[XinordiX]

How accurate is this synopsis?

string_theory.png

[thakitt]

But 'some' version of supersymmetry includes theories where we wouldn't expect to see anything in the LHC or it's sequel.

Actually, supersymmetry came first (at least acceptance wise, supersymmetry is still more accepted than string theory), that string theory results in supersymmetry has been considered an important result of string theory.

The negative thing about not seeing supersymmetry in the LHC isn't that supersymmetry has been falsified (And definitely isn't that string theory has been falsified), it is that the supersymmetry which has been calculated to have the nice properties which made people develop the idea in the first place is unlikely (almost ruled out, I believe).

JM
(My understanding of string theory is that it is still not falsifiable. In fact, I don't believe that supersymmetry is current falsifiable in the planned future.)

[n2Oddw8P]

That is true of everything theory wise (almost), not string theory.

The problem with string theory is that there is no theory.

We can write down supersymmetry and have it make predictions. We can't write down string theory in the same way.

JM

[avodeinst]

No, it was 'oh, as we can actually do another calculation, this turns out to not work at all, how can we make it work? add more dimensions'.

It had nothing to do with new experimental results.

JM

[Buildityrit]

It means that someone figured out a bit more of the theory. In general, it isn't clear what idea/calculation/etc will actual improve a specific theory or our understanding of physics/etc. It can be some very simple idea which makes a huge advancement (see de Broglie).

BTW, string theory is one of the few areas of fundamental physics which does not depend heavily on computers (in the modern era).

Here is a wiki history:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_string_theory

JM

[AutocadOemM]

Sounds like a good plot point for a sci-fi novel...

[mr.videomen]

... the idea that every particle has a "super symmetric" partner particle with a ridiculous name (electrons have selectrons, quarks have squarks).....

I had a case of the 'squarks' the other day; it wasn't pretty. No need for String Theory, Quantum Theory has already predicted the chances of me adding anything meaningful to this conversation; it stands at 0%.

[KacypeJeope]

I've met nima and ed witten. I've heard of a couple of the others.

[JeorgeNoxeref]

John - what are your thoughts on the thermodynamic variance of mass? Wouldn't that make it easier to detect particles like the Higgs?