Posted: Sep 16, 2010 7:57 am
newolder wrote:http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/0806/0806.1431v2.pdf , Hrvoje Nikoli´ wrote:Finally, we note that our prediction of secondary peaks is also interesting from the point of view of foundations of relativistic QM. For example, the existence of the secondary peaks is predicted also for photons (the Maxwell equations, of course, also can be viewed as a variant of the Klein-Gordon equation), which probably could be tested more easily than for electrons. Such a test with photons would say nothing about string theory, but would represent a test of the probabilistic interpretation of the Klein-Gordon current.
How does a doubly-interesting and testable prediction say nothing about the theory?
The double peak arises from a new interpretation of the KG current. This is would be relevant for Maxwell theory regardless of supersymmetry, so observing the effect in photons would say nothing about supersymmetry/strings.
However, obeserving it in electrons would automatically imply something supersymmetric because otherwise the KG current has nothing to do with fermions. What I don't understand (and I think neither does Severian) is why this is uniquely a statement about string theory and not supersymmetric theories in general. I've never studied supersymmetric theories, so I'm not familiar with what currents can be defined from supersymmetric Lagrangians. Maybe when I get bored with LQG....