Exploring Superstrings in the Lab

ultracool writes "Physicists at Utrecht University in the Netherlands have come up with a way of observing a superstring by utilizing Bose-Einstein condensation (BEC). A one-dimensional BEC in an optical lattice is rapidly rotated, causing a quantized vortex to form. The bosonic part of the superstring consists of this vortex line. Inside the vortex, they would trap an ultracold cloud of fermionic atoms. Hopefully this will allow observation of the supersymmetry between bosons and fermions, thus providing the first experimental evidence to support superstring theory."

Comments

Supersymmetry != string theory

[n0mad6]

I am not a condensed matter physicist (I'm a high-energy physicist), but it seems like this is a way to demonstrate a supersymmetry (a symmetry between fermions and bosons) rather than a demonstration of a string theory. In experimental high-energy physics, its widely believed that supersymmetry will be proven or disproven conclusively within the next decade. String theory is an entirely different matter.

Any string theorists out there want to chime in?

Re:Supersymmetry != string theory

[epine]

Dude, proof only exists within closed formal systems. The universe does not come with an end-user-license promising that any observation *ever* can be repeated, e.g. that the sun comes up tomorrow, or that protons don't decay into Mars Bars.

What we've learned about the universe is that physical observation is highly (some say unrealistically) compressible. We write down a small set of rules (quantum electrodynamics is the best example) and then we find that trillions of physical measurements taken from just about any situation we can think up are *consistent* with the small set of rules we've written down. This doesn't mean the set of rules we've written down it the smallest set of rules consistent with the universe. With each "unification" (e.g. electricity with magnetism) the set of rules becomes more compact relative to how much of the universe it consistently describes. It's important to note that we usually know ahead of time that our system of rules can't possibly be consistent with everything (general relatively and quantum mechanics are inconsistent in their present forms). From the point of view of proof, we knew from the outset that both of these theories are false. Yet each of these theories describes an incredible range of phenomena, and for the most part, the two theories don't much overlap in what they describe. If they did overlap more, it would be far easier to concoct experiments to resolve the known inconsistencies.

I'm quite depressed at how few people are familiar with the work of Kolmogorov and Chaitin. Most physicists fail to fully appreciate these results. The bottom line is that algorithmic compressibility is all we've got, and truth itself is a gossamer filigree we can at best approximate.

NOT *really* superstrings *or* supersymmetry!

[dr. loser]

IAAP (I am a physicist), and again we have an physics article posted by someone who doesn't know the difference between reality and an analogy.

The system that these folks propose to study (quantized vorticity in a Bose-Einstein condensate) can be described with the same type of mathematics that is used in superstring theory. The proposed experiments would test the validity of the math. These experiments would say nothing about whether the math of superstring theory is a valid description of the world!

A similar situation would be the following: observing a weight on a spring would confirm the math behind simple harmonic oscillators. It would not, however, tell me anything about whether the vibrational modes of the sun obey those same equations.

Analogy != equivalence!