20th century physics literature is our Shakespeare

[Anonymous No.19031185]

Michio Kaku made a fundamental and significant advance in physics, he created light-cone string field theory, following Mandelstam's light-cone formulation of string theory, along with Kikkawa. This contribution was central, because it was the first definition of string theory which was Hamiltonian, meaning it could tell you a detailed story of how strings split and join in space time. It also allowed you to produce a detailed description of the Hilbert space of string theory which is not a scattering space.

The thing about physics is that it has become annoyingly politicized, with two branches--- the technical branch which produces all the results, and the popularization branch which gets all the political clout. This division is extremely unfortunate, but it is a byproduct of the fact that nobody in the general public reads the technical literature. So people with immense technical clout, like Georgio Parisi, are incomparably less politically relevant than those with popular books, like Brian Greene.

This is a plea to the general public: please read the technical literature. I mean it. Please read it. It is a precious production of our culture, it is the main thing we will be leaving to future generations. The 20th century physics literature is our Shakespeare, it is our Homer, it is the thing that defines our cultural legacy to the largest extent. It is not acceptable to have this literature be the domain of an elite, it must be universally appreciated.

Under these circumstances, there will be no need for Michio Kaku to go around selling himself to mass media, he would have been appreciated for his technical contributions, without any need for him to become a publicity hound. But since we don't live in such a world, he has become a publicity hound. It is a bit of a shame, but it will never take away his earlier achievements.

[Anonymous No.19031192]

I could pick Michio Kaku up by his little chink feet and use him to trim a bush before throwing him into oncoming traffic.

[Anonymous No.19031200]

>>19031185
Where to start? Stemfag here (math)

[Anonymous No.19031250]

>20th century physics literature is our Shakespeare
It isn't. The statement doesn't even make sense. Shakespeare is our Shakespeare.

>This is a plea to the general public: please read the technical literature. I mean it. Please read it.
>It is not acceptable to have this literature be the domain of an elite, it must be universally appreciated.
Why would people who have no prerequisite knowledge want to read it? I have no interest in most of the field, and it is all just obscure specialised jargon to me. How am I supposed to read it? What will I gain from it?

[Anonymous No.19031259]

>>19031185
>string theory
so, it's fiction then.

[Anonymous No.19031269]

>>19031185
>The 20th century physics literature is our Shakespeare, it is our Homer, it is the thing that defines our cultural legacy to the largest extent.
Best thing I've read on /lit/ in a while. You are 100% correct.

[Anonymous No.19031342]

>>19031259
AdS/CFT correspondence confirms String theory is definitely not wrong.

[Anonymous No.19031534]

No. Like, no.

[Anonymous No.19031551]

>>19031259
You’re a complete parrot. try learning something on your own instead of reading Sabine popsci books and repeating mindlessly. AdS/CFT shows that string theory and QFT are so connected to one another that they are basically the same thing, and even in experimental particle physics there have been string techniques applied for making predictions (QGP and others). The fact is that if you are studying QCD or the standard model (real physics) it has been demonstrated that string theory has a real connection. Just because two theories are dual to one another does not mean the simpler one is real and the more complicated one is vetoed by Popper shit. mathematically there are real connections and that opens a whole 'nother toolkit for making experimental predictions. Just because you and some internet bloggers don’t appreciate that this connection is there doesn’t mean all the top experts are wrong and the whole study of this new toolbox should stop. To the contrary, buttblasted bloggers like you should be a prime example of how self-identified “smart internet commentators” can be completely ignorant of obvious things that show how ST is definitely opening new doors even on “ordinary” physics

[Anonymous No.19031556]

>>19031551
>string theory and QFT are so connected to one another that they are basically the same thing
kek and you tell me to learn something...
how the fuck can it be the same thing when quanta come into existence and strings are always just there

[Anonymous No.19031573]

>>19031556
just read up on AdS/CFT...

[Anonymous No.19031604]

>>19031185
The only thing to appreciate in string theories is the abstract nath that might be putbto use elsewhere, somewhere useful. The discipline is infested by belief.

Your shit OP aside, yes physics is the great work of our time, it is written in maths, and its ontology is our philosophy.

[Anonymous No.19031657]

michio kak is just black science man zipperhead version

[Anonymous No.19031723]

Math and formal logic are just the residue of the Present-at-Hand. You can use them to explain the correlations you find in the collection of meaningless brute facts that is the Universe, but you can never reconstruct the World, the meaningful significant world that humans actually dwell in, through any combination or manipulation of de-worlded brute facts. Also modern Physics is a mess and if you actually believe anything it talks about is anything more than a temporary useful mathematical fiction then you are fucking retarded.

[Anonymous No.19031756]

>>19031723
nice bait but too overtly heidegerrian to be effective in a stem nerd thread

[Anonymous No.19031760]

Honestly if the next generation forgets everything before Newton, I would not give a shit. Dissecting things like they do was always a rather disgusting form of Barbarism. Leave the Universe alone, its not your business, its not your home.

[Anonymous No.19031783]

Honestly if the next generation forgets all Physicists after Newton, I would not give a shit. Dissecting things like they do was always a rather disgusting form of Barbarism. Leave the Universe alone, its not your business, its not your home.

[Anonymous No.19032066]

>>19031783
I hate that this might make me sound like a basedboy, but the computer you are using relies on post newton physics

[Anonymous No.19032184]

>>19031185
>+0
take a break, mathfags

[Anonymous No.19032575]

>modern science
>theoretical physics
>math
>having any soul or meaning

[Anonymous No.19032581]

>>19031185
utterly useless information, a single shakespeare play is more important in daily life than every modern physics paper about quantum realms and string theory ever written

[Anonymous No.19032652]

>>19031783
How about you leave the shift key alone instead, you faggot?

[Anonymous No.19032762]

>>19032184
Terrible b8

[Anonymous No.19032785]

>>19031185
Sorry mate, while I agree with a lot of what you say, I don't have the mathematical knowledge to appreciate modern physics.

[Anonymous No.19032788]

>>19031185
NOBODY CARES STEMTARD

[Anonymous No.19032789]

>>19032785
why don't you build this knowledge?
>>19032788
not appreciating mathematics is a sign of poor intelligence

[Anonymous No.19032803]

>>19032762
>hurr durr it's bait
Can't fool me mathfag

[Anonymous No.19032874]

>e+pi=i+1+0
Whoever created this image hasn't got a single clue what they're talking about.

[Anonymous No.19032885]

>>19032789
>why don't you build this knowledge?
My mathematical education in high school did not even include calculus, and between my graduate studies and learning German on the side, my time is limited.

But if you or anyone else knows of a resource that details what and in which order one has to learn to go from high school math to being able to at least superficially appreciate some results of modern physics, I'm all ears

>>19032788
It is very necessary to distinguish mathematicians and physicists from engineers. I've had plenty of worthwhile philosophical discussions with the former, whereas the latter are much too often very narrow in their outlook of what is valuable.

[Anonymous No.19032898]

>>19032184
>>19032874
Please do us all a favour and kill yourselves (right now).

[Anonymous No.19032933]

>Modern Math
>science
Pick one

[Anonymous No.19032946]

>>19031185
>please read the technical literature

Can't understand it.

[Anonymous No.19033053]

>>19031185
wtf is a quantum skeleton? should i be scared?

[Anonymous No.19033141]

[Anonymous No.19033181]

>>19031185
>please read the technical literature
no, i don't think i will

[Anonymous No.19033191]

>>19031185
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aW2LvQUcwqc&list=
Why would I read actual drivel?

[Anonymous No.19033204]

>>19032898
care to elaborate this>>19032874

[Anonymous No.19033355]

>>19031185
>Kikkawa
Hehe

[Anonymous No.19033617]

>>19033204
It's a joke image you fuckin retard. Are you also going to point out that quantum skeletons don't exist?

[Anonymous No.19033635]

>>19031192
kek

[Anonymous No.19033647]

>be stemfag
>make fun of god as spaghetti monster
>actually believe in spaghetti monster

[Anonymous No.19033662]

>>19033647
Fucking kek at this pseud. Have you not read what Derrida and Foucault say about the natural sciences? They’re so retarded even Sokal wrote a book about it and debunked them. Derrida got so buttblasted from thishe took that spite to the grave, luckily for Foucault the aids took him down before he actually had to engage in the subject

[Anonymous No.19033667]

>>19031185
>string theory is totally absolutely correct
>trust me bro

[Anonymous No.19033765]

>>19032575
>reality has no meaning

[Anonymous No.19033773]

>>19033617
It's a joke post as well, if people are going to engage with the text you might as well jump on the picture.

[Anonymous No.19033776]

>>19033765
Math is not reality though.

[Anonymous No.19034460]

>>19031783
based germ capitalising substantives

[Anonymous No.19034523]

>>19033765
>theoretical physics is 100% real because... It just is okay
>but not this version from 2 years ago, totally wrong
>my blind guess based on completely arbitrary notions now is right, and will never be wrong, even though the past 100 have been refuted, by me

[Anonymous No.19034611]

>>19033765
>The symbol for Pi is π. Pi is an irrational number which means it does not have an exact fraction or decimal equivalent.
>Why yes... Mathematics is a perfect system that can flawlessly represent reality as it is.

[Anonymous No.19035121]

>>19034523
>the current interpretation of christianity is 100% real because... It just is okay
>no not this version people who lived within the lifetime of jesus believed
>The compromise made by churche fathers hundreds of years after Jesus is the 100% correct interpretation of scripture

[Anonymous No.19035144]

>>19035121
Yes.
Everything outside of Esotericism is fanfiction which nonetheless serves the purpose of community building.
AKA
Mormons are Based.

[Anonymous No.19035147]

>>19031269
Absolutely not. Homer and Shakespeare are timeless. As long as there is a shread of humanity, they will be relevant. And if humanity were to disappear entirely, it would still be relevant. I used to be interested in physics and studied it briefly in uni, so I have a little bit more clout than an illiterate adherent of scientism or an illiterate Christian Scientist. I know very little, but I know enough to say that string theory has significant opposition. Newton is wrong. Copernicus is wrong. All the scientists before them were wrong. They may be closer to the "truth" than their predecessors and contemporaries, but they remain wrong nonetheless. The "correct" scientists of this age will be incorrect in the next. As you surely know, textbooks rarely get printed with the most up-to-date information. Homer and Shakespeare are totally different from the scientists you speak of in that they will never be wrong about the humanity they described.

[Anonymous No.19035799]

>>19035147
>string theory has significant opposition
It doesn't? When people talk about string theory now they mean the superstring theories since the 1980s, not 1960s S-Matrix stuff. Physicists certainly don't look down on it, its one of the most active areas in physics. The stigma you refer to probably came from the well-founded skepticism in the early days. These days however, the only skeptics are the ones who don't understand, or just don't see the point. The reason string theory is still so popular is that it hasn't been completely disproven. This is really good news because nearly every other approach to quantum gravity fails for obvious reasons. Additionally, while it hasn't predicted much physics it has predicted a lot of really deep mathematics, and physics uses the same logic as math as far as we know so its good that they agree with each other.

[Anonymous No.19035844]

>>19035147
>Homer and Shakespeare are totally different from the scientists you speak of in that they will never be wrong about the humanity they described
Because they weren't scientists. Falsifiability is the main principle of natural sciences and for whatever they wrote to not be falsifiable (ever) it couldn't be science. OP's point was moreso physics being as representative of our contemporary culture as Shakespeare or Homer was.

[Anonymous No.19035875]

>>19031185
>The 20th century physics literature is our Shakespeare, it is our Homer
How dare you render sterile objectivism and rich humanity as objects of comparison.

[Anonymous No.19035905]

>>19031185
The best work Michio Kaku has ever done was being a complete socially illiterate sperg that provided fodder for Jim Norton or O&A to bag on for endless laughs.
>TeH muLtI vErSe iS LikE a BubBle bAtH

[Anonymous No.19035906]

>>19035799
Maths is not science.

[Anonymous No.19035907]

>>19031192
fucking kek

[Anonymous No.19036003]

>>19035121
>implying I'm not a member of the original, holy Orthodox church

[Anonymous No.19036227]

>>19035905
read the first and last paragraph of OP's post
>>19035875
>>19035906
It's funny to see /lit/ ascribe human attributes to abstract concepts just to proceed to schizophrenically hate on them due to what is essentially not liking "its personality". The only goal of science is to make more and more precise predictions, and not to describe the world as it really is.

[Anonymous No.19036241]

>>19032933
What went wrong?

[Anonymous No.19037145]

>>19033662
Don't talk about books you obviously haven't read, pseud.

[Anonymous No.19037248]

>>19034611
>Pi is an irrational number which means it does not have an exact fraction or decimal equivalent.
So what?

[Anonymous No.19037401]

>>19036227
> The only goal of science is to make more and more precise predictions, and not to describe the world as it really is.

Why doesn't science strive to describe how the world really is? Models are only as good as the information used to create them at the time.

[Anonymous No.19037482]

There is a void in the heart of humanity that science and rationality alone cannot fulfill. Just because we have no definitive evidence of the world being anything other than what it appears to be, does that mean there is nothing more to it?

[Anonymous No.19037814]

bump

[Anonymous No.19038015]

>>19035906
The singularity won't happen. The reason it won't happen is because the world has hard limits. The idea of exponential progress is stupid.

[Anonymous No.19038038]

>>19031185
what's up with his 4 year old girl bowl cut?