/sci/ - Science & Math

Bruv gibs me more information.

What are the keypoints?

>>11100635
so basically a major problem with string theory was that it seems to predict a huge number of possibilities for what the cosmos looks like at a large scale. almost all of the things that are possible in basic string theory predict the universe is going to start collapsing under gravitational attraction, or that it just barely is asymptotically reaching a non-accelerating or collapsing state.

KKLT was a (pretty claptrap) mechanism to "uplift" standard string theory so that it could lead to universes that look like ours, in terms of the fact that we observe distant galaxies accelerating away from us instead of gravitating back toward us. standard string theory would imply that this is impossible without some trickery.

the stanford KKLT clowns decided that the way to make what we see compatible with string theory was to postulate that where we live (our universe) is like some "brane" stacked on a bunch of other branes connected to some "anti-brane" and that would allow us to have distant galaxies accelerating away from us. it fixes string theory. hurrah! great work stanford clowns!

the Swampland OTOH is a set of ideas that rule out large swaths of what is possible in string theory. some basic common-sense (at least to Vafa) principles rule out many of the collapsing or asymptotically slowing solutions to string theory. it doesn't explicitly solve the problem but is meant to narrow down our understanding of string theory solutions to the most realistic ones that are possible. and in the process it has led us to better understanding of what is really going on in string theory and how it relates to the large-scale structure of the universe

>>11100501
I can get the debate energy up with with some classic cognitive dissonance inducing logic based observations.

Quantum mechanics is a hoax.
There is no evidence that light is ever a particle.
The experiments done with light ie Young's twin slit experiment showed light was a wave.
What we perceive as light is waves propagating in the background cosmic electromagnetic radiation left over from the big bang.
What causes this propagation is the electrons in an atom bouncing back and forth between the two outer valence shells,
As electrons are electronegative (negatively charged) they interact with the EMF and generate a wave pattern.
This is why EMF travels just a little slower than the speed of light ;)
Light is the highest energy state of EMF.
The reason black holes absorb light is because they act as a massive broadband antenna and absorb this background EMF , so with no medium to propagate through there is no light, an thus a dark ring around black holes.
There are no subatomic particles, the smallest particle is an electron.
The fradulant claim by Einstein that light is a particle is the foundation of wave particle duality. Which is the cornerstone of all quantum mechanics.
This means all QM is wrong.
You are the victim of a group think mass delusion, and also a hoax.
You are caught up in a lie.

>>11100721
>>>/x/

>>11100721
So you're using QM as a given to try to disprove QM? I'm confused

>>11100741
>;)
>i’m not a schizo
>;)
>i passed freshman physics
>;)
>everything i say isn’t /pol/
>;) ;) wink ;)

>>11100741
Where was I using QM ?
The winking is because I'm attempting to be friendly, maybe get some actual scientists interested enough to post and know I'm not gonna start up with abusive posts if you challenge my ideas.

I know the timeline of how the hoax started, why don't you as an exercise, tell me how you know for certain light is a particle other than
>Photoelectric effect

And if you think the photoelectric effect proves it, tell me why.
Saying Einstein said it is as valid as me linking you to the peer reviewed paper that says cold fusion is real, or anti gravity.

What I'm getting as is how do you know for certain?

And this isn't paranormal in any way...

>>11100831
denying QM is basically like denying thermodynamics at this point. every time you post it is just so tiring that threads die because of you. please start another self-containment thread and please stop shitting up decent threads

>>11100953
I'm sorry if I'm Gallileoing up your meticulously crafted fantasy land,
But I know how you feel, I was pretty angry about it too, because I hate hoaxters, charlatans, con artists etc, especially when they get involved in science.

But I know for certain that QM is a hoax, also this is 4chan so if we can debate whether or not black people and woman are sub-humans or not, I don't think me pointing out literally hundreds of inconsistencies, glaring omissions and errors in the quantum mechanical timeline is over the line.

QM violates the scientific method.
Non stop anecdotal "evidence", that's all there is, and "Einstein said it"

So you really believe that we have working, functional quantum computers?

Can I ask you a question.
What is the active observer?

See I know what it was, during the twin slit experiment they did with electrons in the 1960s, electrostatic discharge was building up in the slits and randomly altering the path of electrons through the slit, creating a random interference pattern, which confused scientists because they got different results every time.

Now the QM interpretations is that our consciousness is interacting with the multidimensional particles as there waveform collapses and they go to another dimension, but then come back when you look away.......

I'm sorry man, but if you actually believe in QM go back to /X/

I know this from research I actually did, I know this is 4chan and you hear that alot, but challenging QM makes everyone think you are insane, so I am doing my best to help the scientific community clear a few things up.

And while writing a paper in my own name so I can be humiliated and never work in the scientific industry again might sound like a good idea, I think I will pass.

Have fun calling EMF "quantum fluid" though lol,
Oh and dark matter, the invisible, unobservable polydimensional goo that is everywhere in the universe but we can't see it......it's background EMF people.

>>11100953
I didn't know thermodynamics involved psychic powers, time travel, extradimensional entities, particles that travel faster than light (Einstein wouldn't like that now would he's because of the whole "speed of light paper he wrote, I'm talking about tachyons by the way),
And my favourite
Fly really fast into space, then come back , and you will be back before you left......

In b4
>Photoelectric effect

;)

Do you guys wanna know what Quantum fluid is?
It's the goo you have to clean up after all the QM believers circle up and peer review each other's papers whilst simultaneously beating each other off ;)

>>11101096
>>11101121
>>11101135
fuck off samefag hoaxfag.

you realize that trolling real physics thread probably hurts you in the end. the reason we make these threads is because the internet is sorely devoid of high-energy physics stuff (because mostly everyone in the field is too busy to post on twitter or make a blog, aside from lubos motl who writes a cancer blog)

if you let us actually post without shitting it up with /x/ shit maybe you could learn enough to actually criticize us. instead you post stuff which is literally the kind of crap we deal with on a daily basis with "i'm so smart im smarter than professors" undergrads who waltz into office hours and act like they're smarter than the professor and keep going and going until the end of office hours, and then lo and behold they got failed out next session because they couldn't pass multivariable calculus. you are the internet version of that except the mods aren't failing you because god knows why

if you want, qm actually lines up with psychology well. string theory makes sense on paper, so you could look at gravity as a constant and badaboom, you have framework in elemental dark matter and plasma
really, if you cant see it, teleport to it and you cut out the time it takes to learn.

>>11101190
I did cross the line with that last post,
I'm sorry.

At the very least I'm making you think,
And if you aren't willing to defend your beliefs then you don't deserve to have them.

Science is the persuit of truth.
I studied QM for years and I never once got a real answer to any question,
It's always
"You are not smart enough to comprehend it but I am"
"It takes too long to explain"
"I don't know I study a different field of quantum mechanics"

None of the machines work man,
None of the theories work.
None of the explanations work.

All I am asking is
How do we know light is a particle.
Then photoelectric effect doesn't explain it.

I can explain the photoelectric effect though.

The reason lower frequencies can't get the metal to emit electrons is the same reason a smoke alarm can do about 140 decibels of 25000 hertz from a few milliwatts , but a subwoofer needs thousands of watts to get the same decibal reading at 50 watts.

Frequency versus wavelength is an inversely proportional ratio, so low frequency light (red) needs several dozen fold the power to get the same energy as say ultraviolet high frequency light,.

That's just how physics works.
It's not magic.

>>11101249
anon, why do you even post in that style? it is insufferable.

please post in fewer lines.

anyhow, have you ever heard of a "photomultiplier tube"? i suspect you have and will post a shill argument to say PMTs are a hoax too. i don't care. PMTs prove you wrong and any subsequent reply you have is cope

>>11101190
I have a few theories on using superconducting hollow spheres to create EMF voids, then use high energy electromagnetic fields to compress and distort the background EMF and interfere with how fast the light travels through the system, you know, put some atomic clocks in there and see if we can slow time down, the old stasis chamber.

But I could never get funding because my paper doesn't have the word quantum in it. And I can explain how it all works with simple diagrams and analogies, and QM hates that.

You sound like a pretty hectic scientist though, I would love to work with you someday :)

>>11101257
Sorry man I have Asperger's, autism and ADD, so I try to compartmentalise my thought process or it all just blends together into a too long didn't read scenario.

Yeah I know what a photomultiplier is,
I don't believe we have a way to transmit or observe a single photon.
The background radiation alone would create an impossible to work with signal to noise ratio, you know those random Clicks a Geiger Counter counter gets.

Photomultipliers would work the same with light being a wave, it's just a really sensitive solar panel, I don't think there is anything quantum about PMTs, it's basically a really sensitive antenna tuned to the frequency of light with multi stage amplifiers.

>>11101257
Also PMTs work, they do what they are advertised to do.
This in in direct contradiction with quantum computers, which don't work.
Also it was in the media twenty years ago that we had working decryption quantum computers.
So yes
Technically quantum computers are a hoax because...wait for it,
It does not compute.....
It doesn't work.
And the news says it does.
So it's a hoax in a legal or literal sense.

>>11101276
>>11101302
>>11101316
thanks mr. pseud. now we know not to ever post here about real physics, thanks

>>11101249
>at the very least im making you think
The only thing I think about when I read the kind of posts that people like you make is that the only reason the humanities are so difficult is because they stopped telling people like you to shut up and go away.

>>11101345
Like when Gallileo told everyone the earth was round and they tried to burn him at the stake and he had to expatriate and died in poverty?

Is that what you mean by we used to tell people to shut up and go away.

You would have been one of the people chasing Gallileo with a burning torch.

We are allowed to point out that new experimental data is in contradiction with very old, early theories.

The reason I post here is because if you invest your time in QM, you will end up working on something that you will never get any actual results for.
QM is just like the water powered car phenomenon.
We got videos and and news reports of water powered csrs., Patents, people who say they built one.
It's impossible though.....
Quantum computing is impossible.

I would say the same thing on a "working water powered car!!!" Post, because a "working quantum computer!!!" Post is exactly the same.
Also MRI machines aren't quantum computers.

Did you guys know the Vatican is secretly heavily invested in QM because it provides evidence for the existence of God ;)

What an amazing coincidence lol.
They have that massive observatory and all those astrophysicists working for them.
Yeah I know, it's a conspiracy so let's just not think about it.
Has Google told you about any more miracles lately ?
Like that quantum computer you will never get to see, touch, use, or know anything about...
There is as much evidence for a working quantum computer as there is for the arc of the covenant.

>>11100501
Also what do you mean by "high energy"
I'll discuss high energy physics all day long,
But OPs post is about abstract metaphysical and philosophical subjects, where is the physics?

>>11101412
Vafa and swampland conjectures maybe?

>>11101421
What is that, sounds interesting :)

>>11100501
It's a shame a talented physicist like Vafa is wasting his time with this bullshit. Has there ever been an example of naturalness arguments (like are found in the swampland conjecture and everywhere in hep for the last 30 years) leading to real experimentally verified physics?

I would be glad if this swampland hype leads to the death of string cosmology though.

>>11101096
>See I know what it was, during the twin slit experiment they did with electrons in the 1960s, electrostatic discharge was building up in the slits and randomly altering the path of electrons through the slit, creating a random interference pattern, which confused scientists because they got different results every time.
Formalize this mathematically and explain experimental results with your model and you have a competing theory.

>>11100501
>good OP and starting discussion
>ruined almost instantaneously by schizos
Anyways, I'm not too personally invested in string theory and haven't been following Vafa's recent non-categorical works, but I do know he has a stunning track record and he knows what he's doing. I'll mainly be interested in unification/classification results for compactification RG fixed points, in particular for the (2,0) 6D superconformal, as this relates to the study of HMS. In addition, the space of sugras can serve as a playground for state-sum constructing TMF-based TQFTs, which is directly related to my field. Many things to look forward to.

>>11101575
t. I'm very smart but I don't know what swampland physicists actually talk about

>>11101581
Yep, I don't and I never said I did. Is there a problem?

>>11101575
You sound like a chatbot that is randomly selecting automatically generated science words and putting them into a sentence structure template ;)
Or that thing where you mash the autocomplete thing on your phone,
Could you maybe expand a little on any aspect of your post so it has relevance,

Like apparently I'm speaking unintelligible incoherent schizophrenic gibberish but
>in addition, the space of sugras can serve as a playground for state-sum constructing TMF-based TQFTs.
Makes perfect sense.
It kind of sounds like you are intentionally wording your post to be deliberately misleading so if anyone asks what you are talking about you can just claim they aren't intelligent enough to understand.
It's a classic QM technique ;) used commonly to get research grants for wild goose chase/never get a single result but oh boy do week trying projects.

Does anyone here know what OP is about or are we all just wallflowering in a group in case we get asked a question because we are caught deep in a lie.

>>11101679
Nah, I suspect he does have a tendency to throw buzzwords around to pat himself on the back a bit, but the parts I understand make sense in context. I think he knows more than you and me (at least in certain areas) but less than he is leading on

>>11101520
Thankyou for the input :)
Yeah I'm working on it.
If you publish something like that you will never work again though, it's called "sammelwies syndrome" it's a phenomenon named after the doctor that invented hand washing,
He took deaths from septicemia during childbirth down from 30% to less than 1% overnight and because all the other doctors were so angry that the textbooks were wrong, the put him in an insane asylum and had him beaten to death,
I guess you could also call it "Gallileo" syndrome.
Contesting QM is taboo, it scares people ;(

You sound like you really know your stuff, how would I get started do you think :)

>>11101682
As a concrete example of what I mean

>unification/classification results for compactification RG fixed points

As far as I understand every valid compactification needs to be a fixed point of the RG flow on the non-linear sigma model, otherwise the string theory wouldn't be conformal and terrible things would happen. So if you understand this there is no reason to say "compactification RG fixed points," that's why I think he is dressing up the language a bit

>>11101679
>Makes perfect sense.
It sure does :))).
https://arxiv.org/abs/1103.4187
The algebra of quantum operators for sugras form bundles of conformal nets, and was claimed in the above to be a geometric realization for TMFs. This means that sugras can be classified, at least topologically, by TQFTs with state sum given by TMF-Euler classes. If we know the classification of sugras from some [math]C[/math]-theorem for superconformals, we can extract their topological data with TMFs.
My post wasn't meant for you to feel insecure, honey, but please understand that the math I'm describing here does require specialized technical terms in order to convey. Please don't take it personally.

>>11101682
I'm just surprised because if you study QM academically then you have been at University for years, you've done lecturing, marked assignments, done research and presentations, surely at that stage you could present your ideas in a more like I guess sensical fashion, like if you asked me how an engine worked because we were debating race cars and I said
Air flows past the MAP sensor and signals the ECU to pump petroleum distillate into a single piece extruded aluminium fuel rail with DI and then solid lifters force a blueprinted camshaft to rotate and force exhaust through the hotside turbine impeller at 2 Bar of boost generating 400hp at 200Nm of torque.

Thats not really explaining it, it's technically true but it's kind of douchy to talk like that, I don't know.

>>11101705
>Thats not really explaining it, it's technically true but it's kind of douchy to talk like that
I completely agree with the spirit of what you said.

> if you study QM academically then you have been at University for years
But just to be clear, the kind of stuff he is talking about is as far removed from a basic quantum mechanics course as that quantum mechanics course is from blocks on a ramp

>>11100721
Get a nametag asap or please, please fuck the fuck off.

>>11101743
Just ignore those posts, every reply they get is just more noise

>>11101692
I don't take it personally :)
It's abstract, untestable, metaphysical maths with no application to the dimension we live in.
There are no wrong answers in QM, it's why there are several dozen mutually exclusive and incompatible theories, and every quantum physicist has there own personal theory that is different to all their peers.
So you can publish anything if you know the technical jargon, and no one can disagree or ask questions.
That's why there are thousands of QM papers and we haven't seen a single result.

If we moved to another parallel dimension and no one had ever heard of QM, it would be the same place, just with a section of textbooks missing from the library.

This is just mysticism, a small inner circle of men with a secret language only they understand, and mysterious artifacts made of gold (the latest Quantum computers are bling city)with magical powers but we never get to see any of the powers they claim to have and they don't actually do anything.

It's like Tesla said about quantum physics

Einstein's relativity work is a magnificent mathematical garb which fascinates, dazzles and makes people blind to the underlying errors. The theory is like a beggar clothed in purple whom ignorant people take for a king... its exponents are brilliant men but they are metaphysicists rather than scientists.
Nikola Tesla

>>11101743
I tried that and everyone called me a namefag so I thought it violated 4chan etiquette because of the whole anon thing, thanks for the advice i will.

damn, even sci is overrun with cracked pots..

>>11101744
>>11101768
I'm sorry if my posts are making you uncomfortable or whatever, let me drown out the noise with the link I went to for some evidence that QM isn't a hoax , which is the conclusion I came to after spending years trying to build a quantum computer.

>We describe the role conformal nets, a mathematical model for conformal field theory, could play in a geometric definition of the generalized cohomology theory TMF of topological modular forms. Inspired by work of Segal and Stolz-Teichner, we speculate that bundles of boundary conditions for the net of free fermions will be the basic underlying objects representing TMF-cohomology classes. String structures, which are the fundamental orientations for TMF-cohomology, can be encoded by defects between free fermions, and we construct the bundle of fermionic boundary conditions for the TMF-Euler class of a string vector bundle. We conjecture that the free fermion net exhibits an algebraic periodicity corresponding to the 576-fold cohomological periodicity of TMF; using a homotopy-theoretic invariant of invertible conformal nets, we establish a lower bound of 24 on this periodicity of the free fermions.

There is no evidence that QM is real other than the fact it's in textbooks, it's exactly like a religious debate and using the Bible as evidence.
Anecdotes aren't evidence.

>>11101774
very funny sweetie

>>11101710
Yeah higher maths gets pretty wild :)

>>11101786
I don't mean to sound disrespectful in any way, but help me out.
What is a fermion?
How do we know fermions are real?
What evidence is there for the existence of fermions?
Because I know that fermions are a hypothetical particle, with its existence predicted based on QM there's that work along the lines of "this QM theory predicts the existence of 5 particles, but we have only seen 3 particles, so we get to fabricate the other 2 particles"
And a fermion is one of those theoretical particles, we have never observed it, it exists only in the imagination of higher functioning mathematicians, like a hypercube.

>>11101754
It's true, but for us it's also easier to instantly identify your posts and ignore them. Saves time.

>>11101811
Look, I will reply once and that's it.

You are misunderstanding how science works.

Someone didn't sit on an armchair and think up a fermion and then publish a paper and then the other elites read it and nodded and said "sounds about right" and then it goes straight to the textbook.

An electron is a fermion. Our basic model of real world matter like metals and semiconductors is based on interacting electrons, and the Pauli exclusion principle (which is what the word fermion indicates) is a big part of that. There are people that spend every day making sure that properties like the temperature and conductance of real world materials correspond with very subtle effects in the quantum theory of interacting atoms and electrons. So to claim fermions, which are what this whole edifice is built on, are not real is beyond absurd.

You chose a particularly bad example with the word "fermion," but all physics is like this. You should really lose that persecution complex and actually study it if you are curious how the world works

>>11101834
Thankyou for the tip, I will post anonymously from now on.
Keep that information stream censored man, we wouldn't want any dangerous thinking ;)
Never remove your blinders.

>>11101836
Thankyou for your response :)
The way we remain civilised in these trying times means there is hope for us all.
I studied quantum mechanics for years, full time. I am not going to go into the details but surely from my posts you can tell I have some form of scientific background though right.
I need a quantum computer for something I am doing that is very important.
It involves amongst other things using infinite non repeating numbers such as pi and Euler's number for compression. You know how pi goes forever and never repeats, well when converted to binary that means every file, MP3, video etc is present in that binary code, like your birthday, phone number etc, (even weirder the file exists in the pi string before you make the file, which is a wicked mind fuck, so in pi somewhere is a JPEG of a photo of you on your deathbed etc)
Anyway you can find data in pi binary on a computer, and the coordinates of the number string can be sent to another computer, pi binary is generated and the file can be generated on the reciever terminal from the pi string location.
So the file is never actually sent,
Anyway the problem is it takes terrifying amounts of computation above what current commercial and even supercomputers can do. But quantum computers could do it ;)
It has lots of other applications but that's the basics , extreme compression etc.
It's a long story and you all think I'm insane anyway, but from my professional research I have discovered quantum computing is vaporware, like time machines and warp drives.
I am sorry but it isn't real.
And QM is dodgy as fuck.

And I know how the world works, QM is great until you need to use it for something and then it just becomes the smoke and mirrors it always was.

>>11101836
And I picked fermions because it's the particle named in the paper that was linked.
The QM I mainly studied was particle theory, so I like particles :)

>>11101836
>
Someone didn't sit on an armchair and think up a fermion and then publish a paper and then the other elites read it and nodded and said "sounds about right" and then it goes straight to the textbook.

I am really sorry but that is exactly how quantum mechanics works. In its early days they had no idea how it worked because it was so new, and they just published everything. There is a reason they don't teach QM history, read about Einstein's personal life, the guy was a piece of shit, read up about it, it's an intro to what they edit from history to make it make more sense.

>>11101874
And what if the coordinates that index your file in the binary expression of pi take up more space than the file itself? This is highly likely to be the case, assuming your file even exists in the infinite expansion of pi (it's not guaranteed to, in case you didn't know).

>>11101882
Nice ;)
You break the file up into smaller fragments and look for smaller strings.
It's how long it takes to find long strings that's the problem, you basically have to brute force it so it's like encryption, conventional computers could never do it.

>>11101890
And do you have a quantum algorithm for doing it, because there's no reason to assume quantum computers would be any better for this specific problem.

>>11101811
just curious have you done any actual experimental physics?

>>11101882
Also the probability of finding a string, in an infinite string is 1, because it's infinitely non repeating,
Like are you sure that's wrong, I'm well confused haha,

This is a pretty good example of how QM papers get published with no peer review
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sokal_affair

>>11101897
If you can use quantum computers for deencryption as Google claims, you could use them for this, and I need a working quantum computer before I can write the code man, I can't code for a theoretical machine.
Also maybe I'm just planning to use a Quantum computer to do sha-256 cracking with Bitcoins and print my own crypto money ;)
I will do that as well if I ever can.

What do you mean by quantum algorithm?

>>11101912
Wrong. Just because it is infinite non-repeating does not guarantee it contains all sequences. In the case of pi though, it is believed to have this property, but it has not been proven.
Read for yourself. >https://math.stackexchange.com/questions/216343/does-pi-contain-all-possible-number-combinations

Also, it's worth mentioning that this is an absolutely terrible way to encode information.

>>11101923
Quantum computers only outperform classical computers in specific problems. They are not faster at everything. You need a special algorithm that leverages a very particular aspect of quantum mechanical behavior for them to be worth using. Shor's algorithm is an example of this.

Computing pi won't be any better on a quantum computer. In fact it will probably be worse. Much worse.

>>11101934
Thanks man, as I said before, you break the data into chunks, like if I was compressing a DVD I wouldn't look for a 4GB data string.
I know what you mean though there are of course limitations, like you can't look for a string of 5000 1s in a row etc.
This isn't really the point of what I was talking about,
It was in the process of trying to do this that I came to the conclusion that quantum computers were vaporware, I didn't just wake up one morning hell bent on trash talking QM for no reason.


Did you guys know that data is being found in the block chain with a similar process, and one of the practical applications for it is that legal documents can be located in the block chain, and both parties can view the document but there is no way for it to be destroyed or altered ;)
Because the block chain is so massive it's a quasi infinite non repeating decimal.

There are applications for this that are beyond the scope of me being flamed in a 4chan forum, if we were hanging out with some beanbag chairs and some dank, sticky weed I would probably tell you about it, that would be a fun afternoon.

>>11101943
They don't outperform anything ever.
Because they don't have working models yet.
But I know what you mean, nuclear powered cars get way better mileage than petrol cars ;)

I'm not using it for computing pi, you can just have that on a hardrive or use conventional CPUs for it , a 32 core CPU could do that pretty fast.

This thread is derailing lol.

>>11101906
What do you mean by experimental physics?

>>11100501
>>11100670
good posts, OP

>>11100670
The alarming inconsistencies in the predictive powers of accepted models all point towards a single solitary conclusion.
There is an aether.
It is attracted to bodies of mass by gravitation.
The appearance that galaxies are moving away from us irrationally is literally an optical illusion.
Galaxies are moving as they should according to Newtonian mechanics.

Change my mind.

>>11102120

>ether attracted to bodies of mass by gravitation

Isnt that just dark matter?

>>11102257
>dark matter

Isn't that just the aether?

>>11100501
Where can i follow more about latest developments in high energy physics like this? Is Lubos Motl's blog the only active quantum gravity blog by an actually qualified person?

homotopy extension property general

>>11101575
What are TMF-based TQFTs?

>>11102399
the consensus of the string theorists of facebook is that there is nothing like a good string theory blog type thing still active on the web (Distler got scared away by schizo commenters like ITT) and that everyone should boycott motl's blog since he is a raging douche. see here and the ensuing comments:
facebook.com slash daniel.harlow.31/posts/10104252202718462

>>11101749
Superconductivity.
>>11102458
State sum constructions [math]Z(M)[/math] for the TQFT partition function [math]Z[/math] on a closed compact [math]n[/math]-bordism [math]M[/math] are typically expressed as sums over topological invariants. Examples include graph invariants in 2D, knot invariants in 3D and Seiberg-Witten and Witten-Dijkgraaf for spin/+Abelian gauge-TQFTs, respectively. What I meant was that if TMFs do indeed capture deformation classes of conformal net bundles, then the topological data of sugras as a TQFT [math]Z(M)[/math] can be expressed in terms of invariants constructed from TMFs as a cohomology theory over some complicated scheme.

>>11102976
Oh thanks that explains it

>>11103358
modular forms are basically an example of conformal transformations or complex analytic functions. maybe TMFs are a generalization of that for topology

>>11103358
>modular forms are basically a generalization of conformal transformations or complex analytic functions. maybe TMFs are a generalization of that for topology

bump

bump

Question about spin: Why does the Stern-Gerlach experiment demonstrate it's existence? Wouldn't it be just as reasonable to postulate that particles have intrinsic magnetic moments and treat that as the fundamental quantity (as opposed to intrinsic angular momentum)?
Is there a perspective from which these two things are basically the same thing? Does magnetic moment imply angular momentum? How/why?

>>11105935
because there are two spots on the screen in stern gerlach. classically a small magnet pointed sideways would go somewhere in between the two dots, but particles with spin never do that. either spinning perfectly up or perfectly down along any axis you measure

how can something in physics b "good work" its either right

>>11106686
plenty of theorists laid groundwork that was wrong but it was good work because it helped as a guide to future physicists. heck, Dirac was almost completely wrong in his electron theory, but it is an essential learning tool for all physics grad students. as a more apt example, Kaluza-Klein theories were failures, but decades later their work became essential to the concepts of string theory.

>>11100670
>the Swampland OTOH is a set of ideas that rule out large swaths of what is possible in string theory. some basic common-sense (at least to Vafa) principles rule out many of the collapsing or asymptotically slowing solutions to string theory.

Maybe you should mention that the recent fuss about the swampland is not because it is eliminating solutions we don't want to see but because it appears string theory is incompatible with a positive cosmological constant.

Naturally string theorists don't take this as evidence against string theory, but instead try to revive quintessence models which my cosmologist friends say were considered pretty much dead.

>>11106871
Here is a 2018 paper with nothing terribly mathematical about it that goes over some of the things apparently ruled out by swampland. Besides the positive cosmological constant, apparently the usual form of the Higgs potential and the QCD axion are ruled out too. Everything is based on naturalness arguments which are not such a far cry from things like the anthropic principle that OP finds distasteful.

I know there are only 2 or 3 of you out there that might actually be at the level to look at this, but I thought I'd back up what I said with a reference in any case

>>11106886
Oops
The paper: arXiv:1809.00478 [hep-th]

>>11106897
i saw this paper. i think Tom Banks posted something very similar to that very recently too.

my take on it is that the swampland conjectures are powerful at ruling out lots of stuff, and that there is only a slim possibility that they rule out our universe. (this would mean string theory is wrong.) the swampland program at refining string theory is nice, and even if it leads to us falsifying string theory, that would be nice too. at least we brought string theory into the realm of falsifiability.

but just looking at the probabilities, it looks like swampland stuff is throwing out tons of garbage from string theory, while giving itself a very very tiny existential risk at throwing itself away. maybe Vafa is being a little risky. that's cool. my bets are on that the swampland program throws out tons of garbage but it hangs on and that the meta-conjectures of the swampland conjectures about how it rules out string theory turn out to be wrong.

in either case we are actually doing real science again, where things can be right or wrong, unlike the stanford tribe who prefer to assume anything can be right and we just got lucky with our particular version or right

>>11106908
*version of not "version or"

>>11106908
I'm not gonna lie, the possibility of this killing the idea of string theory as a theory of everything is the only part I like about it.

I like string theory as a sector of theoretical physics that can teach us about strongly coupled field theories and maybe even quantum gravity, but things like string cosmology seem like complete hubris to me.

>>11106942
i tend to agree. though i hold out hope for the off chance that string theory might have a revolution that makes sharp predictions in astrophysics and particle physics. i know it is a pipe dream but at least Vafa is telling us we could hope for a future like that

>>11106440
Ok, but still I don't see how that answers my question. Why not merely an intrinsic quantized magnetic moment (this would lead to only the two dots on the screen)?
What about calling it intrinsic angular momentum is functionally different from calling it an intrinsic magnetic moment?

>>11101679
That's called Bogdanoff energy; sorry that you have never experienced it. It's essential to have at least some amount of Bogdanoff energy to succeed in physics.

>>11100501
Op what does Vafa say about the rate of expansion. I read and old article relating that our universe might be slowing down. But I can't find a follow up. I'm curious about the fate of our universe.

>>11107978
see this related thread:
>>11108225
the quotes from that post are from an article vafa wrote a few days ago that are linked in that thread

>>11101705
This is the exact reason why I cant stand Yukari poster. Its just so obnoxious and obviously can be explained in much better and simpler terms when you're trying to spark a diverse discussion.

Get better at presenting your work to your colleagues or expect to never make it in academia and actually ever publish, Yukari fag.

>>11108440
i think he admitted in one of those old "Confess" threads that he basically likes to stroke his own ego and act condescending to everyone, hence why he always posts super elite physics shit in the most obscure way... and he admitted he was gay in the same post so calling him a fag is kind of mean actually.

also i just found this awesome video where John Ellis debates Cumrun Vafa and some theological historian jewess trolls them with their standard crap:
https://youtu.be/NGH8Rt_SNy8

great video

>>11108797
That makes sense. Good thread and video btw.

>>11100501
What do you guys think about Higgs Troika article on arxiv ?

>>11108839
post link

>>11101786
*sweaty
shitpost right dumb tranny

>>11102976
>Superconductivity

How does supercondivity prove quantum mechanics.
Superconductivity is a QM mystery because the way it works defied QM interpretations.
Quantum mechanics is a hoax, and you are a hoaxter.
If you had a post grad in QM you could answer my questions with more than one word.

>>11109066
fuck off hoaxfag.

>>11109068
I'm sorry man, let me speak in a way you understand ....;)

State sum constructions Z(M) for the TQFT partition function Z on a closed compact n-bordism M are typically expressed as sums over topological invariants. Examples include graph invariants in 2D, knot invariants in 3D and Seiberg-Witten and Witten-Dijkgraaf for spin/+Abelian gauge-TQFTs, respectively. What I meant was that if TMFs do indeed capture deformation classes of conformal net bundles, then the topological data of sugras as a TQFT Z(M) can be expressed in terms of invariants constructed from TMFs as a cohomology theory over some complicated scheme.

Sorry if I broke the rules about speaking coherently.

What's your interpretation of swampland vs QMF bihedregonic asymmetrical discoherence?

>>11109103
you just copy pasted that from what you got from warosu by searching posts with image names including “yukari” didn’t u

>>11108797
I was never any confession thread though.

>>11109211
ok sure. we absolve you of anything on warosu

>>11109157
I just copied and pasted from anon earlier, you know the 'i have been studying professionally for ten +plus years I just don't know how to present ideas from the field I work in in a comprehendable format because I am too smart to speak normally anymore, and you aren't smart enough because you don't study the field I do,"
How did he he originally get his degree lol,
Imagine the exam
Q1, explain your interpretation of quantum mechanics
A, superconductivity.

And then he gets a PhD ?

Who is warosu and yukari anyway,
I'm a newfag

>>11109222
Thank you.
Also to add to the thread a little, I'm wondering what HEP people think about https://arxiv.org/abs/1008.1917? It seems to be pretty interesting given the recent boom in popularity of holography in cond mat, which is my main field of physics.
By taking inspiration from cond mat there is also a result https://arxiv.org/abs/1806.11385 that generalizes [math]T[/math]-dualities in CFT to incorporate equivariant twists. I feel we can make some real progress in HMS with this.

>>11109268
I don't know too much about the QHE but isn't it described in terms of Chern-Simons theories? I'm probably saying nothing you don't already know but these are dual to WZW theories on the boundary and this is an example of holography that predates AdS-CFT by a decade. Is this all that holography in condensed matter is?

>>11109299
Well I guess I could've looked at the paper before commenting, but that's no fun

>>11109268
i claim no expertise in the subjects of these papers, but they sure look promising. if that is what you are interested in then i fully would support your pulling on those threads. looks q lot better than what most hep theorists are doing, like those SYM people who inevitably move to data science

>>11109299
>but isn't it described in terms of Chern-Simons theories
Yep, effectively at least, with a statistical gauge field.
>Is this all that holography in condensed matter is?
Topologically speaking yes, but there are more cond mat-centred considerations that are less well understood like FQH states, SET phases and effects of impurities. I'm not very familiar with what the holography people are doing but I suspect they're looking for more than the AdS/CFT duality.
>>11109308
Among the ideas there I'm mainly interested in the HMS bit, but studying TQFT doesn't give me enough geometric background to substantially look further than topological Fourier-Mukai.
From what I know, most of my colleagues in HEP are migrating towards PPEFT and applications (one of which is fitting CERN data), and it does seem quite barren.

>>11108913
https://arxiv.org/abs/1909.02044

>>11109558
Higs Troika for Baryon Asymmetry
Hooman Davoudiasl, Ian M. Lewis, Matthew Sullivan
(Submitted on 4 Sep 2019)
To explain the baryon asymmetry of the Universe, we extend the Standard Model (SM) with two additional Higgs doublets with small vacuum expectation values. The additional Higgs fields interact with SM fermions through complex Yukawa couplings, leading to new sources of CP violation. We propose a simple flavor model with O(1) or less Yukawa couplings for quarks and charged leptons, consistent with current flavor constraints. To generate neutrino masses and the baryon asymmetry, right-handed neutrinos in the ∼0.1−10 TeV range couple to the "Higgs Troika." The new Higgs doublet masses could be near the TeV scale, allowing for asymmetric decays into Standard Model lepton doublets and right-handed neutrinos. The asymmetry in lepton doublets is then processed into a baryon asymmetry, similar to leptogenesis. Since the masses of the new fields are near the TeV scale, there is potentially a rich high energy collider phenomenology, including observable deviations in the 125 GeV Higgs decay into muons and taus, as well as detectable low energy signals such as the electron EDM or μeγ. Hence, this is in principle a testable model for generation of baryon asymmetry, similar in that respect to "electroweak baryogenesis

You guys are really reading this and it's convincing you that quantum mechanics is real?
And what do we do with this information?

>>11109810
sounds like a standard BSM theory. probably a nice thing for LHC guys to set some limits on. plenty of additional higgs models have been looked for like 2HDM and susy higgs partners, so they probably found a new way to escape having already been ruled out. happens constantly