/sci/ - Science & Math

>>10774426

>>10508905
the vortex theory of matter

>>10432574

>>10220472
not that guy, but i would argue it's more similar to the Vortex Theory of our generation (vortex theory was related to ether theory, but the historical parallels are especially striking when you read about vortex theory in particular)

>>10018740
OP predicted this

>>9984148
>String theory makes plenty of predictions, they're just at such high energies that we can't test them right now.
can you show me a calculation of some string theory prediction that gives me some observable signal (above the standard model "background") at some energy that might be observable in future experiments, like at 100 TeV or 500 TeV? (these might be possible in the next 100 years) or 100,000 TeV? (this might be possible in a millennium perhaps)
or, alternatively, can you calculate for me the minimum energy at which we could observe your signal?

i suspect the answer is "no, we can't calculate anything like that yet" and the only things you're talking about are at or near the planck energy -- 10^16 TeV, which means humans will never be able to detect what you're talking about.

it's interesting that you mention these "plenty of predictions" but don't even say what they are. i guess this is string theorist sleight-of-hand: even if we had evidence of string theory, even if we got real great measurements at the FCC, i'm pretty sure the stuff you're referring to wouldn't be in the realm of science, similar to how wormholes and einstein rosen bridges are "predicted" by GR but do not exist, thus they are not observable, and thus they're not scientific in the strict sense. (a diehard empiricist like me would say they purely hypothetical and only of interest mathematically)

> Indeed, it makes perfect sense for SUSY to be broken at the only natural scale in ST, the string scale (near the Planck scale).
i'm pretty sure most string theorists really liked the idea of SUSY breaking at the TeV scale until recently, and you're just a victim of them constantly shifting their goal posts in believing what you say

>It might be possible to rule loads of these out, ...
that would be nice. how much progress has been made on this? will it take another 50 years of taxpayers funding you guys, while we wait for you to provide even one measurable prediction?

pic related

>>9965241

>>9957939
i don't really care what they say, honestly. it's a combination of two things:
1) theorists are wishful thinkers, duh. they want their theories to be right, cuz then they get awards and better job offers. string theory is largely motivated by "look how pretty the math is" which means jack in the end, pic related

2) if they didn't shill their theories, then they wouldn't get funding. they shill their theories and their buddies' theories so they mutually reinforce each other's justifications to the funding agencies.

>>9948764