String Theory Tested, Fails Black Hole Predictions 307
eldavojohn writes "Back in 2006 there was a lot of talk of testing String Theory. Well, today CERN has released a statement for the Compact Muon Solenoid Experiment. The short of it is simply that as far as they could tell, 'No experimental evidence for microscopic black holes has been found.' The long statement indicates that since the highly precise CMS detector found no spray of sub-atomic particles of normal matter while LHC smashed particles together, the hypothesis by String Theory that micro black holes would be formed and quickly evaporated in this experiment was incorrect. These tests have given the team confidence to say that they can exclude a 'variety of theoretical models' for the cases of black holes with a mass of 3.5-4.5 TeV (1012 electron volts). Not Even Wrong points us to the arxiv prepublication for those of you well versed in Greek. While you may not be able to run around claiming that String Theory is dead and disproved, evidently there are some adjustments that need to be made."
Re:The story of string theory (Score:5, Informative)
The whole "vibrating line" thing is based off an optical illusion that affects even sober people, which pot can exacerbate. If it was LSD, the tiles would have been floating slightly above the ground and shifting colors, rather than something as simple as stationary lines showing trail-like vibrations.
I've been called many things, but never a square :p
Better than the alternative . . . (Score:2, Informative)
Better no black holes than black holes that didn't evaporate.
In case you want to know from a physicist (Score:5, Informative)
I happen to be an actual theoretical particle physicist. The headline and summary are completely misleading/sensationalist and this has essentially nothing to do with string theory. If I hadn't seen the string-theory connection here on slashdot, "string theory" would not even have crossed my mind reading this. If you happen to actual read the so-called "long statement" (which is only half a page really) you would have noticed that it doesn't say anything about string theory. What this measurement has ruled out are certain theories that have some small extra dimensions that would predict these tiny black holes. Those theories don't really have anything to do with string theory per se. The only conceived connection is that string theory also has more than 4 spacetime dimensions.
Calling this "string theory tested, fails prediction" is close to the following analogy: Someone comes up with a crazy theory according to which once a while (say 1 in 100) an apple that gets detached from a tree should rise into the sky (say by using complex numbers to cleverly generate a minus sign in Newton's laws). After having observed sufficiently many apples all fall down, we can now say with confidence that apples don't rise but in fact always fall. The slashdot headline would be: "Complex numbers tested, fail apple prediction."
So rest assured, no string theorist will have a sleepless night and none of them will make any adjustments whatsoever. The main reaction in the particle physics world to this will be a lunch conversation along the lines of: "Told you so, this whole idea about mini-blackholes was ridiculous in the first place, in any case, glad they rule it out, so hopefully this will quiet down this whole black-hole circus now."
Re:I think it's good either way (Score:4, Informative)
The same is not true for economics
And there's an easy answer as to why: False theories in economics can be very profitable, and where there is large profit to be made there will be somebody trying to make it (that's one of the few settled theories of economics).
For instance, the Laffer Curve has been consistently demonstrated to be absolutely nothing like what Arthur Laffer postulated it would be (namely, a smooth parabola) when tax rates are anywhere in between about 10% and 90%. But the Laffer Curve also motivates politicians to cut taxes, which for people who pay a lot of taxes is very profitable. So if I'm an economically rational wealthy guy who normally pays $1 million in taxes, and I can pay somebody $30,000 to tout the Laffer Curve to help convince politicians to cut my taxes by 5% (thus with a potential savings of $50,000), I'm going to do just that.
Re:Nerdrage at incongruence in TFS (Score:4, Informative)
I suspect a carat or other symbol was dropped by the slashcode, and it used to read "TeV (10 *to the* 12 electron volts)".
Re:Unobservable (Score:5, Informative)
No, "layman" doesn't mean "someone who understands a subject and can even work with it to some extent but is NOT an expert." It means simply "someone who is not a member of a particular profession", full stop. (That's actually the second, but relevant, definition, which evolved from the earlier and still primary definition, which is specifically someone who is not a member of the clergy.)
"Layman" is sometimes prefixed with an adjective like "experienced", and so modified may mean something like what you suggest, but that isn't what it means on its own.
summary is completely incorrect (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Unobservable (Score:5, Informative)
It's not a bad analogy. But it's also important to realize that the geocentric model is a GOOD model. Navigators used it long after Copernicus and Galileo, and if it's going by the wayside there, it's only because GPS really is geocentric.
The key to heliocentrism isn't changing the center, but changing the shape of the orbit. If you think of the sun as the center of the universe but are still trying to force things into circular motion, you end up with as many correction factors as geocentrism does. Galileo and Copernicus were well aware of the mathematical difficulties. It wasn't until Kepler that they finally had a solution.
The problem with the analogy is that it's not string theory that's equivalent to geocentrism, it's quantum mechanics, quantum field theory, and general relativity. These are excellent theories that still have problems in that they disagree with each other. String theory is the epicycle tacked on to try to account for the differences.
That's still not quite apt, since the failure modes are different. Geocentric theory failed because data contradicted it without awkward modifications. Quantum and relativistic theories agree with the data, but disagree with each other under circumstances that are difficult to produce experimentally. So string theory is useful theory with no data, and epicycles were a good way to deal with the data but with poor theoretical support.
Some scientists are aggrieved that a theory with no data, and none forthcoming, should receive so much attention. Disproving it would actually be a great advance, and would actually reflect well on the people studying it. Unfortunately, the import of the experiment in this article is exaggerated.
Re:The story of string theory (Score:5, Informative)
They're called tracers and it's not common at all for users of pot. In fact, pot 'hallucinations' are most likely a placebo effect in 99% of cases. Sleep depravation is more likely to cause them.
Look at a tile floor in a bathroom when you're stone-cold sober. Stare between the tiles, allow your eyes to lose focus, and tell me that after 15 seconds or so you don't see the lines start to dance.
Floating slightly above the ground and shifting colors? Please. What textbook did you read that out of?
My own experience, actually.
Maybe you should actually try a hallucinogen (a real one: acid, 'shrooms; not a 'classified' one: pot) before pretending to be an authority on the matter.
Between the ages of 19 and 23 (I'm 26 now), I tried the following "real" hallucinogens: LSD, LSA, mushrooms, salvia, DMT, and DXM. Before taking each one for the first time, I did extensive research by talking to people who had taken them AND taking the time to read up on them, using erowid.org and other online resources. I paid paritcular attention to their expected effects, what other substances could safely and couldn't safely be mixed with them, what to do in case of an accidental overdose/"bad" experience, what kind of food should be eaten 24 hours before ingestion, and suggestions for environmental factors such as lighting, entertainment, and topics to think/talk/write about. I took LSD, LSA, Mushrooms, and DXM numerous times, while the others I only took once or twice.
I wouldn't say I'm an authority on the matter, but I have a lot of calculated, measured experience with them.
When enough LSD is taken, you can't just characterize the hallucinations as one way or another. Things don't necessarily float or shift colors. It's an ineffable experience, but it starts with tracers -- your "vibrating lines."
And not everyone has the same reaction to the same substance, asshat. If I had never done any of these things, I would have said something about gnomes jumping around, the walls melting, or seeing my dead grandmother...all common "hallucinations" assigned to things like LSD by people who have never done them.
It's blatant mischaracterizations of marijuana such as your original post that make it remain taboo and illegal.
Fuck you very much. I fully support the legalization of marijuana, and actively try to inform people about its relative safety, especially when compared to legal substances like nicotine, caffeine, and alcohol.
The post actually would have been unwittingly funny if you had said acid rather than pot, because many hippy-geeks really do view acid-tracers as a metaphor for string theory. But a lot of nonsensical stuff seems enlightening on acid. Pot just makes you relaxed and hungry.
Then you haven't been doing the right things while under the influence of pot.