Slashdot Mirror


String Theory Predicts Behavior of Superfluids

schrodingers_rabbit writes "Despite formidable odds, condensed matter physicists have made a breakthrough most thought impossible — finding a practical use for string theory. The initial breakthrough was made by physicist and cosmologist Juan Maldacena. His theory states that the known universe is only a 2D construct in anti-de-Sitter space, projected into 3 dimensions. This theory manages to model black holes and quantum theory congruently, a feat that has eluded scientists for decades; but it fails to correspond to the shape of space-time in the known universe. However, it does predict thermodynamic properties of black holes, including higher-dimensional viscosity — the equations for which elegantly and almost exactly calculate the behavior of quark-gluon plasma and other superfluids. According to Jan Zaanen at the University of Leiden, 'The theory is calculating precisely what we are seeing in experiments.' Unfortunately, the correspondence cannot prove or disprove string theory, although it is a positive step." Not an easy path to follow: one condensed matter theorist said, "It took two years and two 1000-page books of dense mathematics, but I learned string theory and got kind of enchanted by it. [When the string-theory related] thing began to... make predictions about high-temperature superconductors, my traditional mainstay, I was one of the few condensed matter physicists with the preparation to take it up."

9 of 348 comments (clear)

  1. Yeah... by paazin · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Unfortunately, the correspondence cannot prove or disprove string theory, although it is a positive step.

    That is to say, if you view that the proving of string theory to be true a positive step.

    1. Re:Yeah... by jandoedel · · Score: 5, Interesting

      if string theory is disproven, then we also know something more: the GUT is not string theory, ergo we need to direct our energy towards finding another theory. string theory is kinda unelegantly difficult, so a lot of people don't really want it to be true.

    2. Re:Yeah... by HadouKen24 · · Score: 4, Interesting

      However you can disprove a theory quite easily just by finding one case that doesn't fit with the theoretical predictions.

      I'd recommend taking a class or two on the philosophy of science. As it turns out, this just isn't true.

      A theory is not, generally speaking, a single predictive proposition. It is a set of propositions which, when taken together, imply a single prediction. Discovering that the prediction fails does not tell you which of the propositions is incorrect. It is almost certainly impossible to isolate the incorrect proposition experimentally.

      This principle is known in the philosophy of science as the Quine-Duhem thesis. The underlying logic has been found to be quite sound.

      And it coheres well with our normal intuitions about how science is to be done. If, for instance, we were to find a heavier-than-air object that falls up from a state of rest, we would not scrap the entire theory of gravity. We would realize that this is a special case and try to figure out what the correct way to modify it would be.

  2. Wow by pzs · · Score: 4, Interesting

    I'm always amazed that theoretical physicists can manipulate such immensely complex abstract objects in their heads and still be able to breathe and maintain bladder control. It really makes software engineering look like a piece of piss. Much respect.

    I would also say that having worked with academic medics, chemists, mathematicians, computer scientists and biologists, physicists are almost always the coolest, most down to earth and least douchey scientists out there.

    1. Re:Wow by Jason+Levine · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Well, I didn't get my physics degree. I stopped trying after Quantum Mechanics freshman year. I love relativity, but I felt like Quantum Mechanics was using one mathematical equation to prove another one which is used to prove a third. And so on. Eventually, you could plot the course of an electron around a hydrogen atom, but helium was too complex. Of course, a contributing factor might have been that my University didn't check the course requirements and realize that I didn't have the right level of Math to take Quantum Mechanics. I still love physics, but I still don't like Quantum Mechanics. (I passed the course with a C, but I think the only reason I didn't fail is that there were only 3 students in the course and the professor didn't want to have a 33% failure rate.)

      --
      My sci-fi novel, Ghost Thief, is now available from Amazon.com.
    2. Re:Wow by catchblue22 · · Score: 4, Interesting

      For me, I came out of my physics education with a realization that the world is far far far stranger than anything our everyday experience would lead us to believe. It has also left me with a strong sense that none of our knowledge is absolutely certain. That doesn't mean that I believe that our scientific theories are necessarily completely wrong, but rather that our current theories may very well be incomplete.

      String theory is definitely interesting. Gaining even a glimpse into it is far more humbling than learning quantum mechanics, and that is saying something! Where it will lead is completely unknown. For all we know, string theory may turn into a dead end (or into a massively complicated labyrinth with nothing but dead ends). Or it may turn into an immensely powerful predictive tool. Who can tell?

      There are alternatives to string theory that show promise in uniting quantum mechanics and gravity. I haven't fully digested this yet, but this paper summary argues that space-time may have fractal elements that have the potential to predict both quantum mechanics and gravity.

      The bottom line is that the universe is immense, and immensely complicated, and we are small. In such a universe, certainty becomes an absurdity.

      --
      This and no other is the root from which a tyrant springs; when first he appears as a protector - Plato (423 to 327 BC)
  3. It's the math, stupid by BadAnalogyGuy · · Score: 5, Interesting

    String theory works because the math works. There isn't anything special about the string theorists' model of humming cosmic strings that makes it work. All particle behavior is explainable using mathematics.

    What makes this interesting is that the model allowed for the construction of mathematical constructs that explain the behavior correctly. But it still doesn't say anything about the predictions that the model completely blows.

    What String Theory has, more than anything else, is a great set of marketeers behind it. Michio Kaku is a smart and articulate guy. It's not the steak, it's the sizzle.

  4. Explaining is not predicting by Normal_Deviate · · Score: 3, Interesting

    The main criticism of string theory is that it is too flexible. It can be contorted to generate any prediction, so it predicts nothing. This problem is not unique to physics; I saw it in economics too. Add more parameters to your model and you can fit historical data better, but your predictions of the future get worse. TFA seems to be just a string of examples of contorting string theory to fit past experimental results.

  5. Re:Wow, the theory that matches all experimental d by JustinOpinion · · Score: 5, Interesting

    The holographic principle doesn't mean that the universe has only 2 spatial dimensions, but rather that the universe can be modeled using one less degree of freedom than our view of spacetime would imply. Again, these kinds of theories are not suggesting that our space is two-dimensional, rather they are saying that the 3 dimensions we observe are emergent from a lower-dimensional description. All of the 'information' in a given region of space can be described as being encoded in the surface of said region.

    This remarkable, if bizarre, conclusion gains considerable support from the fact that black-hole entropy (and entropy is a measure of information content) is related only to the surface area of the black hole. So this is a case where we know with some confidence that we can indeed reduce all the information about a 3D region of space (the black hole) to an expression that only relies on 2 dimensions (the surface of the black hole). The holographic principle appears in numerous theories that imply that this holds generally for any region of space, not just black holes.

    Now, whether you view this is 'just a mathematical trick' or 'a deep insight into the actual structure of the universe' is in some sense a matter of taste. (The same goes for all other physical theories: e.g. do electrons exist or are they just mathematically-useful constructs? How about photons? Gravity waves? Spacetime?) If you take the math seriously then this may mean that our universe is in some sense 'actually' 2-dimensional, with the three spatial dimensions we see being emergent instead of fundamental.

    But in no case is the theory saying that there are not 3 spatial dimensions. The predictions it makes are for particles moving through a 3+1 spacetime.