String Theory's Collateral Effects: Particle Quest & SUSY

  • Thread starter arivero
  • Start date
  • Tags
    Effects
In summary: So the answer to your question is "some", but not all, mathematicians working in the direction of physics are "applied mathematicians".

The most likely fundamental description of Nature is...

  • The Standard Model as it is

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • Technicolor or some extension of it

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • Fundamental Strings as we know it

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • Total voters
    12
  • #1
arivero
Gold Member
3,429
140
I am pondering if the supremacy of fundamental string theory as a model for the smallest description of nature has implied, as collateral damage, a decrease in the interest for the particle quest around the Standard Model. And same for SUSY and other extensions. What do you think?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #2
arivero said:
... string theory ... has implied, as collateral damage, a decrease in the interest ... What do you think?

I think what distinguishes theoretical physics (e.g. from mathematics) is that it guides experimental work in real time

not 20 years later in retrospect or in some fantasyland scenario when everything will have been worked out

and is reciprocally guided by it.

this implied engagement with experiment----involving testability and falsifiability---distinguishes theoretical physics from mathematics, and is a kind of discipline

when theoreticians abdicate responsibility and take leave of their experimental "senses" for an extended period (like the last two decades) it is destructive

there is collateral damage to more than one facet of the scientific enterprise---missed opportunities for solid progress, diminished credibility, degradation of training, erosion of tradition

Peter Woit has speculated that when the string binge is over the roughly 20 year period 1985-2005 (or 2006, 2007 whenever) will become an episode that theorists prefer to forget.

somehow the field went collectively haywire sometime in the mid 1980s and stopped making testable predictions----little appeared of utility to experimentalists---eventually, I suppose, they will just have to pick up where they left off and get on with it.

this is not to say that fancy-free mathematics----developed according to its own criteria of logical subtlety and beauty and explanatory elegance----in a world of its own disengaged from experiment----is bad (it merely fails to fill the role of a different discipline which it is not)
 
Last edited:
  • #3
Theoretical Physics as Applied Mathematics

When comparing theoretical physics to mathematics, it is necessary to distinguish between pure and applied mathematics - even though new mathematics has certainly emerged from theoretical physics.

Pure mathematicians often work in small, yet rigorous steps. Proof, these days, is at the heart of their technique. Making large, creative leaps, is usually not productive, when working at the pure mathematician's level of rigor.

Mathematicians who dare to work on theoretical physics, are usually dubbed applied mathematicians by their colleagues. The title applied mathematician, is viewed as inferior to its pure mathematician counterpart, even though the work of the applied mathematician may be uncovering fresh mathematics.

An excellent mathematician wears both pure and applied hats, depending on what day, or even hour, it is. Sometimes it is fruitful to make courageous guesses, and try to prove (or disprove them) later. Even lowly numerology can be a significant tool when making wild conjectures.

A mathematician need not worry much about experiment, whereas a theoretical physicist should. One of the problems of current theoretical physics, however, is the high temperature of the fundamental interactions. For now, the physics community can only continue to find ingenious ways to experimentally detect indirect effects of the high temperature interactions.

This is an exciting time to be working on physics and mathematics. Unification, in the form of tying together disparate parts of a discipline, is under way in both mathematics and physics. M-theory, as untestable as it may seem, is probably the most beautiful and exciting mathematical endeavor in recorded history.
 
  • #4
kneemo, this post is excellent, but I might make a few corrections. Not all mathematicians who work in the direction of physics are "applied mathematicians". I might mention the exciting growth of understanding of nonlinear partial differential equations in the last forty years, beginning with the inverse scattering method, and then the Backlund transformations that can turn one type of equations into another (the KdV into the nonlinear Schrodinger, for example), and then the Lax pairs, and the extension to infinite dimensions and the important subject of symmetry, and so on and on. This is all just as much pure mathematics as number theory is. Or consider a field that overlaps both math and physics, differential geometry. Tremndous amounts of work in it by pure mathematicians, as well as the focussed work by physicists.
 

What is String Theory?

String Theory is a theoretical framework in physics that attempts to reconcile the two major theories of modern physics, general relativity and quantum mechanics. It proposes that the fundamental building blocks of the universe are not particles, but rather one-dimensional strings that vibrate at different frequencies.

What are the collateral effects of String Theory?

The collateral effects of String Theory are the consequences that arise from its fundamental principles. These include the prediction of extra dimensions, the existence of gravity as a fundamental force, and the unification of all forces in the universe.

What is the Particle Quest in String Theory?

The Particle Quest in String Theory is the search for the fundamental particles that make up the universe. These particles are predicted to be vibrational modes of the strings and may include the graviton, which carries the force of gravity, and the Higgs boson, which gives particles their mass.

What is SUSY in relation to String Theory?

SUSY, or Supersymmetry, is a theory that proposes a symmetry between particles with integer spin (bosons) and particles with half-integer spin (fermions). It is a key component of String Theory as it helps to solve some of the mathematical inconsistencies that arise in the theory.

What are the potential implications of finding evidence for SUSY in String Theory?

If evidence for SUSY is found in String Theory, it would provide strong support for the theory and potentially open up new avenues for understanding the fundamental nature of the universe. It could also have practical applications, such as in the development of new technologies and advancements in our understanding of dark matter and the structure of space-time.

Similar threads

Replies
2
Views
1K
  • Beyond the Standard Models
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • Beyond the Standard Models
Replies
0
Views
727
  • Beyond the Standard Models
Replies
6
Views
2K
Replies
47
Views
4K
  • Beyond the Standard Models
Replies
5
Views
3K
  • Beyond the Standard Models
Replies
2
Views
2K
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • Beyond the Standard Models
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • Beyond the Standard Models
Replies
2
Views
2K
Back
Top