String theory fails first major experimental test (article)

I have not posted any interesting articles for some time so here is something for the science minded people of our lovely forum

A few years ago, a group of physicists came up with an ingenious way to test for the existence of hidden dimensions, a key aspect of many string theory models. Basically, the experiment rests upon the existence of micro black holes, objects tinier than an atomic nucleus that could theoretically be produced by smashing together a pair of protons at tremendously high velocities.

Well, they ran the experiment, and the results are less than encouraging. The LHC has completed an extensive search for these objects in high-energy proton collisions, and no evidence at all turned up for micro black holes between 3.5 and 4.5 tera-electron-volts. That's a massive energy level and pretty much the upper limit of what we can currently test. This more or less rules out versions of string theory that includes micro black holes at those energies.

If you are interested in the rest of the article follow the link below

io9.com...

It's still early days. I'm sure they will find better ways to confirm string theory (or not...)

I think it is because the big hitters, IMHO accept for Dr. Kaku, refuse to accept any possibility of hyperdimensional physics being the real mechanism that drives things. I don't know for certain but there is some truths to be found down that path of study, I would bet my life on it. Plus the fundamental understanding of the Uni is being challenged at so many levels with new finds almost daily that contradict the current paradigm, it is obvious we are off somewhere in our basic precepts. Perhaps the missing Maxwell equations, the ones purportedly removed by the end of the 19th century, were a real clue. I suspect Nicola Tesla had direct knowledge of such equations and those who think for themselves can see that too! Considering the current Physicist studies continually exclude knowledge of things that do work sitting perfectly still, like mangets and electro magnets for instance, then why not go ahead and exclude other provable scientific data? I know it is true, there is energy being exuded by a magnet while at rest! Ignoring the obvious and ostrachizing the messenger who brings data that disagrees is their tactics so far. They will continue to fail with that approach, no doubt about it!

I see the LHC akin to attempting brain surgery through car accidents. It is an amazing and remarkable feat to even get a glimpse of the sub atomic world, but these are just the first tentative steps.

I agree that those are the "early days" but the problem is that we will not have much more power available to the LHC , at least that is how I understand it . So now we get to the point where we either need another biger more powerful version of the collider (which probably will not happen soon) or we find another way of trying to prove the theory .

But on the other side of the coin is the fact that they (scientist) can always say "we need more power " , "we need better tech" , " we need *enter another excuse" .. so when is it time to say " we were wrong , lets check some other stuff out " ?

Just to be clear I am not against string theory , nor am I for it , just observing from the side and commenting

reply to post by Thill


I am not against it either, I meant to say. I do think we are destined to find these things but we cannot allow any truth to be left out there in seeking to prove one theory or another.

i for one person am glad the string theory is looking less like being the unifying theory
as string theory has to many unknow variables
i personally like the superfluidity models that are being developed
after all some of the LHC results do repeatedly find a fluidity
and i wounder if a new idea in quantium came along
that was simple and could be tested
would we take it on board
or would we cling to the model we are trying to prove currently

i think science is in for a major shift soon (to a new model) untill another model displaces it

this is the cycle of science

xploder

Originally posted by Thill
To be fair , the article states that this does not invalidate the string theory just yet , but it does put it into the realms of doubt .

They've been working on string theory for how long? Four decades? I think that's long enough.

I don't see how we can put it in the realm of doubt, when it never got out of the realm of doubt to begin with. There's never been any real physical evidence string theory is true, has there?

String theory needs to make some predictions that can be tested. (over and above these tests that failed).

If we can't demonstrate real-world experiments confirm string theory, I think it should be moved from the university physics department to the mathematics department, as it's purely a mathematical exercise if there's no real world observations supporting it.

Here's a snapshot from a presentation on string theory by a string theorist (David Gross):
[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/e651576dc6cc.jpg[/atsimg]
Source: www.youtube.com...

If you watch that presentation you can see how much string theorists don't know about string theory.

What about the holographic universe model? Would invalidation of string theory have any implications on that? Its been a really long time since I've studied this stuff..

reply to post by Arbitrageur


I agree buddy, four decades and we do not even have the elementary calculations on the subject. If string theory continues it will be for theoretical mathematicians alone. 400+ years at our current level of understanding.

As for other dimensions at the LHC they are not even close to seeing what can be done, they are only at half power right now. And very few of the billions of collisions recorded actually give a unusual collision, which is what we are looking for. The LHC will be at 7 TeV per protoN beam in 2013 after the march 2012 shut down for routine maintenance and after a couple of months to a year will be when things get interesting regardless.

It will either prove SUSY, which is a big part of M-theory or it will not. It will also show us if the Higgs will actually show up, and I'm putting money on it that it doesn't. And if there is no Higgs, then we have to worry about the standard model, which, well is what all physics is based around.

So, I would not be to concerned about micro black holes, which I hope do not show up as well, as Hawking would get a Nobel, as the Higgs is much more important.

Pred...