If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Science Daily) Spiffy Old and busted: String theory can only be tested with a particle accelerator the size of the Earth assuming we can solve the math. New hotness: String theory has a prediction that can be tested. See you in the lab   (sciencedaily.com) divider line 23
More: Spiffy, string theory, particle accelerators, theory of everything, particle physics, Physical Review Letters, entanglement, cosmology, general relativity  
•       •       •

3677 clicks; posted to Geek » on 03 Sep 2010 at 10:56 AM   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»   |    Get this fabulous T-Shirt and impress the methane out of your friends! shirt it!



23 Comments   (+0 »)
   

Archived thread
 
Lt. Cheese Weasel
2010-09-03 11:00:45 AM
img21.imageshack.us
 
Wet Toilette Paper
2010-09-03 11:03:04 AM
I love how often physics goes from, "Hey! That looks pretty similar to that thing I worked with!" to the attempted unifying of the equations.
 
jeffspec [TotalFark]
2010-09-03 11:05:28 AM
Good news everyone....
2.bp.blogspot.com
/Will this kill us all?
//I lay awake at night worrying about this.
///And giant spiders.
 
czetie
2010-09-03 11:27:10 AM
New, new hotness: the claim is complete bollocks.

Peter Woit (of "Not Even Wrong" fame) completely punctures the hyperbole here (new window)

And in fact even leading string theorists including Juan Maldacena and Edward Witten are putting the boot in on Imperial College's inflated claims.
 
Dorf11
2010-09-03 11:49:01 AM
String theory can be tested?

I'm afraid not.

/boo, hiss
 
abb3w [TotalFark]
2010-09-03 12:06:51 PM
Wet Toilette Paper: I love how often physics goes from, "Hey! That looks pretty similar to that thing I worked with!" to the attempted unifying of the equations.

What's really lovable is how often it's been working out since Newton decided apples falling and the moon orbiting both looked like conic section curves.
 
Wet Toilette Paper
2010-09-03 12:21:51 PM
abb3w: Wet Toilette Paper: I love how often physics goes from, "Hey! That looks pretty similar to that thing I worked with!" to the attempted unifying of the equations.

What's really lovable is how often it's been working out since Newton decided apples falling and the moon orbiting both looked like conic section curves.

It's pretty fan-farking-tastic how oblivious we are.
 
Bag of Hammers
2010-09-03 12:45:30 PM
Dorf11: String theory can be tested?

I'm afraid not.

/boo, hiss

blog.nj.com
 
skink [TotalFark]
2010-09-03 01:00:59 PM
Wet Toilette Paper: I love how often physics goes from, "Hey! That looks pretty similar to that thing I worked with!" to the attempted unifying of the equations.

czetie: New, new hotness: the claim is complete bollocks.

Peter Woit (of "Not Even Wrong" fame) completely punctures the hyperbole here (new window)

And in fact even leading string theorists including Juan Maldacena and Edward Witten are putting the boot in on Imperial College's inflated claims.

At first, I was all like "Yay! Science!"

And then I was all, "Ohhh, man...BUMMER!"

Surprisingly, there is no corresponding linkable LOL image for this.
 
calculator13
2010-09-03 01:06:15 PM
I'm still going to root for you string theory.... good luck little buddy....
 
Zombalupagus
2010-09-03 01:15:17 PM
There is no obvious connection to explain why a theory that is being developed to describe the fundamental workings of our universe is useful for predicting the behaviour of entangled quantum systems.

Ok, someone explain this to me, because this statement loses me. Did they just say that there was "no obvious connection" as to why a "theory of everything" would explain the behaviour of quantum particles? Umm... wouldn't that be like, you know, the whole point???
 
MrJoeschmoe
2010-09-03 01:33:47 PM
Zombalupagus:
Ok, someone explain this to me, because this statement loses me. Did they just say that there was "no obvious connection" as to why a "theory of everything" would explain the behaviour of quantum particles? Umm... wouldn't that be like, you know, the whole point???

He was saying that there is no explanation for why the equation he came up with for string theory would be the same as those for quantum entanglement. Not that string theory wouldn't explain the behavior of entangled particles.
 
duskrider
2010-09-03 02:00:03 PM
skink:
At first, I was all like "Yay! Science!"

And then I was all, "Ohhh, man...BUMMER!"

Surprisingly, there is no corresponding linkable LOL image for this.

pslgolf.nmsu.edu

/Ask and ye shall receive
//Quick and Dirty
 
skink [TotalFark]
2010-09-03 02:56:02 PM
duskrider: Ask and ye shall receive

Niiiiice!
 
aerojockey
2010-09-03 03:52:09 PM
Good, I hope we can finally put that travesty to bed then.
 
DJanomaly
2010-09-03 03:53:42 PM
calculator13: I'm still going to root for you string theory.... good luck little buddy....


I get the impression that string theory is going to end up like the geo-centric version of our universe....a good starting point, but not quite there
 
apeiron242
2010-09-03 03:55:13 PM
Dorf11: String theory can be tested?

I'm afraid not.

/boo, hiss

If you are going to ask a question, could you at least get the words in the right order?
 
calculator13
2010-09-03 04:20:35 PM
DJanomaly

I get the impression that string theory is going to end up like the geo-centric version of our universe....a good starting point, but not quite there

LIES!! Everyone knows the geo-centric version of the universe is the most accurate!

I just like the mental masterbation that comes with string theory.... you know....all the ramifications if it were true...
 
badzombie
2010-09-03 04:50:23 PM
"... and when Steven Hawking brought us string theory..."


/Wish I had a picture of her
 
rkane1
2010-09-03 05:24:09 PM
the strings have to be real, what else could be making waves in the luminiferous aether?
 
profplump [TotalFark]
2010-09-04 02:24:19 AM
calculator13: Everyone knows the geo-centric version of the universe is the most accurate!

It's certainly the most intuitive, and in many cases, the most useful. It's important to understand the limitations of a geo-centric model, but it's not inherently wrong, and such a model is the easiest one to use when all your actors are on or near Earth.

/ Sick of the helio-centric crowd pretending their model is "correct" or "more useful" when it suffers from the same limitations and is much harder to use for the typical case involving actual humans.
 
corronchilejano
2010-09-04 04:45:56 AM
profplump: It's certainly the most intuitive, and in many cases, the most useful. It's important to understand the limitations of a geo-centric model, but it's not inherently wrong, and such a model is the easiest one to use when all your actors are on or near Earth.

/ Sick of the helio-centric crowd pretending their model is "correct" or "more useful" when it suffers from the same limitations and is much harder to use for the typical case involving actual humans.

... none of those two is actually correct you know? We can take reference points these days, but I don't think anyone doing ANY serious studies about astronomy can say they're geo-helio-whatever centric.
 
DJanomaly
2010-09-05 03:34:34 PM
corronchilejano: profplump:

/ Sick of the helio-centric crowd pretending their model is "correct" or "more useful" when it suffers from the same limitations and is much harder to use for the typical case involving actual humans.

... none of those two is actually correct you know? We can take reference points these days, but I don't think anyone doing ANY serious studies about astronomy can say they're geo-helio-whatever centric.


I do believe they were making teh funniez.
 
Displayed 23 of 23 comments

Redisplay/refresh comments

This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
 


Link here