RIP String Theory?

File: original.jpg (607KB, 928x963px) Image search: [Google]

607KB, 928x963px

It was born dead. The hope was not unjustified, but it turns out to be rather empty. As a side product, though, we got some geometry and physicists spoke with mathematicians again for some time - that's qt.
Not sure for what the grand money would have been spend if it was never tapped on.

>>8803844
>Is String Theory dead
no

>It hasn't predicted anything,
Yes it has

>it cannot be tested
true

> CERN all buy invalidated super-symmetry
Only at low energies, which is insignificant

>What comes after ST?
M-theory

>>8803844
It didn't invalidate SUSY, it just means that we'll probably never be able to reach the energies needed to test SUSY.
>grants and positions for PhD grad studies in ST have all but dried up.
Source? They were already poor.
>What comes after ST
I don't know, I'm still convinced it's correct. But if it will be impossible to reach the energies needed to test SUSY for the forseeable future, then it would be best to shelf the theory for awhile or leave it to the mathematicians. There are some useful takeaways from it that have been applied to other fields.

Unfortunately now all the prospective string theorists will go into other branches of theory, making it even more competitive, since string theory is the hardest branch of theoretical physics. Or maybe they'll just be pure mathematicians, one can only hope.

>>8803855
>M-theory
same unprovable non-scientific philosophical mathematical theory.

PREONS

>>8803856
>we'll probably never be able to reach the energies needed to test SUSY.
That pretty much invalidates supersymmetry. If you can never reach the 'ever increasing energies proposed by ST folks', it's as good as dead.

>>8803871
Well, maybe someday in the far future we can make a collider the size of the solar system, or something like that. But it's just science fiction for now. I think it would be best to just take the useful developments (gains in our understanding of CFTs, connections with pure mathematics, holography) and just focus on condensed matter physics or quantum information or something.

>>8803867
>t. brainlet

>>8803844
Supersymmetry predicted the mass of the Higgs boson, by which I mean that only with supersymmetry do you end up with a result of ~125 GeV.
https://arxiv.org/pdf/1601.01890.pdf

But it's certainly got problems, so physicists will continue looking at different theories.

>>8803891
There are other indicators that string theory is probably right, like post-dicting GR, correct?

>>8803881
This post explains it beautifully.

https://backreaction.blog
spot.com/2016/06/dear-dr-b-why-not-string-theory.html

>So, you asked, why not string theory? Because it’s an approach that has been fixed over and over again to make it compatible with conflicting observations. Every time that’s been done, string theorists became more convinced of their ideas. And every time they did this, I became more convinced they are merely building a mathematical toy universe.

>String theorists of course deny that they are influenced by anything but objective assessment. One noteworthy exception is Joe Polchinski who has considered that social effects play a role, but just came to the conclusion that they aren’t relevant. I think it speaks for his intellectual sincerity that he at least considered it.

>>8803897
The problem is that there are not many actually-existing alternatives to string theory. So you basically get to the point where you say that high-energy physics needs to be more or less abandoned because further tests are too expensive or not within our technological capabilities.

>>8803897
>Because it’s an approach that has been fixed over and over again to make it compatible with conflicting observations.

There are a bunch of different String Theories because they are all pertubative and are limits of a higher theory (i.e. "string theory" isn't actually a unifying theory).

Also string theories are background dependent. Ideally a unifying theory would be background independent.

>>8803881
Brainlet here,
Does size really matter when it comes to particle accelerators?
I would think that it's just all about stronger magnets.

>>8803923
If you wanted a collider on earth that could test string theory, you would need magnetic fields that are larger than even magnetars, or a gigantic collider hundreds of lightyears in radius. In theory we could someday carry out this experiment over thousands of years.

>>8803897
>Literally who, from literally where

Reading though her other posts she seems like a professional contrarian. Here she explaining why the Bullet cluster isn't actually evidence for dark matter, despite literally fucking everyone (even the MOND guys) agreeing that it is. Theres also a strong implication that she doesn't like Lambda-CDM, despite it's impressive predictive credentials.

I think I'll take a pass on her opinion, professional or otherwise.

>>8803945
Woops:
http://backreaction.blogs
pot.co.uk/2017/01/the-bullet-cluster-as-evidence-against.html

>>8803852
a-are you OK anon? out of your schizo meds today? I suggest going back to bed and sleeping it off... your mom will bring the meds soon.

File: 1489053830653.png (607KB, 900x507px) Image search: [Google]

607KB, 900x507px

>>8803919
>There are a bunch of different String Theories
It's turtles all the way down. I know anon.

PS: Did you guys know that the silly:

[math]1 + 2 + 3 + ... = -\frac{1}{12}[/math]

result is at the very core of ST? That's how they got to ST having 26 dimensions. TOPEST OF KEKS!

>>8803968
>1+2+3+...=−1121+2+3+...=−112
>result is at the very core of ST? That's how they got to ST having 26 dimensions.


26 dimensions is Bosonic String Theory, which is a toy model. The -1/12 result is only one of multiple ways to come to that conclusion.

>>8803971
>The -1/12 result is only one of multiple ways to come to that conclusion.
LOL! There are no other ways anon. You have to do the Ramanujan summation in the end. Quit being so insincere.

>>8803983
>Ramanujan summation
>He's not doing Zeta function regularization
>He's probably never even done basic QFT

kek.

>>8803945
>>8803948
but she fucking nailed it tho:

>How come we so rarely read about the difficulties the Bullet Cluster poses for particle dark matter? It’s because the pop sci media doesn’t like anything better than a simple explanation that comes with an image that has “scientific consensus” written all over it. Isn’t it obvious the visible stuff is separated from the center of the gravitational pull?

File: 1491335466191.jpg (43KB, 576x512px) Image search: [Google]

43KB, 576x512px

>>8803844
>Is String Theory dead, /sci/?
DELET TIHS

>>8804007
>dat pic
lol'd

JUST

>>8803983
First >>8803992

then
http://mathoverflow.net/questions/99643/why-does-bosonic-string-theory-require-26-spacetime-dimensions

>>8804005
But she fucking didn't tho. She presented issues with current understanding and then tried to make those issues seem like they're massive holes in the ship. Like I've already said she's in the minority, even the people pushing MOND admit that they still need DM to explain it.

It's like tobacco shiling, "doubt is our weapon".

>>8804007
Ed still has a Fields Medal, I think he'll be alright. You should remake this shoop with Lubos Motl instead.

File: motl_16.jpg (87KB, 487x650px) Image search: [Google]

87KB, 487x650px

>>8804054
>Lubos Motl
That angry manlet?
He looks like /r9k/ material.

>>8804085
>He looks like /r9k/ material.
Funny you should say that...
https://desuarchive.org/r9k/thread/18929562/#18937394

>>8804085
whoa, he is already JUST-tier

>>8804087
>>8804085
>My involuntary celibacy has made me more aware of how our society works. By not wasting energy on sex like an animal, I had more resources available to raise my intellect. Did you never notice how virgins are smarter than non-virgins? Newton, Nietzsche, Erdös, Dirac, Motl, the list goes on. I have joined their ranks as one of the most supreme intellectuals of our time.

Toppest kek.

>>8804085
>That angry manlet?
... yet still 100x smarter and more accomplished than you'll ever be.

>>8804054
Ed's more invested into ST than LM. So Ed has WAY MORE to lose. He's the poser-child of ST anyway!

Ed's shoelaces have been taken away from him and he's on a suicide watch...

>>8804085
this guy has potential to be the next great /sci/ meme:

http://motls.blogspot.com/2015/11/why-not-to-get-more-girls-into-stem.html

>>8804300
>... yet still 100x smarter and more accomplished than you'll ever be.
Shoo Luboš shoo.

>>8804330
Motl's one of my favs. Guy is opinionated and def not a beta male... like the majority of /sci/ memes. He;s the opposite from that autistic betafag Terrry Tao who can't even drive a fucking car and yet he writes theorems and corollaries about politics.

>>8804007
>face
>body expression
>just fuck my shit up hair
All faith... GONE
All hope... LOST

Motl is my favourite intellectual. Not only he is based but he is an accomplished physicist. His blog set the standard of scientific journalism.

>>8804501
Get out of here Lubos.

Motel is truly one of a kind. He impressed the mathematical world when he was only an undergraduate by doing groundbreaking work on matrices and string theory, just like Heisenberg did with the matrix approach to MQ. We should be thankful instead of mocking him for his appearance.

>>8804522
>Motl is my favourite intellectual. Not only he is based but he is an accomplished physicist. His blog set the standard of scientific journalism.
clap clap... he's great. one of the few blogs I'm subbed to and get daily updates. he always keeps you up to date about the latest shit (and gossip) in physics.

>>8804523
why do u hate him so much? he's right about pretty much everything. about the only thing I disagree with him is about relevance of ST.

Lupuš Motl hands down is my favourite mathematical physicist.

>>8803870
Horseshit I don't buy it

File: ZookinZ.png (270KB, 480x585px) Image search: [Google]

270KB, 480x585px

>Brainlet here. Please explain friendos.

When the string theorists say "String theory is what it has to be," I was able to say... oh ok if that thats is what it has to be then et cetera except I did come up with a few ideas for testable predictions, and one of my predictions was so specific that the LHC stopped reporting its finding in a desperate attempt not to say that I outsmarted all of them.

Becoming homeless tomorrow, not sure I when i will finish the book. Here is draft of the parts that are reasonably well edited already. Look in section at what I say about the path of maximum action/

https://drive.google.com/open?id=0BxV2HFmw-aNMY0pSZTZhc2xlbHc

>>8804005
Sabine is muh physicistfu

>>8804094
Dirac had children

can someone [s]redpill[/s] educate me on loop quantum gravity. is it just a meme?

>>8804661
1000x less likely than string theory, which is already really unlikely

>>8804661
Meme

>>8804661
>loop quantum gravity
It's a lot less narrower theory. Unlike ST, LQG doesn't assume there's a single entity that underlies everything. It's also a lot less well understood since less research time has been devoted to it.

I think it has a brighter future than ST at this point. People lost patience with ST because of its many faults.

>>8803855
T-theory actually.

>>8804661
They maintain that Lorentz symmetry is violated despite the Fermi telescope showing that it's continuous down to at least the Planck scale. They further assert that it's actually just a grand coincidence.

>>8804536
>why do u hate him so much?

I don't I think he's pretty good when he stays on physics, it's when he moves off it that he turns into a bloviating, reactionary, retard. Intelligence in one part of life doesn't necessarily transform into intelligence in all walks of life.

>about the only thing I disagree with him is about relevance of ST.

So the "only thing" you disagree with him about is his entire body of work? So really you only go to him because his social/political views align with yours, okay.

>>8804695
>I think it has a brighter future than ST at this point

Literally already been falsified.

>>8804699
?

>>8804706
no it hasn't. u from plebbit?

>>8804768
Yes it has.
>Our results disfavour quantum-gravity theories in which the quantum nature of space–time on a very small scale linearly alters the speed of light.

(Source: http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v462/n7271/full/nature08574.html)

LQG is a Lorentz violating theory.

>>8804785
>LQG is a Lorentz violating theory.
nigga pls.

https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/228755/variable-speed-of-light-in-loop-quantum-gravity

>>8803870

a hypothetical elementary particle which causes neurodegenerative diseases?

>>8804812
From your own link:
>These and other considerations, including difficulties interpreting what it would mean to apply a Lorentz transformation to a spin network state, led Lee Smolin and others to suggest that spin network states must break Lorentz invariance
>spin network states must break Lorentz invariance

LQG breaks Lorentz invariance.

>>8804832
Only some variations. They have one that does not.

>>8804874
>J...just trust me I'm right, despite available evidence.

>>8804695
LQG is fundamentally flawed. The idea of quantizing the actual spacetime itself is the obvious thing to try, but also clearly riddled with flaws.

LQG tries to hard to force something that clearly will never work.

String Theory has kind of the opposite issue, it allows for too many possible spacetime geometries (with some weird "quantum" symmetries). But it at least keeps spacetime itself continuous.

This is what happens when people working in scientific fields form cults of personality. Instead of focusing on the concepts being presented, everyone just gets in a pissing match over who has published which papers and which universities are sponsoring certain people. What a joke.

>>8804904
How overrated is Ed Felten?

File: Capture.png (105KB, 592x223px) Image search: [Google]

105KB, 592x223px

>>8804706
LQC has been falsified. I think LQG is still out there.

>>8805032
See >>8804785

>>8804330
is he, dare I say it, /our guy/?

string theory is just a branch of speculative metaphysics

ST has actually taught me a lot about how to con people. I work in sales and I've actually followed this debate for decades and take notes on the techniques ST use to justify their theory. If you study how religions and cults work, you'll realize that they, String Theorists, use the same techniques for gaining followers. The most important thing is that you just make sure that no one can test your claim. Here's a great lecture explaining how it works.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PEg_Oys4NkA

I would recommend watching it at 2x speed because he talks sooooo sllooooowwww and his argument is easy to follow.

>>8805109
>is he, dare I say it, /our guy/?
He is a mix between a polak and a scientist.

>>8805564
>>8805807
>t.brainlets

>>8805807
>I work in sales
>Now here's my opinion on string theory

>>8805898
string theory: so bullshit even sales people smell it

>>8805920
Could be. Could also be that it's so complicated brainlets just have no way of understanding it, thereby making it look mystical. I know what I'm putting my money on (pro tip: It's not your suggestion).

>>8803897
>some dopey cunt explains why she, and not thousands of brilliant physicists, is right

Can we start just banning people who cite blogs to support thier arguments?

>>8806003
>thousands of brilliant physicists
buttmad ST retard got triggered.. kek

like thousands of smart people were not fooled by something before...

>>8806003
This is a dream of mine, anon. That and simple calculus problems as captchas.

>>8806009
kys yourself.

>>8805898
>>8805922
>it's so complicated brainlets just have no way of understanding it

You see, this is actually a tactic that cult leaders use. They deliberately prey on people who are too naive or insecure to call out what is really a simple trick.

You must be familiar with the tale of The Emperor's New Clothes, yes? The trick is similar.

I don't actually care whether ST does or does not yield anything useful for physicists- like I said, I work in sales. I enjoy watching it from the ecological perspective. As an outsider, it is very obvious who is the prey and who is the predator, and amusing how clueless those who are being preyed on are to their situation.

Similarly amusing is the number of graduate students studying "pure math" who don't realize they're actually doing the work that string theorists need to justify their theory. They actually think it's pure! Can you believe that? Cracks me up how naive some of these kids are, especially on websites like MO. I always get a kick out of it when you a grad student get real puffed up over a question that "makes the wrong assumptions," that they were taught to question only a few months ago in an "inspiring lecture" that "radically changed their view of mathematics." It's the same story, over and over again.

>>8806015
>kys yourself.
amazing argument, ST baby. enjoy wasting your life on a dead theory.

>>8804599

You can't use math to prove things about reality, that's completely assbackwards.

>>8806027
>argument
>implying anyone is going to argue with a brainlet who posts things like "buttmad ST retard got triggered.. kek"

>>8806009

But some literalwho on the internet with zero contributions in the field, there's no way SHE could be wrong, amirite?

File: 1484032139557.gif (717KB, 640x360px) Image search: [Google]

717KB, 640x360px

>>8806033
says a retard who wants to ban arguments just because they were posted on a blog.

stay retarded, stay mad, stay delusional and keep on wasting your life away on a dead theory.

>>8806038
>trying this hard

She's not going to reward your pathetic whitenighting by fucking you, retard.

>>8806038
>ur a retard reeeeeeeeeee
Amazing argument, brainlet.

>>8806039
>>8806040
Quit samefagging, STard. Go be mad somewhere else.

>>8803844
>What comes after ST?- 86 posts and 7 image replies shown.
nothing. I haven't heard any new ideas. no one has any anything right now.

>>8804734
... S, T, U, V,...

Yeah I think st isn't the right approach. My money is on aether. Even though the Michelson Morley disproved aether wind, it still sounds like all the theories today trend towards some unifying force or substance that ties everything together. I think it is aether, but that aether would not behave as a traditional fluid would, if it could even be called a fluid.

File: saad witen.jpg (214KB, 576x512px) Image search: [Google]

214KB, 576x512px

>>8803844
saad witen. thingken.

>>8807205
I think I agree. I can't understand why we are comfortable looking for zero mass parts inside the atoms, but the 'grid of existence' or aether, can supposedly not exist since it has no substance or measurable effect on matter.

>>8803844
Some physicists think other varsions of super symmetry could still be true. We just need higher energies. Could be wrong. Could be true. Who knows?

>>8808004
>We just need higher energies
That sounds like desperation. Higher the energy, less likely it is to be true.

>>8808076
>That sounds like desperation. Higher the energy, less likely it is to be true.
Conversation on 1980's
"-Well... The Higgs boson is not at 6 GeV.... We just need higher energies.
-That sounds like desperation. Higher the energy, less likely it is to be true."

>>8808076
>That sounds like desperation
t. 19th century natural philosopher

>>8808087
Higgs Boson is not SUSY. Even the lowest energy SUSY particles cannot be found.

>>8808106
Yet the correct prediction of the Higgs mass requires Supersymmetry. See >>8803891

>>8808106
>Higgs Boson is not SUSY. Even the lowest energy SUSY particles cannot be found.
You didn't understand my argument. I was saying that "higher the energy, less likely it is to be true" is not a valid argument because it has been applied to the Higgs boson since the 80's and, at the end, they found it.

>>8808110
>correct prediction of the Higgs mass requires Supersymmetry
kek... just some bullshit ST theorizing. sorry but no. You don't need ST to predict Higgs Boson.

>>8808150
Are you just acting retarded? I never said you needed string theory to predict the Higgs, just that supersymmetry is required to give an accurate prediction of its mass.

>>8808167
retard, ST was not used in prediction of Higgs Boson in ANY WAY!

>>8808184
Is it just me, am I not explaining this clearly enough? Only though MSSM do you get sufficient radiative corrections to lift the Higgs mass to 125GeV. Read the god damn paper I linked, if your opinion is with anything it should be understandable to you.

>>8803867
agreed - observable, testable, repeatable.

Mathematics is just a language, used to describe reality, this information has been suppressed for a long time.

>>8808408
M-Theory isn't even mathematics though. Right now it is kind of a theory of a theory. Like we think this theory exists, and if it exists then it probably does such and such, but we don't really know what it is.

>>8808413
your statement only makes your suggestion less valid

>>8803855
>M-muh...M-theory
Literally (((((((you))))))

>>8808419
Not really. We knew there should be a theory of the Strong Nuclear force, and roughly how it should behave, long before we figured out QCD.

string theory is literally dead. everyone's moving away from it.

never thought I would witness so much borderline pseudoscience on /sci

fact is that string theory dominates high energy theoretical physics for a reason, and there is nothing on the horizon that could even come close to ST when it comes to beyond standard model physics

LHC did not find anything new so there is arguably a lull in entire high energy theory

but thats about it, ST aint going anywhere no matter how much brainlets complain about it being too complex and abstract for their puny intellects

>>8808493
My school currently has two things in String Theory going on, outside of people doing actual research.

A String Theory reading group (focused towards Ads/CFT), that is an actual course.

And a joint phys/math department group that meets weekly to discuss mathematical aspects of string theory (focus is on homological mirror symmetry this year).

>>8804812
>Stack exchange VS nature
Hmmm, makes you think.jpg

>>8804330
>Because the distributions are nearly Gaussian and the Gaussian curve decreases very quickly, women's narrower shape of the curve reduces the number of shockingly smart women really quickly.

Hurr durr durr, fit IQ tests to a Gaussian curve so intelligence are Gaussian.
Why are physicists constantly shitting on soft sciences while not understanding any of the motivations. Goddamn this dude is STUPID.
>Actually citing big bang theory

>>8808715
>STUPID
It's not stupidity, it's literally autism (not the meme autism). As the saying goes:
>It’s not easy to ignore Luboš, but it’s always worth the effort

>>8808683
>>Stack exchange VS nature
You didn't even read the Nature article. If you did, you would have realized that was the correct conclusion.

Your'e too retarded to participate in this discussion. Please shitpost somewhere else, low IQ brainlet.

>>8808745
Triggered.

>>8808207
That's a pretty bold claim. There are a number of ways to generate the Higgs mass without supersymmetry. And the MSSM is at the edge of its natural parameter space after last summer.

>>8808683
>he STILL falls for the Nature meme

>>8803867

What are we doing with our lives?... We could be dicking around with Thoth....


http://www.creepypasta.com/the-secret-of-the-wanderer/

"When a man wandering a path goes left long enough, he goes right. When a man goes left longer he goes around."