Physicists can become rich now

[Jon Miller]

Apparently the most valuable science is the type that is the most fundamental/on the edge/not even related to experiment necessarily.

A new prize has been started, which just handed out a total of 27 million dollars to 9 physicists for their work in fundamental physics (mostly string theory and cosmology).

Here is a link:

http://web.mit.edu/newsoffice/2012/alan-guth-wins-fundamental-physics-prize-0731.html

JM

[Elok]

How accurate is this synopsis?

[Lorizael]

As I understand it (which is not very well), most versions of string theory predict some version of supersymmetry, which is the idea that every particle has a "super symmetric" partner particle with a ridiculous name (electrons have selectrons, quarks have squarks), and the data collected by the LHC thus far rules out a lot of supersymmetry. So string theory isn't as non-falsifiable as it used to be.

[Jon Miller]

But 'some' version of supersymmetry includes theories where we wouldn't expect to see anything in the LHC or it's sequel.

Actually, supersymmetry came first (at least acceptance wise, supersymmetry is still more accepted than string theory), that string theory results in supersymmetry has been considered an important result of string theory.

The negative thing about not seeing supersymmetry in the LHC isn't that supersymmetry has been falsified (And definitely isn't that string theory has been falsified), it is that the supersymmetry which has been calculated to have the nice properties which made people develop the idea in the first place is unlikely (almost ruled out, I believe).

JM
(My understanding of string theory is that it is still not falsifiable. In fact, I don't believe that supersymmetry is current falsifiable in the planned future.)

[Fake Boris]

Good

[Lorizael]

But 'some' version of supersymmetry includes theories where we wouldn't expect to see anything in the LHC or it's sequel.

Actually, supersymmetry came first (at least acceptance wise, supersymmetry is still more accepted than string theory), that string theory results in supersymmetry has been considered an important result of string theory.

The negative thing about not seeing supersymmetry in the LHC isn't that supersymmetry has been falsified (And definitely isn't that string theory has been falsified), it is that the supersymmetry which has been calculated to have the nice properties which made people develop the idea in the first place is unlikely (almost ruled out, I believe).

JM
(My understanding of string theory is that it is still not falsifiable. In fact, I don't believe that supersymmetry is current falsifiable in the planned future.)

I think the problem some people have with string theory is that nothing seems to deter the theorists. If a hole is punched in the theory, the theorists just patch it up and try again rather than coming up with a new theory.

[Jon Miller]

That is true of everything theory wise (almost), not string theory.

The problem with string theory is that there is no theory.

We can write down supersymmetry and have it make predictions. We can't write down string theory in the same way.

JM

[Jon Miller]

There has never been a possible hole to punch in string theory.

JM

[Lorizael]

Okay. My understanding was that when experiments revealed some new phenomenon that string theory didn't predict and had never attempted to explain, the theorists responded with something along the lines of, "Ah, yes, well, my new theory goes to 11 dimensions, which perfectly explains the new phenomenon. Yes!"

[Jon Miller]

No, it was 'oh, as we can actually do another calculation, this turns out to not work at all, how can we make it work? add more dimensions'.

It had nothing to do with new experimental results.

JM

[Lorizael]

Okay. What do you mean by "do another calculation"? Did math get better? Or computers? Or is it just that more time passing = more calculations done?

[Jon Miller]

It means that someone figured out a bit more of the theory. In general, it isn't clear what idea/calculation/etc will actual improve a specific theory or our understanding of physics/etc. It can be some very simple idea which makes a huge advancement (see de Broglie).

BTW, string theory is one of the few areas of fundamental physics which does not depend heavily on computers (in the modern era).

Here is a wiki history:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_string_theory

JM

[Jon Miller]

BTW, it is often the case that adding an extra dimension is an obvious way to make a theory work (in a given situation). This makes me suspicious of it...

JM

[-Jrabbit]

Sounds like a good plot point for a sci-fi novel...

[DaShi]

Physicists could always become rich. Just apply their maths skills to finance instead of particles.