String theory hints at explanation for superconductivity

Nature News ^ | 19 July 2009 | Eric Hand

[UCANSEE2]

I wasn’t aware that superconductivity needed an explanation.

[muawiyah]

BTW, the fundamental thesis propounded by the Leftwingtards when it comes to medicine or drugs is that if safety and efficacy studies were done by private parties they must necessarily be invalid ~ because those studies were paid for with private funds.

Now, flip that on its head and we find that grants frequently come from private sources (foundations are private), and even if they come from the government the money used to be in private hands.

Just following Leftwingtard logic anything requiring work which is paid for is invalid because it's not free.

Not saying the Leftwingtard logic is valid or useful, just that it is what it is.

As I was just noting to another Freeper into "tp" (Theoretical Physics or Toilet Papering?) many folks in that field are ignorant of current events, and the ebb and flow of criticism of scientific studies due to the source of the funding paying the scientists (or grad students) to do the work is definitely current events.

Gotta' keep up on this stuff you know, particularly when everyone of every political orientation thinks scientists should be independent of coercive thought due to funding!

[neverdem]

Brain Surgery Using Sound Waves

The Grail Searchers (science shows that an embryo is a human being)

Induced Pluripotent Stem Cells Repair Heart

Jupiter Hit by an Astronomical Object

FReepmail me if you want on or off my health and science ping list.

[AFPhys]

I’ve read a lot of explanations of ‘string theory’ and for the most part my feeble noggin can’t quite grasp it. I wish it could, because this stuff does interest me. But at the same time, the more I read up on it the more I find it hard to believe that these same folks think we’re nuts because we believe in God. ; )

-—<>-—<>-—<>-—<>-—<>-—

WONDERFUL comment!

This scientist, who believes in ALL OF THE ABOVE (well, following:) - God, Jesus, Big Bang, Creationism, Evolution, Genesis and many other supposed items that “Clash with reality” agrees whole heartedly with your comment! It always amazes me that people, and especially ANY physicist, can possibly eliminate God from their concept of the universe.

[Fractal Trader]

string theory ping

[GOPJ]

Thanks for the ping.

[SunkenCiv]

Wow! Easily the best recent string theory list topic -- not least because it's actually a string theory topic (as opposed to just being more generally about physics). Thanks Fractal Trader! Another possible topic is here:

• An Iron Key to High-Temperature Superconductivity? · Graham P. Collins · Scientific American · August 2009

---

· List topics · post a topic · FR page layout · Google ·

---

[SunkenCiv]

Whoops, and thanks AdmSmith for the ping.

[Paradox]

Something sort of suggesting a hope for string theory. I am certainly hopeful that things like this will allow us to "test" the validity of string theory.

Too bad the Luddites come out in these threads though.

[bmwcyle]

[ozark hilljilly]

Well, “somebody” had to pull the trigger for The Big Bang, right?
; )
Just finished reading “Can a Smart Person Believe in God?” The author makes some surprising comparisons between the nature of God and what we know of physics and science. Like fr’instance, how the concept of God “being everywhere at once” squares with quantum mechanics. It was a quick, but edifying and entertaining read!

[AFPhys]

I am not sure that this is really a test of string theory, from my reading. The article more properly discusses that this application is using the mathematics developed for string theory, and that the math seems to work for this limited case. Whether that is useful for validating string theory seems to be a bridge too far, but maybe it is a case of something like Quantum Chromodynamics, where it there is not really any definitive single way to “prove” or disprove it, but that many coordinated experiments picking out various parts have been useful.

Einstein developed a whole new branch of mathematical notation in order to handle the way he worked with general relativity, and Newton developed calculus. The accuracy and utility of those mathematical tools didn’t prove their respective theories of gravitation, but they have proven very useful to many other scientists over time. Some comments in these articles suggest that a similar “spin-off” of string theory may be what is going on here, rather than a fundamental breakthrough that argues FOR string theory itself.

[Paradox]

Some comments in these articles suggest that a similar “spin-off” of string theory may be what is going on here, rather than a fundamental breakthrough that argues FOR string theory itself.

Thanks for interpreting the article and your insights. I must admit, that I actually value the technical and scientific commentary on FR more than the political.

[AFPhys]

Agreed. I consider the ‘purge’ of FR to have severely damaged FR for that reason. Many good commentators are no longer here.