RE: Stephen Hawking on M-Theory
July 25, 2011 at 10:25 pm
(This post was last modified: July 25, 2011 at 10:34 pm by theVOID.)
(July 25, 2011 at 9:26 am)lanceromega Wrote: actually that not true, it not the complete model or theory but an all incompassing one. Basically M theory includes all the major GUT such as the 5 various string, super Gravity and S8XS8. The main problem is that it is so broad that it cannot not make any independent predictions that we can test to verify if it truely correct...
That isn't entirely true, Dark Flow was predicted by string theorist Laura Mersini-Houghton in 2006, two years prior to Alexander Kashlinsky discovering the phenomenon in the WMAP data - The actual data essentially matches the predictions.
Quote:Lately Cern and other Major Partical accelerators has collected data that seem to fall away from all the major GUT that M theory embrace, instead it appears the data matches the prediction of a subset of SuperSymmetry theory called MSSM (Minimal Supersymmetric Standard Model ).
this would be a major Blow to M theory.
Interesting, what exactly were the observations that contrast M-theory? I was lead to believe that supersymmetry in M-theory posits essentially the same particle-pairs as the supersymmetric standard model.
Quote:the Holographic Principle, depends on symmetry that is only observe in anti Desitter universe, which many observations indicate that our universe is not, but it make useful mathematical models that help M theorist tackle major issues dealing with Structure of Space time. Another blow to the Holographic Principle came recently when Observation of several Frequencies of light from a distant Quasar fail to show any indication of a fine structure of space time, at least at a scale of Planck length or greater...
The holographic principle shouldn't show such a thing if I remember correctly, the observations from within the projection should be "blurry" so no detail at a plank scale should be resolvable. We should see a blurring of particles and forces at around 10^-16 metres, much smaller than Plank length - This is because the volume of the projected sphere of the universe is much larger than the number of quibits than can be contained on the surface, so the bits inside the projection must loose detail and be made of larger chunks relative to the plank sized quibits on the surface. http://scienceblogs.com/purepedantry/200...phic_p.php
Also the De Sitter universe, spacetime as a flat region, is only necessary for the 2D brane that generates the projection, from within the projection we should see a spheroid that is finite yet infinitely traversable - This reconciles both the observations of a spheroid universe and the mathematical contention that the net energy must be zero.
Quote:So at the moment MSSM is the leading candiated for a Grand unfication Theory..
It's certainly appealing in that it requires no major new axioms in physics, but I don't think it's going to hold up. At least it's falsifiable and can be verified by experiment in the not too distant future.
(July 25, 2011 at 2:22 pm)Chuck Wrote: For a counterpoint, read Lee Smolin. In Lee's opinion, string theory is a mathematically indulgence disguising itself as a scientific theory, which has severely handicapped actual productivity of theoretical physics for 30 years by pushing every more untestable musings that makes no specific prediction, thus despite making ever more fantastic claims of infinite promise, had in reality made the last 30 years the only 30 year period since Newton when nothing new has really been added to the fundation of physics.
He also argued that strong theory blighted 2 whole generation of physicsts by training them to favor mathematical cleverness and extravagant visualizing over intellectual vigor of the testable hypothesis.
I always admire a good counterpoint, I'll check it out, though I highly doubt that string theory has anything to do with the lack of discoveries - most physicists I've read on the subject put such a thing down to the lack of ability to probe high energy and small scale phenomenon - The deeper we get the further and fewer between new fundamental discoveries are likely to be. Seeing as the mathematics of the standard model has all but been resolved the lack of experimental grout seems much more a factor.
And don't be so quick to say that string theory makes no testable predictions, there are at least a few that may be within the realm of testability, as I stated above Dark Flow was predicted by string theorists before it was observed, that predictive power while being in no way a definite conformation for the truth of the model is certainly impressive.
.
