Comments on: Looking for Extra Dimensions at the LHC

By: Elizabeth Davies

Elizabeth Davies — Tue, 11 Sep 2012 03:02:11 +0000

This is a good one. I like things that make me think about stuff. Am I way off in suggesting that the environment inside of the LHC seems like a different dimension? Does gravity behave the same inside as outside?

By: Shantanu

Shantanu — Mon, 10 Sep 2012 18:08:02 +0000

Btw I do hope the article points out that so far no evidence for extra dimensions has been found from ongoing LHC searches.
See for example
http://arxiv.org/abs/1206.5663
given all this, IMO its highly unlikely that LHC will find evidence for extra dimensions.

By: Jeff

Jeff — Mon, 10 Sep 2012 05:18:25 +0000

Theorists love to tell us what we might see at the LHC. Let’s hope all the theorists are wrong, and the LHC reveals surprises that are completely unanticipated. I like to think that Nature is vastly more creative than even the most clever theorist. Otherwise, I guess I’d be a little disappointed in Nature.

By: Matt

Matt — Sun, 09 Sep 2012 17:56:41 +0000

String theory is suppose to combine quantum mechanics with einsteins theories, because the two use two separate sets of rules that dont make sense when compared. “the theory of everything”

By: Brett

Brett — Sun, 09 Sep 2012 13:55:46 +0000

String theory predicts things that we have not seen in (know about) the universe.

There’s a lot we don’t know about the universe. The intent of string theory is to go one step further in our understanding of existing knowledge. It is supposed to answer questions like: why is the standard model the standard model? Like the video above; why is gravity so weak compared to the other forces? String theory is intended to further explain the mechanics of fields in nature. Or so that’s my novice level understanding of it.

By: Arko Bose

Arko Bose — Sun, 09 Sep 2012 07:16:46 +0000

I would like to know which part of reality (by reality, I mean what we know about the universe) String Theory explains, that is not already explained by GTR and the Standard Model.

By: Gavin Flower

Gavin Flower — Sun, 09 Sep 2012 00:24:27 +0000

Are there any ideas that solve the conflict between relativity and quantum mechanics that are more ‘acceptable’, and less ‘on the fringe’, than String theory (or more accurately M-Theory)?

I have heard no String theory proponent claim that their theory is the last word in Truth. To the contrary: from what I have read, String theorists are well aware of the problems in String theory.

I am sure most Physicists would very much like a more tractable theory to explain Reality than String theory, though to date no other theory has been found as good as String theory to explain Reality – despite its many problems.

Simply not liking a theory does not make it completely, or even mostly, wrong, no matter how strongly you feel!

People attacking String theory so vehemently, seem to have a similar mentality to that of: Creationists, and Deniers of Global Warming.

By: no one important

no one important — Sat, 08 Sep 2012 23:20:23 +0000

Oh hello, comic popularizations of somewhat-fringe and unaccepted ideas. String theory proponents have too much time.

By: Joel Rice

Joel Rice — Sat, 08 Sep 2012 14:30:00 +0000

any discussion of dimensions gets tangled up in the structure of algebra. The question is what makes algebraic sense, not that it isn’t tricky … like, is it n-body or n-dimensional.

By: martenvandijk

martenvandijk — Sat, 08 Sep 2012 12:33:33 +0000

I am afraid that the LHC’s physicists labor on tunnel-vision.

Therefore I give them and you my definition of spatial dimensions: dimensions that shape the world endogenously, being generic and not independent, their properties being fully interrelated, continuously changing each other’s proportions.