/sci/ - Science & Math

>>10836979
>B is false for string theory
ED WITTEN BTFO BY DUDE WHO POSTS ON SCI BUT REFERS TO SCI AS "you people"

>>10774699
>there is no way to test it using the scientific method
false, in principle, there is a way to test it. most string theorists would agree to that (though Tom Banks has said some weird shit lately, but he's fringe at this point)

the only reason that controversy exists is because we still don't understand string theory fully (we have very very little understanding of M theory at this point, so that needs work). for all we know, a smart youngster could derive some very clean testable prediction any day now.

practically, as far as we understand string theory now, it is not testable in laboratory, but only because of our limitations at building super powerful colliders (think the LHC, but the size of the galaxy. not easy.) but there is a chance that someone makes progress on string/M theory and we get a more easily detectable signature. also, it is always possible we happen to spy a cosmic string "whipping" in the sky, something that e.g. LIGO could currently detect.

also, since i'm personally a fan of string gas cosmology, there is a possibility that more mundane astronomy could give us insight into stringy things that happened in the very early universe. something akin to the CMB stuff that WMAP and Planck did, combined with a better understanding of the currently viable cosmological models.

the string theory "skeptics" like Hosstardfelder and Woit like to say "haha! you don't have any predictions... yet! i am super sure you wont get any in the future! i am super sure nothing weird will be detected by telescopes or LIGO! haha!" or "Tom Banks said something weird, haha! that debunks string theory!" or "Haha! Vafa doesn't like KKLT! checkmate string theorists!" but that's just because they're loser dropouts. hosstardfelder is some sort of diversity bureaucrat now, and Woit is a glorified sysadmin for some small cluster at cornell. and don't even mention uber-tard Unzicker. don't trust blogger shills.

>>10632139
>calls me lubos
i’m offended but also sort of flattered

>>10603913
if you look at the publicity for FCC or HE-LHC coming from CERN, they’re not hyping SUSY any more. you’ll see a lot more emphasis on higgs physics. same is true, even moreso, of ILC.

nima wrote a good article on this topic
https://cerncourier.com/in-it-for-the-long-haul/

don’t believe “reee i lost my job now i hate physics” sabine

>hurr durr i coudln't keep my job in physics cuz i sucked
>hurr durr now i rite a blog, me smart
>reeeeeeee i hate physics now
>hurr durr all theoretical physicists are doing it wrogn
>hurr you shouldn't build new particle collidurrs
>reeeeeee they cost too many moneys
>hurr durr we won't discovre anythign new or umportant
>hurr durr instead wait for a miracle to happen in high-Tc superconductors
>hurr durr me qualifeid
>hurr durr watch me "sing" sogns on my youtube channul thx