|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 Posted: Sat Jun 03, 2006 2:26 pm
It has been theorised that there may well be a limit on the electromagnetic force. Since we have gauge force unification, and acording to m-theory all of the forces including gravity are manifestations of the resonances corilating to properties of our Calabi-Yau dimentions ( the intertwined holes of different different dimentional depth ^_^), would this not also implicate a limit on gravity?
If this was by chance the case this would also mean that singularities as discribed by quantum feild theory would simply be a mathmatical Fubar, no? Thus lending more suport to m theory.
Your thoughts are deeply appreciated.
Oh, and where do you get that card thingy required for donating stuff.....
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Jun 04, 2006 12:08 pm
Eh, I have no idea what you are on about, I tend to ignore string theory for the most part because it has little bearing on current investigation, to be honest. Though, I have little idea where you get the idea that there has been gauge unification: while the weak and EM forces have been unified into the electroweak force in principle, we are yet to observe a Higgs boson [though, the LHC is getting closer and closer to turn-on; CERN is a really busy place these days, or so I hear].
Though, this is theoretical high-energy physics and not atomic/molecular physics. >_> *pedant mode* [Haha, subforum change XD]
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue Jun 06, 2006 4:43 pm
It would be good to mabye atleast look into it. The lack of experimental data is daunting, but it does sucsessfully merge general relitivity with Quantum mechanics. Plus the numbers add up if that counts for anything.
All of the forces have been unitfied and if you feel like it, these are a few good links on the subject.
http://physicsweb.org/articles/news/10/5/11/1 c.com
http://theory.tifr.res.in/~mukhi/Physics/string2.html
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue Jun 06, 2006 5:09 pm
Il give you that. Although it does fit into the Quantum feild, since it deals with particles and things of that nature. 3nodding
The higgs boson is a Quantum feild theory brain child, which was only developed after the unification in string theory.
In string theory its more a matter of the strings qualities due to there energy.
Any other sciency physics things you feel like discussing in that case?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Jun 07, 2006 11:35 am
[ Message temporarily off-line ]
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Jun 15, 2006 10:59 am
Admitedly, yes there is nothing more than sercumstantial evidence for string theory.
Thank you for the corection as well.
Still there are problems that arrise from the Higgs mechanisim, which lend to sceptisism of the Standerd model. Such as the instability of the mass of the Higgs particle.
As they theoretically gain their mass from the interactions among themselfs, there must be some force which acts upon them to keep them within the grasp of the Higgs condensate, requiring an external force to endow the mass giving particles, with there own mass. Also as they gain mass with their interactions, the mass of the Higgs particles is subject variance as it interacts with other virtual particals, meansing that the more energetic ie massive the particle it interacts with the more massive it should be itself, wich doesn't corilate well with the limit of it's size of a top Quark. So if it can be unboundedly ( is that even a word??) massive depending on its energy absorbtion or transference really, than it should be quite easy to locate, within particle exelerators, given enough energy.
Sugested molification of this problem by some is to limite the size of the virtual particles which in the current model can be any size, to energys less than 1 Tev, which would work because we have only observed energys bellow that level.
Yet there isn't even any cercumstantial evudence for such a limitation as far as I know.
If there is please do tell!!!
Others sepeculate the presence of a particle capable of canceling the perniciously high energies. Enter supersymmetry. And since there has been no observation of supersymetrical particles, the Standered model seems to be in the same boat as String theory, as far as credible testing is concerned.
Skeptics are always welcome ^_*
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Jun 15, 2006 11:40 pm
There are problems in the Standard Model, the hierarchy problem is one which is why SUSY is such a hot topic in general. The diffierence between a supersymmetric Standard Model [e.g. MSSM] and string theories is that the MSSM only needs to find the superpartners themselves to be able to begin to justify itself. String theories posit a whole new fundamental layer of matter which we are unable to test, so the more parsimonious course of action would to be economical with what we add to the hypotheses.
But yes, if you include higher order corrections to the mass of the Higgs from addtional loop diagrams the the mass is supposed to be quardratically divergent with the addition of superpartners into the loop cancelling these out.
I'm not convinced to be honest. Nor am I that convinced the Higgs boson is going to be found. To the best of my understanding the Tevatron should have already ruled out the most likely region of parameter space for the Higgs mass. Then again, it could be that the CDF and DZero are not good enough detectors to find a Higgs. ATLAS [LHC] was designed for Higgs searches, if anything with find the SM Higgs then ATLAS will.
If you ask for my real opinion on the matter, I prefer to wait for the LHC to switch on. There is much interest and speculation but I don't want to get too drawn into it. The Standard Model could be on its last legs with regard to things which is a little sad because its probably more accurate than GTR in the range of its predictions and sucesses, but, the W and Z boson mess it all up [hence the need for the Higgs in the first place] and it may be that the SM is just a low-energy effective theory. That said, it has the evidence to suggest it works in the lower-energy limit.
You should be a little more accurate in your teminology: the Standard Model does not include SUSY, the MSSM does. ^_~
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri Jun 16, 2006 2:20 pm
Your more educated on these matters than i. ^_^
Just in asumations, what would you say about the electroweak limit?
Even if the unification aspect was set aside, the repulsion of particles from a boundless electreomagnetic force when swashed together before the big bang would have required an infinite amoung of gravity, without the coersion of the other fundamental forces, such as the strong force as its strength drops off between bodies in close proximity.
If this were to be the case and all forces were unlimited, that leaves the question of were all that gravity came from and what could break the binding of limitless gravity? Excluding the theory of repeated bang and crunches, imbeded within M-theory.
Please hummor me and my theoretical mumbo jumbo ;D
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
