In an exclusive interview with Stephen Hawking at 70, New Scientist (January 4, 2012) offers
NS: What discovery would do most to revolutionise our understanding of the universe?
SH: The discovery of supersymmetric partners for the known fundamental particles, perhaps at the Large Hadron Collider. This would be strong evidence in favour of M-theory. [multiverse theory]
NS: The search for supersymmetric particles is a major goal of the LHC at CERN. The standard model of particle physics would be completed by finding the Higgs boson, but has a number of problems that would be solved if all known elementary particles had a heavier “superpartner”. Evidence of supersymmetry would support M-theory, the 11-dimensional version of string theory that is the best stab so far at a “theory of everything”, uniting gravity with the other forces of nature.
Uh, among other things … including putting an end to science.
Note: Intel is exploring ways to help Hawking, who has battled motor neurone disease for nearly half a century, communicate. Any success will help many others as well.
Follow UD News at Twitter!
OFF TOPIC: Slashdot
Slashdot is posting an article entitled:
Researchers Show How Cellular Complexity Can Evolve
referencing an article at a nature.com blog:
Resurrecting extinct proteins shows how a machine evolves
Interesting that they should choose to use the term “machine”.
They also reference this PLoS article:
Protein Evolution by Molecular Tinkering: Diversification of the Nuclear Receptor Superfamily from a Ligand-Dependent Ancestor
Is it more revolutionary to discover evidence for M-theory, or to discover that there is no evidence for it? It seems Multiverse is the new orthodoxy, so I would have thought the real jolter is to have to admit that this is the only Universe, fine tuning and all. Where would materialism turn then?