/sci/ - Science & Math

What [math]\mathbb{PHENOTYPE}[/math] is this? I'm still young, is it possible to obtain a dome like his?

>>12640035
Sleep upside down. Gravity will get you there

>>12640035
If you submit yourself to him, he might grant you a fraction of his BIG ASHKENAZI BRAIN

>>12640027
>So you think M-theory is bullshit, huh punk? I bet you little nerds don't even have a dozen Nature papers. Go try learning topology over a weekend. I'll be waiting. I wanna how smart you /sci/entists really are. I hope you're not all just pseuds?
LMFAO plz be real

>>12640027
There's plenty of very smart physicists who support String theory, why /sci/ morons hate String theory so badly?

>>12640264
> who support String theory
Who gives a fuck about "support"? Design an experiment and prove it. lmao

>>12640292
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AdS/CFT_correspondence
>The AdS/CFT correspondence was first proposed by Juan Maldacena in late 1997. Important aspects of the correspondence were soon elaborated in two articles, one by Steven Gubser, Igor Klebanov and Alexander Polyakov, and another by Edward Witten. By 2015, Maldacena's article had over 10,000 citations, becoming the most highly cited article in the field of high energy physics;[3] reaching over 20,000 citations in 2020.
Done, String theory is the same and compatible with QFT.

>>12640308
So getting a shit ton of citations is enough to validate string theory? As if all these citations are just string theorists circle jerking each other.

>>12640308
>String theory is the same and compatible with QFT
What's the point then? We're talking about novel predictions here.

>>12640322
It means it has validity and legimitacy, is not made up bullshit invented in an anime website

>>12640366
Still doesn't address the circlejerk.

>>12640027
why is his forehead shrunk? post the real pic

>>12640027
citations are not evidence

Citations are not evidence. Lack of citations reflects nothing more than an authors desire to cite.

>>12640308
I was gonna smack you around but I see other intelligent anons have already done so

>>12640264
you have to realize these are the same posters who think the real numbers don't exist

>>12640308
AdS/CFT and more generally gauge gravity duality is a fine result to show shills that their shitting on string theory is retard-tier.

the real outstanding issue is the fact that we know all these theories, from QFT to string theory to super yang mills to supergravity to BFSS and etc are all linked to one another by dualities across some uncharted territory known as M theory, and yet we have no idea of what M theory actually is. we have these zip lines from one limit to another but we can’t see the territory we’re ziplining over. there is something there, some deeper theory which probably needs a revolution to even start formulating... either that or we are just completely lost

sauce: the late Joe or mensch Nati. Ed is too shy to say this straightforwardly

>>12640815
since nobody else is replying i would just add one thing. there is at least one research program out there that i know of that seems to be trying to map out the boundary of these limits of M-theory, and it’s referred to as the “conformal bootstrap”. however, their methods are very specific and imo (and apparently since they are almost “historical” by now) not going to go far, so the idea has limitations. but i think some spirit of mapping out the boundaries of the M-theory territory they did was admirable and work in that direction might open some doors conceptually

>bro
>what if
>what if it wasn't just strings
>what if it was a string of strings bro
>just think about it
>no we don't need to make falsifiable predictions
>bro

>>12640264
We don't hate the string hypothesis, we hate shills.
The thing with string hypothesis is that it attracts people out of sheer beauty. It's a beautiful hypothesis, the math is interesting and nice, but in the end it's worthless if you can't produce any meaningful results. Stuff like
>we have three generations of particles because there are three odd-dimensional holes in the Calabi-Yau manifolds attached to each spacetime point
is beautiful, but utterly meaningless as it simply shifts the question from "why are there three particle dimensions?" to "why are there three odd-dimensional holes?" it's a mapping from physical reality to mathematical ideality, and imho that's really detrimental to physics.