(Indeterminate, like me. Think outside the box, but when you step outside the box ... try to keep one foot in)
Thursday, March 4, 2010
Superstrings Theory: Not Exactly Successful
String theory, that is to say Superstrings Theory to use its correct name since the fail that was Bosonic (no Fermions allowed) Strings Theory of '68, is a fail, and an epic fail, because it depends on not one but four foundations, none of which have been proven, and if only one is disproven, the whole theory will fall apart like a house of cards in the slightest breeze.
They are:
1) Elementary particles (e.g. photons, electrons, quarks, gluons, weak force bosons, neutrinos, etc.) are not in fact point particles as treated and experimentally verified in QFT but are rather one-dimensional "strings."
Says who? Says string theorists, that's who. What if they're fractal dimensional strings? What if they are in fact point particles but intersections in a bigger "verse," but not "branes?"
2) Supersymmetry is true.
Really? Here comes the LHC at smart power. We'll see.
3) Oskar Klein explained Ted Kaluza's theory.
Did he now? I seem to recall Klein only explained it as one extra rolled-up fourth dimension of space in 5-D (including 1-D of time), not 9 dimensions of space, 1 of supergravity and 2 of time. And what if Klein was wrong in that the 5th dimension isn't rolled up, but so large we all experience it as one value, as a constant? What of that?
4) M-Theory is true.
Is it now? Is it a) a "theory," or b) an idea of a theory?
Answer: b)
You don't even have to bring AdS/CFT or Anthropic Landscape in at this point. Good luck all ya'll String Theorists pretending you're Physicists, because you're not. What you ARE are Mathematicians, as fine a profession as ever was. Good for you. Keep the superstring theoretic manifold topology theory rolling. It's great pure mathematics.
But don't try to convince us your theory reflects "reality." There are too many of us out here too smart for you, and with all due respect, stop trying to bullshit us. But don't let me or anyone else stop you, you go ahead and keep dreaming and keep trying to convince us. The rest of us will choose to work on stuff that really matters.
Good luck on the grant money, mates. From your University's Mathematics department, NOT your University's Physics department, thanks.
UPDATE: They say it never hurts to get a second opinion. I'm pretty sure that truism isn't always true, but in order to be fair, click here for a differing view by Czech and former Harvard Physicist Lubos Motl, who savagely defends String Theory against all criticism.
Wednesday, March 3, 2010
BEST Story of the Year So Far: The Universe is 1.4 Hellameters across
From here
Austin Sendek is studying physics at UC Davis, and felt it was time that extremely large units of measurement got their own designation. What better word than hella? I'm already looking forward to Google explaining how many hellabytes of storage space it has.
Sendek told a local news station in Davis:
The diameter of the universe is 1.4 hellameters. You know if someone says that's 'hella meters' you know exactly what they're talking about.His quest may not be entirely in vain. The International System of Units did add a new unit of measurement back in 1991, when they designated "yotta" to describe 10 to the 24th power. Isn't that the word that Hiro is always yelling on Heroes? Hey, if Hiro gets to have his own unit of measurement, why can't we have the hella?
via CBS Local
Send an email to Annalee Newitz, the author of this post, at annalee@io9.com.
Mike Towler - Grad Course on De Broglie-Bohm (Jan 2009)
Mike Towler is a Royal Society research fellow in the Theory of Condensed Matter (TCM) Group at the Cavendish Laboratory, University of Cambridge and a College Lecturer at Emmanuel College.
One year ago he taught a graduate lecture course on the foundations of quantum mechanics, specializing in pilot-wave theory (otherwise known as Bohmian mechanics or deBroglie-Bohm theory).
You can access the lecture by clicking here.
I profess ignorance (or worse - just enough knowledge to be dangerous in discussing it) in all things De Broglie-Bohm Theory, except yesterday when I realized it is an excellent starting point for understanding the burgeoning field of Quantum Hydrodynamics. So now I have to re-visit this much-damned theory, because in some cases, apparently, it is quite useful. It is certainly misunderstood.
Here is a picture of Mike:
One year ago he taught a graduate lecture course on the foundations of quantum mechanics, specializing in pilot-wave theory (otherwise known as Bohmian mechanics or deBroglie-Bohm theory).
You can access the lecture by clicking here.
I profess ignorance (or worse - just enough knowledge to be dangerous in discussing it) in all things De Broglie-Bohm Theory, except yesterday when I realized it is an excellent starting point for understanding the burgeoning field of Quantum Hydrodynamics. So now I have to re-visit this much-damned theory, because in some cases, apparently, it is quite useful. It is certainly misunderstood.
Here is a picture of Mike:
Monday, March 1, 2010
Will Decoherence Kill Quantum Computing ?
Given the recent recipients of The Wolf Prize in Physics, a question must be asked:
Is Decoherence in QM too large an obstacle to overcome in the creation of significant viable quantum computers?
Currently we can build them in low numbers of qubits.
Briefly.
Before Decoherence sets in.
From Wikipedia:
A topological quantum computer is a theoretical quantum computer that employs two-dimensional quasiparticles called anyons, whose world lines cross over one another to form braids in a three-dimensional spacetime (i.e., one temporal plus two spatial dimensions). These braids form the logic gates that make up the computer. The advantage of a quantum computer based on quantum braids over using trapped quantum particles is that the former is much more stable. The smallest perturbations can cause a quantum particle to decohere and introduce errors in the computation, such small perturbations do not change the topological properties of the braids. This is like the effort required to cut a string and reattach the ends to form a different braid, as opposed to a ball (representing an ordinary quantum particle in four-dimensional spacetime) simply bumping into a wall. While the elements of a topological quantum computer originate in a purely mathematical realm, recent experiments indicate these elements can be created in the real world using semiconductors made of gallium arsenide near absolute zero and subjected to strong magnetic fields.
Is Decoherence in QM too large an obstacle to overcome in the creation of significant viable quantum computers?
Currently we can build them in low numbers of qubits.
Briefly.
Before Decoherence sets in.
From Wikipedia:
A topological quantum computer is a theoretical quantum computer that employs two-dimensional quasiparticles called anyons, whose world lines cross over one another to form braids in a three-dimensional spacetime (i.e., one temporal plus two spatial dimensions). These braids form the logic gates that make up the computer. The advantage of a quantum computer based on quantum braids over using trapped quantum particles is that the former is much more stable. The smallest perturbations can cause a quantum particle to decohere and introduce errors in the computation, such small perturbations do not change the topological properties of the braids. This is like the effort required to cut a string and reattach the ends to form a different braid, as opposed to a ball (representing an ordinary quantum particle in four-dimensional spacetime) simply bumping into a wall. While the elements of a topological quantum computer originate in a purely mathematical realm, recent experiments indicate these elements can be created in the real world using semiconductors made of gallium arsenide near absolute zero and subjected to strong magnetic fields.
Sunday, February 28, 2010
Winter Olympics - Men's Ice Hockey Results per Wikipedia (in overttime)
I wish to draw everyone's attention to the 2010 Vancouver results. This is what Wikipedia had up between the start of overtime and the end of the game when Sidney Crosby of Canada shot and scored and ended it.
- Men
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)



