Hello Josh1, R.X, Angry physicists, Thomas Larrson, etc. I am well aware that some events such as the higgs boson creation require lots of energy, and since they are rare, they require high luminosities. Tevatron is pursuing this. LHC will be online 2008 and start collecting data. I do not know how much data they need, nor how long it would take to say look at a candidate event and decide SUSY partners or multiple Higgs bosons, or, just more events of the same standard model, possibly with a Higgs only. Obviously if LHC collects data of multiple higgs and SUSY parnters and even higher dimensions due to microblack hole productions, this would be a vindication of string theory. There would be need for loop quantum gravity. String theory already anticipated these phenonmena and offers aframework to understanding them. String theorists, the SuperKakikmonde failed to find proton decay in the simplest GUT SU(5) after several years. if LHC does not find SUSY or higher dimensions after say 10 years operation, despite intense searches with high energies and lunminosities, and no other evidence, such as cosmic strings, is forth coming, at what point does it weigh in that we should invest in other approaches? If a University offers a position for string theory faculty, tenure tract, coulda LOOP phD apply for that position to add diversity? My own point of view: Before I commit to anything, if LHC vindicates string theory and supersymmetry by finding superpartners, close to the TEVscale, stabilizing the Higgs boson against radiative corrections, with good properties of dark matter candidate, thenI think that string theory is fully justified. The exact nature of Higgs and susypartners may help put bounds on which models to explore. If LHC does not find SUSYPartners, then the argument SUSY is needed for radiative corrections of the higgs is falsified, and there is no real justification for having SUSY, then I'dlike to see other approaches, such as LQG flourish.