set of rules consistent with the universe. With each "unification" (e.g. electricity with magnetism) the set of rules becomes more compact relative to how much of the universe it consistently describes. It's important to note that we usually know ahead of time that our system of rules can't possibly be consistent with everything (general relatively and quantum mechanics are inconsistent in their present forms). From the point of view of proof, we knew from the outset that both of these theories are false. Yet each of these theories describes an incredible range of phenomena, and for the most part, the two theories don't much overlap in what they describe. If they did overlap more, it would be far easier to concoct experiments to resolve the known inconsistencies.
I'm quite depressed at how few people are familiar with the work of Kolmogorov and Chaitin. Most physicists fail to fully appreciate these results. The bottom line is that algorithmic compressibility is all we've got, and truth itself is a gossamer filigree we can at best approximate.
Re: Why was this posted? (Score:3, Insightful)
Are you forgetting wave-particle duality? The electromagnetic force is transmitted by electrons, which are subatomic particles. Along with gluons and photons they are bosons, IIRC.
Re:Supersymmetry != string theory (Score:4, Insightful)