String theory researchers simulate big-bang on supercomputer

Something string theory fails to explain is this:

How can more dimensions be more fundamental than less dimensions?

In classical math, we'd certainly argue that a cube is more complex than a square, and the area and volume formulas bear that out.

Similarly, a sphere is more complex than a circle, and again this is born out by the formulas for area, for example.

Dimension should originate from the fundamental, not the other way around.

It would seem that the only way "more" dimensions could be "more fundamental" is if there are actually an infinite number of dimensions.

We can imagine n dimensions, or infinite dimensions and even devise the formula for spatial objects properties; but then again, I can also imagine pink elephants with wings, and calculate how big the wing span would need to be to achieve flight...

Either way, doesn't make it real just because you can imagine it.

There has to be something more to the science than this speculations.

there are an infinite number of dimensions that don't "exist"

Something string theory fails to explain is this:

How can more dimensions be more fundamental than less dimensions?

Dimension should originate from the fundamental, not the other way around.

It would seem that the only way "more" dimensions could be "more fundamental" is if there are actually an infinite number of dimensions.

Why do we need a specific level of "fundamental-ness" in describing anything? Is there a way to explain the universe as being a single point?

Either way, doesn't make it real just because you can imagine it.

Indeed...

@Nano,

one of the best posts i have seen on physorg. there seems to be a religious group of "scientists" calling particles "god-particles", and the bigbang a "theory" instead of a hypothesis.

String HYPOTHESIS.

...and there are more string theories (100^500) than atomes in the known universe (10^80). String theory IS religion.

oops ... 10^500 string theories

Lots of ways of wrapping those other dimensions (i.e. 10^500 theories). We don't have any known mechanism for picking one, but that doesn't mean there isn't any.

Why do we need a specific level of "fundamental-ness" in describing anything? Is there a way to explain the universe as being a single point?

Well, in the past, as we discovered "more fundamental" laws and particles, our technologies have improved, and I suppose this is more true of electronics and computers than anything else.

Conventional production has been positional assembly and molding of things. Which is macroscopic.

then we discovered vaccines and antibiotics, which is chemical, but largely biological "microscopic" processes, like enhancing yeasts or other organics in food productions. So this was a smaller, "more fundamental" scale, perhaps.

Now, people are starting to engineer "atomically precise" machines and atomically precise alloys, because there is more "power" to control the structure and properties available, to make stronger materials, faster computers, etc.

The more "fundamental" the level of reality manipulated, the more potential improvements

So where that ties back into String Theory, or any unified theory, is that if you could learn to manipulate Quarks or "whatever" the universe is really made of, then you could probably make even more powerful technologies to do things like teleportation or faster computers, or unbreakable building materials, etc.

If you had a unified theory, you might be able to figure out how to make engines that are 99% efficient, or produce artificial gravity fields from an electric power supply, etc.

So that is why finding a "more fundamental" theory is, or might be, very important and very useful.

We can imagine ... infinite dimensions and even devise the formula for spatial objects properties; ... I can also imagine pink elephants with wings, and calculate how big the wing span would need to be to achieve flight...

Either way, doesn't make it real just because you can imagine it.

There has to be something more to the science than this speculations.

Happily, science proper, is not about just invoking an inordinate number of degrees of freedom, in order to model anything and everything.

There is also the expected independent empirical justification for invoking each degree of freedom, as well as the constraints imposed by existing physical knowledge.

For example, when quarks were first proposed, it was just a means of classifying the multitude of hadrons. Though quarks can't be observed directly, there is now observational justification for them and their "types",.. up, down, strange, charm, etc.

With increasing number of dimensions all formal theories will converge into similar noise, so you can simulate the big bang with wave equation with the same reliability.

This experiment only proves that this version of string theory is self consistent. Great. It shows that theorists can troubleshoot or fact check and do math.

This still doesn't make any change to the fact that we have Theories with evidence over here on the right, and we have God and his strings over there on the left...

What it does change is that now we van 8maybe) get string theory to the point that it can actually make a prediction that is different to the standard model - so we can finally test it.

That has been, until now, the major problem. With its infinite adaptability and open variables string theory wasn't falsifiable (and hence wasn't scientific in the strict sense of the word).

I'm not a big fan of string theory, but if it turns out to work better than the standard model then, hey, that's good enough for me.

Nanobanano:

How can more dimensions be more fundamental than less dimensions? Dimension should originate from the fundamental, not the other way around."

How can three dimensions--such as longitude, latitude, and altitude--give a more useful description of a location than just the two-dimensional longitude and latitude?
Well, suppose you're a pilot wondering whether you'll clear that mountain range ahead....
(Some situations require more specification than you might think, or wish. However, we were not consulted when the parameters of the universe were established.)

kaasinees:

one of the best posts i have seen on physorg. there seems to be a religious group of "scientists" calling particles "god-particles", and the bigbang a "theory" instead of a hypothesis.

1. They are actual scientists, not "scientists".
2. Only the Higgs boson is nicknamed the "God particle", and that's because Leon Lederman's editor objected to his calling it "the 'goddamn particle,' because 'nobody could find the thing.'" (See Lederman's book, _The God Particle: If the Universe Is the Answer, What Is the Question?_)
3. The Big Bang (note: two words, and capitalized) is a theory, not a mere hypothesis. A hypothesis is a supposition; a theory is a well-developed set of ideas which have stood up to experimental tests (so far, at least!).

chuckscherl:

...and there are more string theories (10^500) than atoms in the known universe (10^80). String theory IS religion.

Correction: there are about 10^500 possible *solutions* to the equations of the one *theory*.

This experiment only proves that this version of string theory is self consistent. Great. It shows that theorists can troubleshoot or fact check and do math.

You don't know, how many parameters were used to fit this theory to Big Bang model. Mathematically you can simulate the motion of Sun about Earth (epicycles) or the Hollow Earth Theory (Euler). In math everything is possible, because the math doesn't recognize time concept. Physics does.

I forget the exact quote, but Descartes said something like "a theory need not meet what a philosopher would know as the truth, so long as it makes accurate predictions."

It shows a bit of a paradox, does it not?

A theory CAN make accurate predictions, and yet be "untrue".

BUT, for human purposes, it doesn't necessarily even matter.

It actually flies in the face of the scientific method, because of the belief that "truth" is found by repeatedly testing predictions of a theory.

But aperson could make any number of Relativity substitutes, and all of them make good predictions to within margin of error of instrumentation.

MOND appears to make good predictions too.

What is the "truth"?

Your pet theory might work "on paper", but is it true? or does it merely appear to be true because you haven't considered all possibilities?

A theory CAN make accurate predictions, and yet be "untrue".

A map is not the territory. A theory is not the reality. It merely models the reality.
'Truth' is not part of science because you can, ultimately, never tell whether the theory is correct or whether everything you ever observed wasn't all just fluke events that look like they conform to a certain regularity.

E.g: Was the observed sequence 1,2,3,4,5 created by chance or by a formula? We don't know. Observing "6" as the next event doesn't settle the matter, either...etc., etc. )

You can only ever tell with a certain measure of certainty whether a theory holds (which is always less than 100%)...and that only until your next measurement.

A theory CAN make accurate predictions, and yet be "untrue".

Actually the more quantitative theory is, the faster it becomes misleading outside the scope of its validity. You can find the optimal way through fractal terrain faster, if you average it and don't bother the details. Actually, from dense aether theory follows, there is always duality between quantitatively and qualitatively exact theories. The more theory becomes deterministic, the faster it becomes misleading and vice versa. It's sort of uncertainty principle. The schematically thinking people tend to become wrong at times. http://money.cnn....ndex.htm

It doesn't mean, the local theories are wrong and general OK - they're just dual. We don't use more general theories (general relativity) for computation of details (boiling point of water) from apparent reason: they become poorly conditioned here. And vice-versa: locally exact theories are poorly conditioned globally.

Actually, if you believe the universe is an ordered system, then the numbers could not have been made by chance.

Chance is merely an illusion caused by the inability of the human mind to comprehend all the variables involved.

Even "random" numbers are generated by a formula.

But the catch is that in nature, it need not be the formula you think it is.

But here's something of interest.

The Geocentric model of the universe was discarded, in part, because the heliocentric model is "easier". Nevermind the fact in Relativity there is no prefered reference frame, so neither is correct nor incorrect.

Anyway, now, science has returned to needed countless "epicycles" at smaller and smaller scales to describe matter:

Molecules are made of Atoms

Atoms are made of Nuclei, which are "orbited" by electron/cloud, etc. (kinda grouping several models together, but you see the point)

Then you have Quarks.

Then you have attempts to fill in the spaces: Twistor, strings, etc

interesting, now we just need to figure out a way to be able to make string theory testable. Who knows, this could end up being a huge step in that direction. to be fair though it could also end up not the case.

A typical example of the duality of local and global theories is the laissez-faire economy model. Free market approach work very well at the communal level, but because it's essentially atemporal (free market always operates with current prices only), it becomes misleading from long term perspective or at the global level. Under such a situation the centrally controlled economy may work better, but it leads to socialism, when applied at local level. These two approaches must be always balanced. Please note, at the sub-local level the free market economy doesn't work well too, as the social relations inside of families cannot work at the principle of free market only: family is supposed to be a long term bundle.

Very similar scheme we can observe at the water surface: at the very long and short distances is driven with longitudinal waves, with deterministic transverse waves at the medium ones.

So then, as it turns out, the microscopic world appears to be made of epicycles after all.

Indeed, the entire universe is made of epicycles.

After all:

stars orbit one another, and SMBH in the center of galaxies.

Galaxies orbit one another and galaxy clusters.

Galaxy clusters orbit one another and super clusters and possibly "the Great Attractor", etc.

All of that is, after all, epicycles.

Once you admit that the entire universe is composed of epicycles at all levels of existence, then you can see that the Heliocentric model is at least as flawed than the Geocentric model.

In fact, the Earth IS at the center of the observable universe, because the "Light Horizon" is, by definition, the same distance in every direction, seeing as how in Relativity, combined with the Hubble Constant, the distance to the light horizon is the same for every observer...

we just need to figure out a way to be able to make string theory testable

The problem is, the string theory is based on combination of quantum mechanics and (special) relativity theory. These two theories are already known inconsistent, as they lead to the different predictions of the same quantity, like the cosmological constant and/or energy density of the vacuum. And this difference is huge: hundreds of orders in magnitude. It explains, why string theory leads to the fuzzy landscape of 10E500 solutions, so it cannot be never validated in its entirety.

Only partial versions of string theory can be more relevant at the moment, when they're neglecting one or more of most colliding postulates of underlying theories. For example, if you omit the requirement of Lorentz symmetry from ST, then the ST may work quite well, because just the Lorentz symmetry violates the concept of extradimensions (the extradimensions will manifest itself just with violation of Lorentz symmetry).

Thnk about that.

They are spending all this money looking for super strings without any ability to falsify it.

For all you know, everything follows an invisible path in the sky for no other reason that God said so, and that's no more or less falsifiable than String Theory, yet it could be just as well true, and probably is.

But A_P admitted it.

You can't prove a theory true regarding predicting the Nth term in a sequence, or predicting a trend.

The prediction could be accurate by "chance," (in the sense of probability, not the sense of randomness, lest I seem to be contradicting myself,) regardless of how slim the odds really are.

You are right. If you predict a "6", you may be right, but that doesn't prove your assumption about the nature of any formula to be "true".

For all we know, the "real" formula in nature could be piece-wise defined, and make some change we couldn't possibly predict ahead of time.

Maybe it changes from linear to quadratic for X = 6..

Actually, if you believe the universe is an ordered system, then the numbers could not have been made by chance.

That's what it boils down to. If you actively discount randomness as the source of everything then you can say something is true. But that would be like saying: "The week has six days if I ignore mondays."
It's a true statement within its context - but the 'blind spot' causes it to be ultimately not true.

Once you admit that the entire universe is composed of epicycles at all levels of existence, then you can see that the Heliocentric model is at least as flawed than the Geocentric model.

Both are equally flawed because there is a transform that can map from one to the other. Heliocentricity is (for our purposes) simpler. 'Simple', however, does not automatically equate to 'true' (or Einstein would never have replaced Newton).

And so we come to the crux of the problem, which is this:

Modern science only appears to be correct, but actually isn't correct at all.

The problem with unification theories is they attempt to patch a fallacy.

If you have a counterfeit, or a fallacy that only appears to be true to within certain limits, well, putting imaginary patches on it isn't going to make it any more legitimate or complete.

If we take Descartes' position that we should doubt everything at least once, then maybe the entirety of physics needs to be re-evaluated and re-defined in a way that is consistent with nature and observation, but avoids the pitfalls of the present paradigm of patches.

A particularly funny is the recent prediction of the mass of Higgs boson with string theory at the range 122-129 GeV - just a few days, before the finding of Higgs boson at the 126 GeV has been announced by CERN. It's indeed interesting coincidence, as the string theory emerged in 1968 and so far it ignored Higgs boson model heartily because of lack of reliable predictions. This is how the propaganda is done in contemporary science.

http://arxiv.org/abs/1112.1059

Richard Feynman once said, the string theorists don't make predictions, they make excuses.

For exmaple, we can have textbook definitions, but...

What IS energy?
What IS mass?
What IS dimension?

In our textbook examples, we deal in objects moving in one dimension, yet the Kinetic Energy formula, as well as the Work formula, are multi-dimensional constructs.

E = Mc^2 rest mass
Ek = (1/2)mv^2

How does gravity "know" it has an inverse squared relationship?

You will say, "well, there's a field.."

Oh really? How does the field "know" it's own parameters? Wouldn't that require more charge carriers or other "information" carrying particles?

Then again, relativity was devised under the notion of spatial continuity.

But the conception of continuity is difficulty to "really" grasp, since the brain is itself composed of "packets" called cells, or neurons. The brain is in that sense "quantum" because it's smallest unit is a neuron.

But a continual curve of warped space-time from gravity allegedly has no "packets".

How can more dimensions be more fundamental than less dimensions? ...a sphere is more complex than a circle, and again this is born out by the formulas for area, for example.

In dense aether theory a good reason exists for it, because all very hyperdimensional objects appear like random particle gas, when penetrating 3D space. You can imagine it, if you take a thin slice of swiss cheese - albeit its rather compact in the bulk state, there is large probability, it will disintegrate into many smaller pieces, when sliced in thin layer. The higher dimensional object we are observing from low dimensional perspective, the more it appears random. For example, you can project a regularly rotating rod in three dimensions at the plane with using a directional light source - its shadow will move irregularly, because the portion of information about smooth motion in another directions will be always lost. Note that the average length of rod will appear shortened during this.

Now here's the deal, in mathematics, a line is continuous, or a curve is continuous, but then what happened?

quantum theory came along and says, "Well, matter and energy aren't actually continuous. They appear only in discreet packets".

which is then a problem for ALL of the theorys and formulae presented above, because of the squaring and halfing of the velocity.

Ek = (1/2)mv^2

Well that's continuous.

But a Solar Sail could theoretically convert a single photon into thrust, and there is no "half photon".

What IS energy?
What IS mass?
What IS dimension?

These are just the questions, for which the dense aether theory is good for. For example, the inverse square law for gravity is explained with shielding geometry in aether theory. The string theory cannot answer these questions by its very nature, because it's highly derived theory: it uses general relativity for its derivation, which is using the inverse square law in its derivation. It's separated from the original explanation of gravity by at least two levels. So, if you want to propose such an explanation, you should forget to both general relativity, both quantum mechanics and you should propose very new general theory, which enables to derive these theories instead from scratch.

But a Solar Sail could theoretically convert a single photon into thrust, and there is no "half photon".

It just means, for very tiny accelerations the solar sail will violate relativity on behalf of quantum mechanics. It will make tiny jumps in space due the Brownian noise of vacuum, i.e. the CMBR noise. Actually, just the wavelength and energy density of CMBR is the natural boundary of distance and energy density scale, where the general relativity becomes violated with quantum mechanics. In AWT it's not accidental, this distance scale corresponds just the size of solitons inside of human brain, because we are adopted to it and we are observing the Universe from inside bellow this distance scale and from outside above of it.

http://www.aethrw...cale.gif

If everything is predetermined, then probability itself is an illusion.

You believe there are two possibilities when you flip a coin: heads or tails.

If you are very smart you might even recognize a third possibility: the coin could land on edge and stick!

At any rate, you believe there are some combination of possibilities, but you are wrong.

After all, if everything is predetermined, then only one of the "possibilities" is really possible!

The others are an illusion, a fallacy, a farce, something you believe "might have been," but indeed never could have been, because the outcome was inevitable.

When you play craps, you do NOT have "odds" of winning or losing. If everything is predetermined, you will either win or lose each bet because you were "meant to".

No, Gandalf, I don't find that comforting.

I find it sickening the notion that Hitler was "meant" to kill Jews, and Bin Laden and the Kamikazees were each "meant" to kill Americans.

And consider this:

The Greeks had the notion of determinism in the form of "The Three Fates".

Well, gee, isn't that what the "Laws of the Universe" amount to?

Unified forces would effectively be "Fate".

You could literally call this unified force "Fate" or perhaps "Destiny", for to have a religiously neutral term, and be correct, I think, in every sense.

In a certain way, you can therefore unify all forces, that is, if everything is predetermined, by simply saying, "Who gives a damn how it happens? It's meant to be!"

There, I just unified all of the forces of the universe, even any forces I don't know about, right? Well, at least if things are pre-determined I have.

I'm doing exactly what I was MEANT to do, and whether you or I like it or not!

Whatever "meant to be" is it might be "meant to be" unpredictable.

But I don't find that comforting at all. It's some kind of a joke, and not even a good one.

OK, is someone standing in for Nanobanano?

If not, I'm going to have to check my meds, because Nano - I think I agree with just about everything you've posted on this thread!

Which means, of course, that if we can just get past the whole "AGW" issue, I'm going to have to put you on my Christmas list! Naturally, I maintain that I still have a choice in the matter, despite admitting that there are variables that have probably escaped my detection.

Keep up the good work!

I've never heard of type IIB superstring theory. I've heard of 11-dimensional ST so maybe I'm biased. Anyway they say some dimensions are folded up. Why just some? Maybe the 4 dimensions of spacetime are also folded up but just not to the same degree as the others. So I figured what happens when they fold up? Well there has to be some folding force. AHA. There are four fundamental forces in nature so they could be folded up dimensions. Well that's fine. But that's only a total of 8 dimensions. Strange.

Well what about quintessence, the fifth force causing expansion of spacetime? Well that only makes 9 dimensions. But wait. Quintessence acts on all 3 spatial dimensions. So maybe quintessence has 3 dimensions too. So we add 2 dimensions and now we have a total of 11. Abracadabra. 11 dimensions. Maybe it does make sense.

Excluding time, the universe has as many dimensions as Shiva has arms.

You can't get any more fundamental than that.

"Anyway they say some dimensions are folded up. Why just some?" - Seeker

God hid them to test your faith in his divine creation, and to provide a place to put all of the socks that vanish from all of the dryers all over the universe.

to Nanobanano: More dimensions is more fundamental.

Take five forces, five spaces, and virtual time (the derivative of a force applied to space). How many variables are required? 11.

Now go back down to three spatial dimensions, one of time, and model forces, strong, weak, gravity, EM, and higgs field. Back to nine dimensions (or variables). Why are two missing?

Because there are two spatial dimensions that are required (the Calabi-Yau manifold).

A clearer model, a more fundamental model, explains the "weakness" of gravity and the "strength" of the strong force.

10^500 string theories

I think it's very likely that this is not a 'bug' but a 'feature'. It's like complaining about Newtonian gravity because it does not explain why the earth is the size/mass/distance from the sun etc. that it is (hint: it's not the only planet out there).

Just because there are plenty of ways to scrunch up the hidden dimensions does not mean only one way is correct, we just live in this universe because they wrapped up in the right way to give rise to a universe amenable to our kind of life evolving, just like the earth being just right for us not because that is the only way it can work, but because if it wasn't the way it is we would not be here to debate it.

It's fascinating seeing some people with no expertise in a field argue amongst themselves as if they actually know something. Keep at it everyone! Hope you enjoy butting heads in the comments section of an physics article.

I wonder if they will be able to go back and show why the 3 dimensions tends to expand out leaving 6 compactified from first principles. Also curious as to what they used for initial conditions in this setup and if that had any impact on the results.

agree with the above,
6x7=42
40 2=42
6*6 6=42

see?! Many ways to get to the ultimate answer.

But seriously, people are debunking string theory in favour of aetherwae theory and others because it intuitively doesn't match their view of reality?

I would absolutely agree String theory is highly speculative, but find it a tat naive, even arrogant to think these views make up a better description of reality then strings could possibly do.

If everything is predetermined, then probability itself is an illusion.

If everything can be predetermined, then how do you explain the double split experiment? As I understand it, the interference pattern is formed by the probabilities of a particles path interfering with themselves.

This experiment only proves that this version of string theory is self consistent. Great. It shows that theorists can troubleshoot or fact check and do math.

You don't know, how many parameters were used to fit this theory to Big Bang model. Mathematically you can simulate the motion of Sun about Earth (epicycles) or the Hollow Earth Theory (Euler). In math everything is possible, because the math doesn't recognize time concept. Physics does.

Its funny how you fail to mention YOUR pet theory Hmmm?

Modern science only appears to be correct, but actually isn't correct at all.

No. The real problem is that laymen think science has something to do with the search for 'truth'.
Science is the search for what WORKS (i.e. getting USEFUL descriptions of the reality we live in)

Truth is something for philosophers - not scientists. Truth is ultimately also just a concept (because, in a nutshell, it requires the dichotomy of true/fals. The universe, however, is a whole, because nothing is truly independent of anything else in it. A fundamentally indivisible unit cannot contain true/false information - which requires absolute divisibility)

Even "random" numbers are generated by a formula.

No. That you can describe the distribution of random numbers does not mean a formula can be had for describing the individual events. For a finite number of events you can always FIT a formula. But there need not be a connection between what you fit and the actual reality of the events.

Science is the search for what WORKS (i.e. getting USEFUL descriptions of the reality we live in)

Actually, string theory works, because it generates useful salary for scientists involved, i.e. it's useful for some limited group of people. The fact, it cannot predict anything testable (big bang simulation doesn't belong between testable events so far) makes apparently no trouble for the people involved. The phenomena, which could be really useful for the people, like the cold fusion, aren't researched at all by the very same logics. They're not useful for theorists because it can even threat their salaries and social prestige.

.. some people with no expertise in a field argue amongst themselves as if they actually know something

The trick is, you're not required to be a broody hen for to be able to recognize an aged egg. Actually, for many experts their theories appear selfconsistent, just because they're not confronting them with another facts. A typical example is the relativist, who is believing, the light is spreading with constant speed, although it's already revolving curved space at place. The vacuum, which is filled with myriads of these tiny lens can therefore slow down speed of light substantially, although from strictly local perspective it still fulfils relativity perfectly, so that experts can see any problem with it.

http://www.aether...vity.gif

It's well knows, the experts are often more wrong from this reason, then the people, who have shallow, but broad view into problems.

http://money.cnn....ndex.htm

10^500 string theories ...I think it's very likely that this is not a 'bug' but a 'feature'.

Of course, from perspective of dense aether model it's quite physical result. After all, in the same way, like the Standard Model, which cannot predict the mass of Higgs boson. It gives a direct clue of what the Higgs field really is: a fractal field of density fluctuations of all sizes possible.

But this insight means too, it has no meaning to invest money into improvement of such paradigm anymore - it will always remain fuzzy because it uses mutually inconsistent postulate set of underlying theories, which are supplying different values for the same phenomena. The string theorists are trying to cover these trivial connections obstinately, or they would face the premature lost of their jobs. And learning of string theory is not easy: it takes a substantial part of productive life - so everyone, who manages it is trying to materialize his ability as long as possible.

If everything is predetermined, then probability itself is an illusion.
If everything can be predetermined, then how do you explain the double split experiment? As I understand it, the interference pattern is formed by the probabilities of a particles path interfering with themselves.

It seems like the probabilities would be pretty high if the experiment is repeatable.

...the Standard Model, which cannot predict the mass of Higgs boson.

Strange. I wonder if it can predict the existence of this thing.

...the Standard Model, which cannot predict the mass of Higgs boson. Strange. I wonder if it can predict the existence of this thing.

The physicists are indeed struggling with this problem too and they're trying to introduce another less or more artificial constrains into Standard Model, which would limit the fuzziness of Higgs boson predictions. They're calling them an "extensions" of Standard Model. The most popular extension is the supersymmetry model, so called SUSY. The same extension helps the string theory with its fuzziness and the string theory with such an extension is called a "superstring" theory after then. The point is, the SUSY model is not related to any particular theory at all, it has been originally developed for improvement of Feynman's electrodynamics. It means, if the SUSY will be proven wrong, it doesn't mean Standard Model or String theory are wrong, just their supersymmetric extensions are wrong.

One problem is, the SUSY model is very general and it can be implemented many ways into existing theories. It increases the number of adjustable parameters greatly. For example, in its basic form the Standard Model used about twenty six parameters, i.e. various physical constants for its tuning. The so-called minimal supersymmetric extension of Standard Model (so-called the MSSM) introduces another hundred of them!

http://en.wikiped...rd_Model

The basic idea of SUSY can be understood with AWT in the following way. All surface ripples are dispersing at the distance. This dispersion is essentially shapeless - but we can consider, the longitudinal waves dispersed interfere mutually with remaining transverse waves into new kind of solitons, i.e. well defined particles, the rest mass of which can be predicted. IMO this mechanism is correct, but its meaning is misunderstood heavily in the same way, like the physical meaning of extradimensions, etc.

One prediction of SUSY model is, the mutual interference of transverse and longitudinal waves can lead into dual pairs of particles. For example the analogy of photons at the water surface can be understood as a product of interference of surface ripples with underwater ones. But the underwater waves can interfere with surface ripples too under formation of supersymmetric particles, the property of which will be very similar to neutrinos. The SUSY model calls them "photinos". One important point here is, the superpartners of bosons (like the photons) will be fermions and vice versa. The higher rest mass the original particle has, the more lightweight their superpartner will be and vice-versa. From this follows, the observable neutrinos would be superpartners of very heavy gamma ray photons. But physicists don't realize this connection and they're seeking for new particles instead of neutrinos, so called WIMPs, which would play the role of photon superpartners.

The basic idea of SUSY can be understood with AWT in the following way.

If SUSY is wrong and AWT is correct why do I need to understand it with AWT?

If SUSY is wrong and AWT is correct why do I need to understand it with AWT

I didn't said the SUSY is wrong, as it has a good meaning in context of AWT. It's actually more relevant than it appears in the same way, like the extradimensions of string theory, which are all around us. For example the electrons around atom nuclei could be considered as an supersymmetric particles too. They're formed with mutual interference/resonance of longitudinal and transverse waves. On the same principle the quarks are working.

Unfortunately with increasing energy density scale all SUSY effects tend to vanish and disappear in the omnipresent noise like the distant landscape under the fog. Which disfavours the possibility of finding of distinct supersymmetric particles under such a circumstances.

...if the SUSY will be proven wrong, it doesn't mean Standard Model or String theory are wrong, just their supersymmetric extensions are wrong

Ok so if no Higgs no SUSY but the Standard Model would still be ok.

Standard Model without extensions actually points to the symmetric decays under absence of distinct Higgs particles, so it will be rather supported with it instead.

Standard Model without extensions actually points to the symmetric decays under absence of distinct Higgs particles, so it will be rather supported with it instead.

So no Higgs supports the Standard Model?

This experiment only proves that this version of string theory is self consistent. Great. It shows that theorists can troubleshoot or fact check and do math.

You don't know, how many parameters were used to fit this theory to Big Bang model. Mathematically you can simulate the motion of Sun about Earth (epicycles) or the Hollow Earth Theory (Euler). In math everything is possible, because the math doesn't recognize time concept. Physics does.

Incorrect. One thing that bothers physicists is that phyics equations don't care what direction time flows in. Backwards and forwards it is just the same. The only difference is that entropy and the 'laws' of thermodynamics generally move in one direction and not the other. However, there are no mathematical proofs that show why those postulates are true.

Time is just an abstract or arbitrary (But necessary) variable in some ways, and consternates phycisists to no end.

So no Higgs supports the Standard Model?

Standard Model supports Higgs mechanism, not the existence of Higgs as such. For most of physicists (if not all) it's the same stuff, but for me not.

Proof of religious scientists:

youtube.com/watch?v=yV-LzTO-xdg
wikipedia.org/wiki/Gerald_Schroeder

wikipedia.org/wiki/Religious_Science

godandscience.org/apologetics/sciencefaith.html

wikipedia.org/wiki/Relationship_between_religion_and_science

huffingtonpost.com/2011/09/21/religion-and-science-can-coexist_n_974116.html

ehecklund.rice.edu/raas.html

scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=scientists-on-religion

the hypocracy and insanity.

So no Higgs supports the Standard Model?
Standard Model supports Higgs mechanism, not the existence of Higgs as such. For most of physicists (if not all) it's the same stuff, but for me not.

How so?

You may think about Higgs field like about analogy of the Brownian noise at the water surface, which leads into dispersion of surface ripples (boson). These density fluctuations have no characteristic size, yet they disperse the surface waves in the wide range of wavelengths. After all, Higgs mechanism is very similar to mechanism of Casimir force or even gravity, which doesn't require any particular particle for its manifestation too.

Proof of religious scientists:

youtube.com/watch?v=yV-LzTO-xdg
wikipedia.org/wiki/Gerald_Schroeder

wikipedia.org/wiki/Religious_Science

godandscience.org/apologetics/sciencefaith.html

wikipedia.org/wiki/Relationship_between_religion_and_science

huffingtonpost.com/2011/09/21/religion-and-science-can-coexist_n_974116.html

ehecklund.rice.edu/raas.html

scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=scientists-on-religion

the hypocracy and insanity.

that guy is talking out of his ass. he don't have a clue. it would be nice if he answered some of the so called "sceptics" questions (why there were dinosaurs for example). it would be nice to watch him in a debate with a good referee.

kaasinees:

Proof of religious scientists:
the hypocracy [sic] and insanity.

There is no hypocrisy in being both religious and a scientist, so you are not making a (rational) case here.
However, you should remember Einstein's observation:
"Science without religion is lame.
Religion without science is blind."

You may think about Higgs field like about analogy of the Brownian noise at the water surface, which leads into dispersion of surface ripples (boson). These density fluctuations have no characteristic size, yet they disperse the surface waves in the wide range of wavelengths. After all, Higgs mechanism is very similar to mechanism of Casimir force or even gravity, which doesn't require any particular particle for its manifestation too.

I think I understand. The Higgs field is quantum fluctuations. Maybe a Higgs boson is a particle created from a Higgs field?

Here's a crazy idea:

Time is relative, einstein said. That statement can be true because unlike maths where when we count three apples on a table, there are, three apples on a table, that is unlike allot in physics, not a theory.(Although if someone could come up with a theory to contest that i would be very exited.)

So when this article talks about the 9/26 dimensions, I have a problem because what defines dimensions is as biologists who like or brain in particular will vouch, is mearly our perception.

What this all boils down to in my head (That i should mention has just yet to attempt my IGCSE co-ordinated science MOC's-High school science)is, wouldn't it be interesting to take a new perspective on dimensions and see them as man-made? come up with something new, something more 3 apple'y?

There is no hypocrisy in being both religious and a scientist, so you are not making a (rational) case here.

How can you (as scientist) believe in something that can neither be proven or dis-proven?

However, you should remember Einstein's observation:
"Science without religion is lame.
Religion without science is blind."

You should also remember that he wrote this as a response to receiving the book "Choose Life: The Biblical Call to Revolt" from a philosopher. In the same letter he described religion as a "childish superstition".

So I think it's safe to assume that he wasn't giving religion any credence here. Einstein did have something going for 'faith' but not in a religious sense. (E.g. having faith that science is a correct way of going about unraveling the secrets of the universe)

How can you (as scientist) believe in something that can neither be proven or dis-proven?

I actually haven't met any scientist in my career (at least in mathematics, physics, biology or medicine) who were overtly religious. I would agree that science and religion don't mix.

antialias,

Einstein rejected contemporary religions. However, he did believe in a god, but not a god that was concerned with or intervened in human affairs. His 'faith' was deeper than a self-serving belief that "science is the correct way of going about unraveling the secrets of the universe." But his 'faith' did not go so far as to agree with any of the religious 'stories' that may be found in religious texts.

As far as not having met any religious individuals in science, I think that this is likely more of a reflection of your own beliefs than that of those that surround you. In my experience as a scientist in the same fields you mentioned, I have met many Christians, Jews, Muslims, Hindus, and Taoists. Most do not regularly discuss their beliefs and are not concerned with imposing those beliefs on others. However, to conclude that they are not religious makes about as much sense as concluding that there are no gays in science because no same sex scientist has ever hit on you.

The concept of dimensions are an artifact of our innate need to quantify things in order to understand them. We need to quantise in order to measure... it's a limitation we're stuck with for the moment I'm afraid :-(

But when you look at it in its condensed form we have:

"Science is lame.
Religion is blind."

.... well, I'd much rather be lame than blind :P I disagree with the sentiment from the outset, but yes, I'd rather be lame than blind... and the blindness of religion is stupefying, brutally damaging.

How can you (as scientist) believe in something that can neither be proven or dis-proven?

I actually haven't met any scientist in my career (at least in mathematics, physics, biology or medicine) who were overtly religious. I would agree that science and religion don't mix.

You are religious or you aren't.
"Scientists" who are (semi)religious or people who are unorthodox, hypocrites either way.

You are religious or you aren't.

I used to be when I was a kid - until about the age of six - then I realized it didn't make sense.

How can you (as scientist) believe in something that can neither be proven or dis-proven?

Watch out for those proofs. They require assumptions. These purveyors of truth may have ulterior motives. In QM the only thing you can believe in is possibilities, at least until you make an actual observation.