Supersymmetry is the idea that every particle that makes up matter (fermion) is paired with an equal particle that transmits force (boson). These supersymmetric partner particles would be much heavier than the ones we are used to. Being heavier means they are harder to create (ie:discover) in a lab because it requires more energy to produce them in a collision. New atom smashers are being built which should have the capability of running these experiments. If supersymmetry is proven it will go a long way towards lending credibility to superstring theory.
Um... I think we already have evidence of both fermions and bosons (right?). But we don't have evidence of partner particles for any of the fermions and bosons we know about. So supersymmetric particles are more massive due to some factor independent of whether they are bosons (force) or fermions (matter). So really there is a whole undiscovered world that is supersymmetric, and heavier, than the one we know about? huh? (check out http://particleadventure.org/particleadventure/frameless/supersymmetry.html)
http://www.superstringtheory.com/basics/basic4.html
String theory is the idea is that the smallest elements (inside quarks and neutrinos and electrons) are not fixed points, but tiny, one dimensional, vibrating strings.
The theory is compelling to many physicists because it connects classical physics with quantum physics. It does this by positing a quantum scenario in which the math required to allow for gravity actually works out. Otherwise we have a situation in which classical phsysics works for our big clunky normal world, but not at the small sizes of quantum calculations, and vice versa. String theory is still very speculative, however, partly because it is not possible to measure or observe at the incredibly small size of strings. So far there have not been testable predictions made by string theory.
Another aspect of string theory is that it calls for many more than four dimensions. There are several different string theories. The most popular one (I think) is the one called superstring theory that relies on supersymmetry. This theory only calls for 10 dimensions while others call for 20 or more.
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/elegant/everything.html
please post comments! (I need all the help I can get.
Michio Kaku is a theoretical physicist at the City University of New York. He was on Lenard Lopate (public radio) talking about M-Theory which fills in some of the gaps in the math in Superstring Therory.
His interview can be heard at http://www.wnyc.org/shows/lopate/episodes/01022004 and it's pretty interesting.
I haven't been following the subatomic world in much detail since I decided sometime in the late seventies that I was interested in designing with thousands or millions of transistors, and had no real interest in the internals of said transistors. And semiconduct design isn't very subatomic, since it deals with electrons and holes at the valence level.
Given my spotty attention over the last few decades, I found this primer to be a good overview of the story so far.
I predict that the theory of everything will continue to be elusive. The study of the nature of matter and energy is like peeling layers of the onion. A lot of progress was made in the past century, but I don't think they'll be done this century.
a couple of typos in the links ...
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/elegant/everything.html
http://www.superstringtheory.com/basics/basic4.html
thanks guys! good reading. I am working on a larger narrative (sort of) art (sort of) project about quantum physics. I am such a dilettante, I doubt my own motivations for being interested in this stuff. It is just a hankering for romance, romance that I can't find in my own areas of expertise due to being a jaded ol' cynic?
Another question: I understand that science can bring a lot of value to art (ie: content and models for process), but does art have anything of value to bring to science?
Science and engineering are both driven by a quest for "elegance". Occom's Razor could be said to underlie this quest, but then "simplicity" would be an adequate word. But "elegance", which is more of an aesthetic concept than a logical concept, is a word that seems inescapable.
Why is it that good designs often appear to be so simple? (For example, the von Nuemann architecture that is the basis for modern computers.) Why is it that complex ideas can often be reduced to compact equations? (Maxwell's Equations, or Einstein's e=mc^2). Why is there so much symmetry in sub-atomic physics? This sort of question is at least as old as Pythagoras.
Despite Einstein's inspiration-perspiration formula, the hard part of engineering and science is often the formation of a simple, elegant hypothesis. I believe that the expansion of the imagination by art (and a rich dream life) can only help.
This 'elegance' notion is food for thought. My work* is anything but elegant. Murky and cluttered would be a better description. But luckily my collaborators Rebecca Diederichs and Gordon Hicks are both masters of form and simplicity. I had a good meeting with Gordon last night. He was talking about a dichotomy between the protestant requirment for utility, and the more romantic idea of "science for science's sake." Of course the two are intertwined in practice, but not so much in public perception. This is also the case with contemporary art. Another parallel I might draw between art and science, for what its worth, is that the medium and process are integral to the content of the final result.
* link is to a work in progress, draft form only
I like the parallel about "medium and process". Science is fundamentally a process, which is what gets it in trouble sometimes. People want absolutes, whereas science is subject to change as more knowledge emerges. Of course, the change doesn't necessarily throw out previous science. Newton's Laws of Motion are incorrect, but they work pretty well if you're just going to the grocery shop.
With the evolution of art, the validity works in the opposite direction. The old is seen as "real art" and the new is seen by some as a result of inability to execute the old. This seems to come from a misunderstanding of the distinction between decoration and art.
Anyway, what I came here to say is that in engineering and science the elegant concepts are seen as something that underlies the baroque instantiation.
Jim just made a post on the passing of Billy Kulver, notable as a scientist who informed the arts. Any one think of a good example of the reverse yet? I cant. You may be on to something there.
A lot of scientists say they get ideas from science fiction. One example is Freeman Dyson's idea of habitable spheres circling small suns, which he says he got from Olaf Stapledon's Star Maker (arguably both are sf, but Dyson worked out the physics, I believe, as a kind of thought experiment). Kekulé, discoverer of the Benzene ring, had a dream of snakes eating each other's tales. That's not art, but it's an image, which can be influenced by art. I'll keep thinking of examples. Usually the crossover takes place in one person's head, who is both artist and scientist, e.g. Goethe, Bucky Fuller.
To follow up on Tom's comment, I'll mention Arthur C. Clarke's invention of the communication satellite: An 'artificial satellite' at the correct distance from the earth would make one revolution every 24 hours, i.e., it would remain stationary above the same spot and would be within optical range of nearly half the earth's surface. Three repeater stations, 120 degrees apart in the correct orbit, could give television and microwave coverage to the entire planet.
From V2 for Ionospheric Research, by Arthur C. Clarke.
Published by Wireless World in 1945 Not sure this qualifies as "art", but I think this is the most important "invention" by a S.F. writer that later became a reality. Scientists who eventually put satellites into this orbit dubbed it the "Clarke Orbit."
As far as elegance, I talked about the inelegance of the 4-color map problem solution here. That's one kind of elegance: Cory's simple solution to creating intriguing patterns being analogous to the four color map solution mathematics never found. Artists are way ahead of science, though, in achieving a kind of desirable inelegance. In other words, finding instinctive, convincing ways of making things dirty, gritty and real as opposed to using (or discovering) clumsy, engineer-designed fractals for "dirt" and "grit." Constable, as opposed to, say, Return of the King.
Jim's Clarke example is good. Another is Robert Heinlein's "waldos," which were fictional robotic limb-assists now used in prosthetics, manufacturing, etc.
Filmic BS on string theory here.
I guess maybe these dudes might soon qualify as artists influencing scientists. yike...unpleasant.
I guess maybe these dudes might soon qualify as artists influencing scientists. yike...unpleasant.
|
- sally mckay 1-06-2004 5:51 am
Supersymmetry is the idea that every particle that makes up matter (fermion) is paired with an equal particle that transmits force (boson). These supersymmetric partner particles would be much heavier than the ones we are used to. Being heavier means they are harder to create (ie:discover) in a lab because it requires more energy to produce them in a collision. New atom smashers are being built which should have the capability of running these experiments. If supersymmetry is proven it will go a long way towards lending credibility to superstring theory.
Um... I think we already have evidence of both fermions and bosons (right?). But we don't have evidence of partner particles for any of the fermions and bosons we know about. So supersymmetric particles are more massive due to some factor independent of whether they are bosons (force) or fermions (matter). So really there is a whole undiscovered world that is supersymmetric, and heavier, than the one we know about? huh? (check out http://particleadventure.org/particleadventure/frameless/supersymmetry.html)
http://www.superstringtheory.com/basics/basic4.html
String theory is the idea is that the smallest elements (inside quarks and neutrinos and electrons) are not fixed points, but tiny, one dimensional, vibrating strings.
The theory is compelling to many physicists because it connects classical physics with quantum physics. It does this by positing a quantum scenario in which the math required to allow for gravity actually works out. Otherwise we have a situation in which classical phsysics works for our big clunky normal world, but not at the small sizes of quantum calculations, and vice versa. String theory is still very speculative, however, partly because it is not possible to measure or observe at the incredibly small size of strings. So far there have not been testable predictions made by string theory.
Another aspect of string theory is that it calls for many more than four dimensions. There are several different string theories. The most popular one (I think) is the one called superstring theory that relies on supersymmetry. This theory only calls for 10 dimensions while others call for 20 or more.
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/elegant/everything.html
please post comments! (I need all the help I can get.
- sally mckay 1-06-2004 5:52 am
Michio Kaku is a theoretical physicist at the City University of New York. He was on Lenard Lopate (public radio) talking about M-Theory which fills in some of the gaps in the math in Superstring Therory.
His interview can be heard at http://www.wnyc.org/shows/lopate/episodes/01022004 and it's pretty interesting.
- joester (guest) 1-07-2004 12:21 am
I haven't been following the subatomic world in much detail since I decided sometime in the late seventies that I was interested in designing with thousands or millions of transistors, and had no real interest in the internals of said transistors. And semiconduct design isn't very subatomic, since it deals with electrons and holes at the valence level.
Given my spotty attention over the last few decades, I found this primer to be a good overview of the story so far.
I predict that the theory of everything will continue to be elusive. The study of the nature of matter and energy is like peeling layers of the onion. A lot of progress was made in the past century, but I don't think they'll be done this century.
- mark 1-07-2004 4:24 am
a couple of typos in the links ...
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/elegant/everything.html
http://www.superstringtheory.com/basics/basic4.html
- mark 1-07-2004 5:12 am
thanks guys! good reading. I am working on a larger narrative (sort of) art (sort of) project about quantum physics. I am such a dilettante, I doubt my own motivations for being interested in this stuff. It is just a hankering for romance, romance that I can't find in my own areas of expertise due to being a jaded ol' cynic?
Another question: I understand that science can bring a lot of value to art (ie: content and models for process), but does art have anything of value to bring to science?
- sally mckay 1-08-2004 4:33 am
Science and engineering are both driven by a quest for "elegance". Occom's Razor could be said to underlie this quest, but then "simplicity" would be an adequate word. But "elegance", which is more of an aesthetic concept than a logical concept, is a word that seems inescapable.
Why is it that good designs often appear to be so simple? (For example, the von Nuemann architecture that is the basis for modern computers.) Why is it that complex ideas can often be reduced to compact equations? (Maxwell's Equations, or Einstein's e=mc^2). Why is there so much symmetry in sub-atomic physics? This sort of question is at least as old as Pythagoras.
Despite Einstein's inspiration-perspiration formula, the hard part of engineering and science is often the formation of a simple, elegant hypothesis. I believe that the expansion of the imagination by art (and a rich dream life) can only help.
- mark 1-08-2004 6:56 am
This 'elegance' notion is food for thought. My work* is anything but elegant. Murky and cluttered would be a better description. But luckily my collaborators Rebecca Diederichs and Gordon Hicks are both masters of form and simplicity. I had a good meeting with Gordon last night. He was talking about a dichotomy between the protestant requirment for utility, and the more romantic idea of "science for science's sake." Of course the two are intertwined in practice, but not so much in public perception. This is also the case with contemporary art. Another parallel I might draw between art and science, for what its worth, is that the medium and process are integral to the content of the final result.
* link is to a work in progress, draft form only
- sally mckay 1-09-2004 8:53 pm
I like the parallel about "medium and process". Science is fundamentally a process, which is what gets it in trouble sometimes. People want absolutes, whereas science is subject to change as more knowledge emerges. Of course, the change doesn't necessarily throw out previous science. Newton's Laws of Motion are incorrect, but they work pretty well if you're just going to the grocery shop.
With the evolution of art, the validity works in the opposite direction. The old is seen as "real art" and the new is seen by some as a result of inability to execute the old. This seems to come from a misunderstanding of the distinction between decoration and art.
Anyway, what I came here to say is that in engineering and science the elegant concepts are seen as something that underlies the baroque instantiation.
- mark 1-12-2004 2:21 am
Jim just made a post on the passing of Billy Kulver, notable as a scientist who informed the arts. Any one think of a good example of the reverse yet? I cant. You may be on to something there.
- bill 1-14-2004 10:15 pm
A lot of scientists say they get ideas from science fiction. One example is Freeman Dyson's idea of habitable spheres circling small suns, which he says he got from Olaf Stapledon's Star Maker (arguably both are sf, but Dyson worked out the physics, I believe, as a kind of thought experiment). Kekulé, discoverer of the Benzene ring, had a dream of snakes eating each other's tales. That's not art, but it's an image, which can be influenced by art. I'll keep thinking of examples. Usually the crossover takes place in one person's head, who is both artist and scientist, e.g. Goethe, Bucky Fuller.
- tom moody 1-14-2004 10:30 pm
To follow up on Tom's comment, I'll mention Arthur C. Clarke's invention of the communication satellite:
Not sure this qualifies as "art", but I think this is the most important "invention" by a S.F. writer that later became a reality. Scientists who eventually put satellites into this orbit dubbed it the "Clarke Orbit."- jim 1-14-2004 10:47 pm
As far as elegance, I talked about the inelegance of the 4-color map problem solution here. That's one kind of elegance: Cory's simple solution to creating intriguing patterns being analogous to the four color map solution mathematics never found. Artists are way ahead of science, though, in achieving a kind of desirable inelegance. In other words, finding instinctive, convincing ways of making things dirty, gritty and real as opposed to using (or discovering) clumsy, engineer-designed fractals for "dirt" and "grit." Constable, as opposed to, say, Return of the King.
- tom moody 1-14-2004 10:48 pm
Jim's Clarke example is good. Another is Robert Heinlein's "waldos," which were fictional robotic limb-assists now used in prosthetics, manufacturing, etc.
- tom moody 1-14-2004 10:54 pm
Filmic BS on string theory here.
- tom moody 1-19-2004 10:05 pm
I guess maybe these dudes might soon qualify as artists influencing scientists. yike...unpleasant.
- sally mckay 4-30-2004 10:32 pm
I guess maybe these dudes might soon qualify as artists influencing scientists. yike...unpleasant.
- sally mckay 4-30-2004 10:35 pm