/sci/ - Science & Math

>>11347308
String theory is bad because it isn’t empirical. It has literally zero evidence.

>>11347310
the SM has evidence against it — gravity exists and that contradicts the SM. OTOH string theory reproduces gravity and the SM with no obvious counter-evidence

>>11347308
>blocks ur path

The mods are busy banning anyone they think are nazis. This has become a reddit board effectively

>>11347308
Current events are stirring the /pol/ and schizo sewage extra hard.

>>11347327
Literally cant make a thread without the trannies mentioning /pol/

Sad!

>>11347318
the [math]\mathbf{PHENOTYPE ~2.0}[/math]

>>11347324
“Racism outside of /b/“ is a rule violation. If that makes you cry, oh well.

point proven. look at how /b/ tier all the top threads are right now and this one goes to page 9 even though it has several real topics

>>11347313
>string theory reproduces gravity

> Stray particle in one model, has spin 0.

> Must be graviton

> predicts nothing

> model doesn't even reproduce current universe

Such is the deplorable state of "string theory". Which is a misnomer. The only string hypothesis is that there could be a theory based on strings and assuming space-time into the model. But there literally is no such theory.

It is hand waving on steroids.

>>11347529
>thinks graviton is spin 0
this is why we all know string theory critics are brainlets larping as having even undergrad-level understanding

>>11347561
That’s really cool.
Now name one tested predictions made by the string hypothesis that was confirmed.

>>11347308
>string theory
top kek

>>11347565
i already did:
>gravity exists
come on, give me your anti-string cope for this argument. you basically have two options: "muh LQG" or "i am fine with my preferred physics being logically and mathematically inconsistent with facts". or do you have an option 3?

>>11347308
>what explains the sudden drop of the quality on /sci/?
>poltards
>schizos from /x/
>off topic "scientifically speaking" threads
>corona virus threads

>>11347572
>gravity exists

Gravity existing is not a prediction of string conjecture, it’s an existing phenomenon that string conjecture has to be compatible with. Being compatible with existing phenomenon is not sufficient for a hypothesis to graduate to theory. You must make testable predictions with your model that other prevailing models do not account for. String “theory” has made zero tested predictions, so it’s not a theory.

> you basically have two options

False dichotomy goes right into the trash.

>>11347308
The US election is this year so the shitheads have kicked it up a notch

>>11347581
>. Being compatible with existing phenomenon is not sufficient for a hypothesis to graduate to theory.
my point is that the standard model of particle physics is incompatible with gravity. therefore the need for a better theory is imperative if you aren't happy admitting that your theory is wrong. string theory actually can do standard model plus gravity. so being a shill who shits on it because you currently think it isn't predictive enough is stupid because maybe progress happens in string theory. the alternative to it is admitting you want to stick with a theory that is plainly inconsistent with gravity, or else you are getting things that are even worse than string theory by your criteria, like crappy LQG or other way more bogus theories.

as witten said, "it is the only path"

>>11347593
>my point is that the standard model of particle physics is incompatible with gravity.

Relativity and particle physics are incompatible with eachother, and the standard model is littered with holes. They of course require replacement.

> string theory actually can do standard model plus gravity.

Can’t be a theory unless it makes testable predictions.

> the alternative to it is admitting you want to stick with a theory that is plainly inconsistent with gravity, or else you are getting things that are even worse than string theory by your criteria, like crappy LQG or other way more bogus theories.

I don’t care whether or not you think a model is “bogus”, or “crappy”. What matters is testable predictions. If a model can make testable predictions, and they’re verified, then it can be a theory. You act like science is sports.

>>11347308
>talk about what I want or you are a brainlet.
I actually fucking came here in good faith that there was going to be something to discuss. If you're so science, why can't you figure it out. This board is 5%sci, another 5 is close enough for specific fields. 40% genius schizos with lacking education. 10% people trying to better themselves and the rest doing the same from an ignorant point of view. People are looking for answers. Also, an election year.

>>11347605
well, keep in mind that particle physics is compatible with SPECIAL relativity, in fact it is based on it.

just to come back to what i was saying, the standard model makes the PREDICTION that gravity CANNOT exist. so it is clearly wrong. so what you are arguing for is something like "wrong theories are better than plausible theories!" or "having no theory is better than having a theory!"

i'd rather have a theory. any string theory is a theory that works. standard particle physics (the standard model) hasn't made any new predictions from 1964, around the same time it was realized that it is incompatible with gravity. i don't see it making progress anytime soon (save maybe axions or sphalerons, but those fall into what you mentioned are its giant gaps that we already knew about decades ago)

OTOH string theory is not already falsified, but it has continued to progress in a theoretical sense. so shitting on it because it hasn't made enough predictions yet is throwing the baby out with the bath water, since apparently you aren't able to make any suggestions on what else to work on in terms of formulating a working theory of fundamental physics

>>11347356
Racism is also a rule violation on re/ddit. I think you would be more comfortable there away from all the racist meanies

>>11347308
>dark energy
We already have way too much dark wotsits. We are better off without this nonsense.

>>11347308
who the fuck are you to tell us what we should discuss
fuck off

>>11347356
Cry more nigger

>>11347308
Redditors are flooding this place. They always come here when something (supposedly) big happens, like all the Coronavirus bullshit.
You can tell who they are by their inability to use the catalog, and sometimes they don’t know how to reply to individual posts.

>>11347356
Define “racism”. Is racism something like white supremacy, or is it acknowledging physiological differences between races?