On hadron colliders, dark matter and black holes

[Karro]

@Karro: That's a very good point. ...Sorry for the long post, but I hope it was an interesting read. Right. Off to see if I can make some falsifiable predictions now.

Right-o Torstan! Good luck! (And thanks for the reasoned response.)

[töff]

... before Toff jumps in I need to address the core of his argument ... science and religion do cross paths. Both are founded on the basis of belief. The difference is in what those beliefs are

Oh, I don't want to jump on anybody or anything. I'm just trying to express a perception that, from a particular angle of thought that I've come across, science and religion are identical pursuits. Sure, in general, they use utterly different tools of thought. But compare Christianity to Buddhism, and you'll find as much difference as Christianity compared to Darwinism ... and as much similarity.

Those of us with convictions, of whatever sort, see our paths of thought as true and valid ... which MIGHT be why we follow those paths. As a byproduct, we often see other paths of thought as invalid. Often, we don't even fully realize the consequences of such a stance ... except when others take such a stance against our own beliefs.

[torstan]

Certainly wasn't accusing you of jumping on anything! It was as much a reminder to myself that I'd been attacking a straw man up until that point and hadn't addressed your argument that belief is at the heart of science.

For the Christianity-Buddhism vs Christianity-Darwinism I have to disagree again. I can happily believe in both Christianity and Darwinism but I cannot be both a Buddhist and a Christian. Essentially the argument I would make are the Christianity and Buddhism belong to the same paradigm and so can be judged against one another. Holding a belief in both is logically inconsistent. On the other hand Christianity and Darwinism are from separate paradigms and belief in both can be held without any logical inconsistency.

[torstan]

As for the relativity and quantum mechanics, yes they are inconsistent at the Planck scale. However we have theories that do reconcile them (string and M-theory) as well as arguably loop quantum gravity. So there are consistent and competing theories to describe that conflict and because a conflict exists there is substantial active research in the area. Now there are currently no clear experimental tests available to choose between those theories but they are testable in principle which is the best we can do right now. If we're lucky then the LHC might give us some early hints along those lines. A light supersymmetric spectrum of new particles would certainly make string theorists I know very happy.

[Karro]

As for the relativity and quantum mechanics, yes they are inconsistent at the Planck scale. However we have theories that do reconcile them (string and M-theory) as well as arguably loop quantum gravity. So there are consistent and competing theories to describe that conflict and because a conflict exists there is substantial active research in the area. Now there are currently no clear experimental tests available to choose between those theories but they are testable in principle which is the best we can do right now. If we're lucky then the LHC might give us some early hints along those lines. A light supersymmetric spectrum of new particles would certainly make string theorists I know very happy.

Some friends of yours, eh? So you're not in the String Theory camp?

You know... would you mind giving us the laymen's really simple and understandable version of String Theory? I've been trying to build up a basic understanding of it to see if I can use a bastardized version of String Theory as the basis for a magic system... It would help if I could understand what I was attempting to bastardize.

[torstan]

I don't work directly on string theory so I'm not a string theorist. I'd not say I was or was not in the string theory camp. I work on theories that are inspired by string theory but I don't work on the stringy side of them so I'm really not any sort of authority on that stuff.

I'll think about a rough outline. It's a tricky one to pin down and my own understanding is certainly far from complete. I'll see what I can put together though.

[töff]

So you're not in the String Theory camp?

LOL. Sounds like "so you don't believe in the true presence of Christ in the Eucharist?"

I think I've expressed my observation.

Personally, I dig the stringbrane school of multidimensionality.

[torstan]

Absolutely, and it made for a very interesting discussion. Thanks for bringing it up.

[Redrobes]

This has been fascinating so thanks all. I don't have much to add that hasn't been said so ill stay quiet. I did want to express that for those who haven't read "Zen and the art of motorcycle maintenance" then it really is the belief and concept changing book that it has been claimed to be. It has its share of dull moments too tho but its a must read book.

Id also like to understand the basics behind the string theory. I did a lot of math but my most advanced is probably the opening gambits to what you have to wade through. But if it abso needs math to explain it then just do it and hope that we can follow. I always wondered if its even possible to explain it metaphorically.

[töff]

As I understand string theory, it starts with the way you can take a two-dimensional piece of papaer and roll it up reallllllllllllly tight so it looks like a line ... one-dimensional ... its other dimension is "hidden" but it still exists. Then you bring the ends together to make a loop, and there's something about resonant vibrations at different frequencies that make the vibrating loop look like an electron in "our space" ... or a charm quark ... or a Higgs boson ... oh wait, we haven't found that one yet ... a graviton ... oh wait, haven't found a graviton ... a tachyon! yeh ... no ... does that help?