Bill Quick

Particle physicists bemoan a perfect theory | Ars Technica

The Standard Model uses two things: gauge theories (of which there are an infinite number) and symmetry. The symmetry tells us which gauge theory to use. In the landscape, the idea is that all gauge theories that are physical should be generated by the landscape. Each gauge theory then corresponds to its own universe with its own physics and fundamental constants.

The point is that starting from an arrangement of strings and branes, one can derive not just the Standard Model, but many, many different versions of the Standard Model. This would normally be a bad sign. But if we were looking for an underlying description of a multiverse, this isn’t a bad starting place.

The problem, of course, is that the string landscape makes a proposal that is inherently untestable. Not so, according to one of the speakers. And here we come back to the missing energy raised by one of the experimentalists. Missing mass could be due to large(ish) dimensions beyond the four we know and love, which could be taken as evidence for string theory. Or, as many other physicists will tell you, it could be evidence for alternatives. Either way, it will be a difficult job to analyze the data in such a way that the possibilities are narrowed.

Particle physics (and cosmology) have both gone way beyond my pathetic ability to comprehend them.

Posted in Science permalink
Bill Quick

About Bill Quick

I am a small-l libertarian. My primary concern is to increase individual liberty as much as possible in the face of statist efforts to restrict it from both the right and the left. If I had to sum up my beliefs as concisely as possible, I would say, "Stay out of my wallet and my bedroom," "your liberty stops at my nose," and "don't tread on me." I will believe that things are taking a turn for the better in America when married gays are able to, and do, maintain large arsenals of automatic weapons, and tax collectors are, and do, not.


Mystery — 4 Comments

    • And we end up with more and more outrageous speculations like this one: Stephen Hawking: ‘There are no black holes’

      Stephen Hawking has produced a “mind-bending” new theory that argues black holes do not actually exist – at least not in the way we currently perceive them.

      Instead, in his paper, Information Preservation and Weather Forecasting for Black Holes, Hawking proposes that black holes can exist without ‘event horizons’, the invisible cover believed to surround every black hole.

      If there is no event horizon, how can it be a black hole?

      • An event horizon is the point of no return (well, surface of no return) closer than which nothing can escape the gravity.

        Without the event horizon part of the description, a black hole is pretty much the same, except that particles/photons/whatever can escape if they have enough energy, such as enough to convince a typical millenial libtard that Obamduh isn’t the messiah. In practical terms, it’s equivalent to infinity, or maybe a bit more than that.

        (Note to anyone reading: this comment was based on no physics whatsoever and was merely a cheap shot at dumbasses.)