Is String Theory pseudoscience?

>>7775346
No.

>>7775346
Is experimental & theoretical physics a persuedo science?

>>7775346
No.

I leave you this article, for those of you who speak Spanish:
http://factorelblog.com/2015/10/13/contra-las-cuerdas/

Superstring theory is absolutely worthless and predicts nothing. It is responsible for holding back physics by decades and many of its assumptions are still holding back physics.

>>7775379
If you hate it so much why not propose a better theory

>>7775379
>It is responsible for holding back physics by decades

No one is forcing anyone to become a String theorist. The majority of physicists never even learn string theory. This is a completely false statement.

File: 5542432+_5d67e8fd6f5b85cac35c1447b8dd4fb9.gif (858KB, 325x318px) Image search: [Google]

858KB, 325x318px

>>7775399
imagine this argument in a car dealership:
>nah, i just dont think this car is very good
>b-build a better one then!!

>>7775379
>predicts nothing

this is untrue

>It is responsible for holding back physics by decades

this is just retarded

>many of its assumptions are still holding back physics

Like?

>>7775415
gtfo worthless frogposter

>>7775346
Read "The Trouble with Physics"

>>7775440
And before you do, make sure you realize the author is a LQG theorist.

>>7775415
But we aren't in a car dealership faggot. We are talking about theoretical physics. How can two completely abstract subjects correlate with one another through an analogy like that?

>>7775379
It predicts super symmetry

>>7775458

Still only indirectly proven. Regardless superstring has been abandoned as the worthless brainfart that it is.

>>7775490
>Still only indirectly proven

No one ever said it was proven.

>Regardless superstring has been abandoned

No it has not.

>>7775379
>>7775490
Literally no.

https://www.quantamagazine.org/20150803-physics-theories-map/

>plebs still defending superstring

Which superstring theory do you believe?

>>7775502
Which non-superstring theory do you believe?

>>7775502
They are all different perturbative descriptions of M-theory.

Type IIA is equivalent to M-theory compactified on a circle.

Type IIB compactified on a circle is equivalent to M-theory compactified on a 2-torus.

E8xE8 Heterotic is equivalent to M-theory compactified on an S^1/Z_2 orbifold.

SO(32) Heterotic compactified on a circle is equivalent to M-theory compactified on a cylinder.

Type I is S-dual to SO(32) Heterotic and is therefore S-dual to M-theory compactified on a cylinder.

Does anyone have an adequate link where I can learn about String theory (everything on google is fucking popsci about wormholes). I have a book about Superstring theory but I haven't read it and it's in my parents house.

>>7775543
>Does anyone have an adequate link where I can learn about String theory

Do you know QFT and GR? If not don't bother.

If you do, http://www.damtp.cam.ac.uk/user/tong/string/string.pdf

>>7775521

Yes, and which one is correct?

>>7775543

String theory is popsci. It bamboozles the laity but in reality it's all smoke and doesn't stand scrutiny

>>7775547
They are all just different perturbative methods of studying the same non-perturbative theory. So they are all correct in their appropriate limits.

>>7775346
The big problem with String Theory is that it doesn't make any predictions for which we can observe. For it to be taken seriously, it needs to make a measurable prediction in an area where QM or GR fail.

>>7775563
>it needs to make a measurable prediction in an area where QM or GR fail

But that is the problem. We can not measure those areas with our current technology.

>>7775346
is math pseudo science ?

>>7775547
>Which one is correct?

What the fuck? Do you even know what you are raving on about?

We don't know which one is correct.

That's basically proposing three very logical and possible theories on how the universe ends and saying YES BUT WHICH ONE IS CORRECT?

>>7775563
But that can be said for almost every theory reaching back to the history of time, like when people started proposing that the earth revolves around the sun without evidence.

>>7775571
>We don't know which one is correct.

This is why superstring can be considered nothing more than a contrivance and worthless for the purposes of science. I'm sorry that you wasted so much time on this garbage.

>>7775572
>earth revolves around the sun without evidence

Just walk away friend. you are out of your depth.

>>7775584
I'm sorry but what is the point of theoretical physics? What is the point of working on something if we do not already know it is correct?

>>7775596

Yes and superstring theory has proven itself to be worthless, unlike QM which continues to predict.

>>7775602
You are hopeless.

>>7775585
Are you retarded?

The earth DOES revolve around the sun with or without evidence.

>>7775585
>Implying the earth doesn't revolve around the sun based on evidence by hum observation.

We have a pleb here.

>>7775602
Quantum mechanics cant explain black holes the big bang and general relativity since it uses discreet transformation groups that arr incompatible with smooth manifolds

>>7775552
No one responds. Jesus Christ, this board.

>>7775631
this is /sci/ get used to it.

>>7775447
if you crouch down a bit lower, arch your back, and then swiftly pull your head out of your ass, you would easily understand what he's getting at.

But seeing as your having a hard time with that, I'll help you out. He criticized something (in no way does it matter what he is criticizing, be it any abstraction whatsoever), and instead of that guy addressing his criticism he instead was told that he should just make a better one (clearly a retarded reply).

By the way, he's a complete idiot for thinking it's worthless and holding physics back. Not just ignorant, but outright idiotic for confidently spreading his ignorance.