[quote]Mutu wrote:
[quote]NAUn wrote:
My phd research is in applied physics although I’m a materials science and engineering student. To Dr. Matt I’m probably the worst kind of imposter 
I work on correlated electron systems research, so I’m about half a century behind in terms of theory.
Dr Matt, I’m curious what evidence you refer to w.r.t. extra dimensions? Intuitively I’m inclined to agree with you on this. I understand that we don’t have any rigorous mathematical reason not to accept that they are at least possible, but beyond the mathematical requirements of various theories beyond the Standard Model what sort of evidence is there? Your patience and willingness to explain ideas on here is nothing short of remarkable.
Also, beyond the prospect of gathering further data about the particle-potentially-known-as-Higgs’, what more may we gain from the LHC? Do you think there is good reason to expect relevant information on supersymmetry?[/quote]
There will always be new information to gather from the LHC; plus, if we abandon the LHC where do we go next for studying sub atomic particle physics?
The Higgs like particle that has been found is an amazing breakthrough, but I find quantum mechanics infinitely more interesting…the fact that small particles can teleport, tunnel, entangle, exist in more than one place, and change by being observed tells us a lot about the fundamental properties of all matter and as such, reality itself, don’t you think?[/quote]
Of course I’m not suggesting abandoning the LHC, I was asking from the perspective that some of the next massive (no pun intended) leaps in scientific understanding might not occur until we are able to explore much higher energy levels. This is one of the main criticisms (unfairly I think) of string theories. It’s not the theorists’ fault that the strings they propose don’t conveniently fit into our current experimental capabilities. That doesn’t mean what continues isn’t important. Indeed, it may be possible that we are able more precisely measure certain interactions that reveal our understanding is as accurate as we had thought. I don’t know though. That’s why I asked
As for quantum mechanics, it is amazing, I agree. It is mathematically sublime. As for what philosophical value can be gained from its understanding, I am quite hesitant to speculate. Until one is really comfortable manipulating the mathematical expressions that govern those bizarre behaviors you mentioned, I think it should be considered nothing more than entertainment and not really based in quantum mechanics. One can’t say “quantum mechanics tells us this,” if he doesn’t know the language. Otherwise it’s just “this guy over here, usually looking to sell books or tv shows, tells us this, which in all likelihood is an intentionally intellectually dishonest interpretation meant only for entertainment and profit.” I’m certainly not that comfortable with it. I would like to point out though that I think it’s important to recognize that these weird fundamental interactions do not dismiss the “classical” elements of reality that we experience. It’s amusing that our world is emergent out of this unintuitive and decidedly strange rules, but still, here we are. I think most people take the “shut up and calculate” approach to what quantum mechanics “means.”
