phonon
Posts: 396
Joined: Nov. 2006
|
Oh, Denyse.
http://www.uncommondescent.com/archives/2023
| Quote | | Are intelligent design and string theory equally untestable? Hmmm. |
http://www.physorg.com/news88786651.html
| Quote | Physicists Develop Test for 'String Theory'
“Our work shows that, in principle, string theory can be tested in a non-trivial way,” explained Ira Rothstein, co-author of the paper and professor of physics at Carnegie Mellon.
Rothstein and colleagues Jacques Distler, a professor of physics at The University of Texas at Austin; Benjamin Grinstein, a professor of physics at the University of California, San Diego; and Carnegie Mellon graduate student Rafael Porto developed their test based on studies of how strongly force-carrying particles called W bosons scatter in high-energy particle collisions generated within a particle accelerator. W bosons are special because they carry a property called the weak force, which provides a fundamental way for particles to interact with one another.
When the LHC turns on later this year, scientists will begin to investigate the scattering of W bosons, which has not been possible with other particle accelerators. Because the new test follows from a measurement of W boson scattering, it could eventually be performed at the LHC, according to the authors.
“The beauty of our test is the simplicity of its assumptions,” explained Grinstein of UCSD. “The canonical forms of string theory include three mathematical assumptions—Lorentz invariance (the laws of physics are the same for all uniformly moving observers), analyticity (a smoothness criteria for the scattering of high-energy particles after a collision) and unitarity (all probabilities always add up to one). Our test sets bounds on these assumptions.”
He added, “If the test does not find what the theory predicts about W boson scattering, it would be evidence that one of string theory’s key mathematical assumptions is violated. In other words, string theory—as articulated in its current form—would be proven impossible.” |
Now, Denyse. Please describe your tests for your detailed hypotheses of ID. Would they even be in the same universe of detail as string theory? String theory is about as detailed in its predictions as you can get. But, I sometimes forget the Prime Law of ID when it comes to detail.
And then Denyse delivers the coup de grace (to ID).
| Quote | | But how about this: ideas futilely grasping onto some kind of reality they never find? I sure wouldn’t advise anyone to bet the farm on strings. |
So let me get this straight, Denyse. ID theory is like string theory in that neither is feasibly testable (except that some underlying assumptions to string theory are indeed testable, or will be soon with the building of the LHC) and you wouldn't bet the farm on string theory, so what does that say to you about ID "theory?" Hmmm?
--------------
With most men, unbelief in one thing springs from blind belief in another. - Georg Christoph Lichtenberg
To do just the opposite is also a form of imitation. - Georg Christoph Lichtenberg
|
