http://www.spacedaily.com/reports/Physicists_Develop_Test_for_String_Theory_999.html Physicists Develop Test for String Theory "The beauty of our test is the simplicity of its assumptions," explained Benjamin Grinstein, a professor of physics at the University of California, San Diego. "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." by Staff Writers La Jolla CA (SPX) Jan 25, 2007 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. Rothstein and colleagues Jacques Distler, a professor of physics at The University of Texas at Austin; Benjamin Grinstein, a professor of physics at the University of California, San Diego; and Carnegie Mellon graduate student Rafael Porto developed their test based on studies of how strongly force-carrying particles called W bosons scatter in high-energy particle collisions generated within a particle accelerator. W bosons are special because they carry a property called the weak force, which provides a fundamental way for particles to interact with one another. When the LHC turns on later this year, scientists will begin to investigate the scattering of W bosons, which has not been possible with other particle accelerators. Because the new test follows from a measurement of W boson scattering, it could eventually be performed at the LHC, according to the authors. "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." "If the bounds are satisfied, we would still not know that string theory is correct," said Distler. "But, if the bounds are violated, we would know that string theory, as it is currently understood, could not be correct. At the very least, the theory would have to be reshaped in a highly nontrivial way." String theory attempts to unify nature's four fundamental forces (gravity, electromagnetism, and the strong and weak forces) by positing that everything at the most basic level consists of strands of energy that vibrate at various rates and in multiple, undiscovered dimensions. These "strings" produce all known forces and particles in the universe, thus reconciling Einstein's theory of general relativity (the large) with quantum mechanics (the small). Proponents say that string theory is elegant and beautiful. Dissenters argue that it does not make predictions that be tested experimentally, so the theory cannot be proven or falsified. And no particle accelerator yet exists that can attain the high energies needed to detect strings. Because of this technical limitation, tests of string theory have remained elusive until now. "Since we don't have a complete understanding of string theory, it's impossible to rule out all possible models that are based on strings," said Rothstein. "However, most string theory models are based upon certain mathematical assumptions, and what we've shown is that such string theories have some definite predictions that can be tested."
I'll assume the above post was directed at me. I wrote an email to Dr. Leonard Susskind, Ph.D yesterday, complimented him on his book, restated the basic concept and asked him if I understood it. The professor said that "you've got it." Obviously, I can't prove this transaction, but I'm personally satisfied that it occurred. As for what either Davies or Greenstein believes, Susskind states in his book that he doesn't know what their religious tenets are, but that he would be "wary" of interpreting statements made by any physicist re "design," "agency" or "God," because such terms are frequently used in conversation to describe the unknown, without regard for any deity.
Good news! Everyone in the physics biz is waiting for the CERN collider to come online. Hopefully, it will answer current questions about the universe. Undoubtedly, it will create more new questions than it answers.
My guess is that it reveals more ignorance than it enlightens about the real nature of the causation and/or source of the universe... Each new piece of scientific knowledge of this type will raise a brood of questions unanswered. Can't you see that the field of ignorance is actually growing at a faster rate when it comes to this stuff, an open system in which there is no knowledge of the boundaries of that system, than the field of knowledge? All this will produce is more and more unprovable theories and guesses.... I am not opposed to it, let the kids play with their toys, and there may be some practical applications as a result, one reason that I support scientific research and space exploration...but those looking for answers to the meaning of life or actually knowing the beginning or source of the universe are profoundly confused in my opinion when they are using unlimited tools to research something that is unlimited. I say unlimited, because we have not found any limits yet, no end, no real beginning, no center point, etc.
As they say, the more you know, the more you know how little you know... But look at the tremendous growth in knowledge science has brought to us in 400 years. Would a person know about dinosaurs 200 years ago? Would a person know about DNA 100 years ago? Transistor? X-ray?(! ) Self-organization?(! ) Every one of these new discoveries raised many more questions than they answered. But can you deny that each one represented progress?
Closed systems, those dinosaurs and DNA. Universe is not a closed system, to my knowledge as there are no boundaries to the universe, our only boundaries are limited instruments, which remain limited in nature...therefore any scientific conclusions as to the nature of the entire system, not closed systems that are within the universe...are dubious...and just raise more questions and theories that cannot be proved true or false. I am supporting side effects, if they are good side effects of such research, but really, anyone who thinks science is going to discover the origin of the universe isn't thinking right...unless it is factual and true that the tools of science that are being used are of the same material nature as the tools or method which began the universe. Goes along with your theory that God could not be known via material means, as God by definition is not material in nature. As far as progress, depends on what you mean by progress. Change for sure, but has the inner nature of man progressed in 3,000 years or more? I don't see it... Would it be progress if science developed a doomsday device, and accidentally used it? I understand science has improved the luxury of material life from 3,000 years ago, but for some people, life is more than materialism....
Closed systems, those dinosaurs and DNA. Universe is not a closed system, to my knowledge as there are no boundaries to the universe, our only boundaries are limited instruments, which remain limited in nature...therefore any scientific conclusions as to the nature of the entire system, not closed systems that are within the universe...are dubious...and just raise more questions and theories that cannot be proved true or false. I am supporting side effects, if they are good side effects of such research, but really, anyone who thinks science is going to discover the origin of the universe isn't thinking right...unless it is factual and true that the tools of science that are being used are of the same material nature as the tools or method which began the universe. Goes along with your theory that God could not be known via material means, as God by definition is not material in nature. As far as progress, depends on what you mean by progress. Change for sure, but has the inner nature of man progressed in 3,000 years or more? I don't see it... Would it be progress if science developed a doomsday device, and accidentally used it? I understand science has improved the luxury of material life from 3,000 years ago, but for some people, life is more than materialism.... Science has found no method for lasting contentment in life, and I think that people would really like lasting contentment more than material luxury, if they truly thought they could have it.
It is not a question of their tenents you just have to read the quotes I provided. They made their pronouncement quite clear. I will go back and get them if you like.
Susskind was your expert witness. Up until now, he was sufficient for your purposes. Now that he's testified against you, you want to use some other experts. I'm satisfied that my understanding of Anthropic Principle is correct and yours is not. That's really the end of the argument for me. Care to discuss something else?