/sci/ - Science & Math

String theory of course. But /sci/ is full of losers who couldn't finish the college and be like HuRr DuRr lE sTriNG ThEoRy iS a MaYmAy

Why is it so hot when girls boobs are touching? Scientifically speaking, of course.

>>15187581
Fippy Bippy
Inb4 [math]\mathbb{PHENOTYPE}[/math]lets come in here and start seething

>OP + 3 replies
>3 posters
Shameless today, are we?

>>15187577
They're both wrong

>>15187577
What are you talking about? String Theory requires SUSY.

Not sure yet but approaching the speed of light and in the presence of mass time objectively operates differently so It would not be stupid to assume that at extremely small scales that time could possibly be different too also I'm not going to criticise someone who has been studying something longer than I have been alive.

>>15187581
>post the one model with ZERO (0) predictive power
lmao

>>15187577
both

>>15187695
>This is what SUSYfags actually believe

>>15187927
Super symmetry is required to incorporate fermions into string theory. There are some versions of string theory that do not need super symmetry but they do not (currently) model reality.

>>15187577
Both are falsified mathematical fever dreams with no predictive power left.

>>15188793
Neither are mathematically falsified.

>>15188853
Two more TeVs. Trust the symmetry.

>>15188793
Supersymmetry is literally observed in condensed matter systems, it's just not popsci particle physics so you never heard about it.

>>15187581
>>15187598
so what predictions have string theory made? pick any version of string theory you want. for this specific string theory, can you please outline how one can go about testing this prediction? lastly, it's customary for scientific (specifically, high energy theorists) to detail approximately how much such apparatus would cost, and where it should be constructed, as well as an approximate timeline of when results can be expected. i mean, string theory *IS* science, right? and not just math? you should be able to answer these very simple, fundamental questions. i eagerly await your response, since i'm quite curious about how this new scientific model can improve our understanding of reality. sadly, absent such evidence i believe it's closer to mathematical circlejerking akin to philosophy. but i could be wrong, and would like to be wrong. please, show me how string theory is scientific.

>>15188880
They may be incorrect theories but no has ever said the math is wrong.

>>15188983
No one claimed that they are mathematically flawed.

>>15188964
It has predicted everything the Standard Model has. That's the point. What you are bitching about is that is hasn't predicted anything *new*.

>>15188989
Oh rly? >>15188793
> Both are falsified mathematical fever dreams

>>15188992
... anon, do you need your coffee or something? that's not a prediction, it's an ad hoc explanation. a prediction is something that's yet to be observed. such as a third generation of quarks in the CKM matrix ***BEFORE*** it was observed that there were three generations of quarks. having "new" beforehand is implied.

>>15189009
stay mad

>>15189013
so what predictions have string theory made? pick any version of string theory you want. for this specific string theory, can you please outline how one can go about testing this prediction? lastly, it's customary for scientific (specifically, high energy theorists) to detail approximately how much such apparatus would cost, and where it should be constructed, as well as an approximate timeline of when results can be expected. i mean, string theory *IS* science, right? and not just math? you should be able to answer these very simple, fundamental questions. i eagerly await your response, since i'm quite curious about how this new scientific model can improve our understanding of reality. sadly, absent such evidence i believe it's closer to mathematical circlejerking akin to philosophy. but i could be wrong, and would like to be wrong. please, show me how string theory is scientific.

>>15189000
>falsified mathematical = mathematically falsified
Is this the power of theoretical physicist?

>>15188793
How have they been falsified?

>>15189015
It's predicted the unusual weight of your mother's fat ass.

>>15187695
>>15187953
Don't bother with /sci/. Nobody here even has a bachelor's degree, let alone a PhD in physics or math.
>>15188957
The sad state of /sci/ is that if it's not popsci they won't know anything about it. You need to do more than read wikipedia articles to become an expert on modern physics.

Neither.

https://thesingularprimordialpreontheory.blogspot.com/

>>15187577
Brainlet here: What about Loop Quantum Gravity?

>>15190942
>Nobody here even has a bachelor's degree, let alone a PhD in physics or math.
On the contrary they do, who do you think all the shitposters are?

why do the homosexual pedophiles who masturbate to children's cartoons insist on spamming this board with their masturbation material. this is the science board, not the masturbating to children's cartoons board. 4chan has dozens of boards dedicated to allowing people who masturbate to children's cartoons the opportunity to post their masturbation material on the internet where everyone can see it, /sci/ is not one of those boards, yet the homosexual pedophiles who masturbate to children's cartoons still insist on spamming this board with their masturbation material, why?

>>15191398
[math] \mathcal{Where~do~you~think~we~are?}[/math]

>>15191404
4chan was started for /pol/, not anime. Go away pedophile.

>>15191407
>4chan was started for /pol/

>>15189009
Quarks have never been observed or proven to exist

>>15191407
>4chan was started for /pol/

>>15191526
By that definition nothing has ever been observed or exists.

>>15191407
>4chan was started for /pol/

>>15191526
the quark model of hadrons is proven beyond a shadow of a doubt and the theory behind it has been shown to imply that isolating quarks is beyond any current experiments. in all, the existence of quarks is one of the strongest scientific results to date bar none

>>15191544
you're absolutely positive that quarks exist and your level of certainty turns on your complete lack of experience in experimental particle physics. you're probably dead certain that black holes exist too, because you're ignorant enough about physics to be in the dark about the existence of black holes and quarks being mutually exclusive.
so which one do you choose to believe in? tell me which one is real and why the other isn't

>>15191565
Guess again, I have a physics PhD. But I admit to making the mistake in thinking that /sci/ is for science.

>>15191565
Are you implying the existence of black holes disproves the existence of quarks? How?

>>15191565
>the existence of black holes and quarks being mutually exclusive
What are you on about?

>>15191558
>proven beyond a shadow of a doubt
>its settled science!!
>don't question it
sentiment of someone with no curiosity and no desire to learn
>isolating quarks is beyond any current experiments
how convenient
>i have a pet dragon at home, it flies and breathes fire and everything!!
>what, you want to see it because you doubt my fantastical tale?
>sorry, can't let you see it
>you'll just have to trust me

>>15191526
>what is the Stanford Linear Accelerator Center

>>15190755
They haven't been. Two more TeVs.

>>15191558
>in all, the existence of quarks is one of the strongest scientific results to date bar none
Yeah, I'm sure we're more certain about the existence of quarks we have never observed directly than we are about classical macroscopic phenomena like leverage and buoyancy. It's the strongest bar none.

>>15191730
> we have never observed directly
You seem obsessed with that phrase, are you studying philosophy 101 by any chance?

>>15191797
>shit he's hit the mark, better misdirect and question the question

>>15191803
everyone in this thread is saying they have been directly observed except you.

>>15191807
>quarks can't be separated from each other by design
>"we have directly observed them by indirect observation"
You would have believed the shaman in 5000BC when he told you that the sun coming up everyday is proof of god, too.

>>15191814
> indirect observation
And there we go. You are obsessed over the words direct and indirect all because of the confinement property of quarks.

FYI: You can't have color confinement without the existence of quarks so even your complaint is actually just more proof.

>>15191822
>the fact that we can't observe them directly is evidence of their existence
Religion threads go on >>>/his/.

>>15191838
All you're spouting is the "if a tree falls in the woods does it make a sound" philosophical nonsense. Why are you even on a science board?

>>15191846
>"a tree has fallen in the woods"
>"I didn't hear it fall"
>"it did, trust me bro"
>"can I go in the woods and see the fallen tree?"
>"no, you can't, but you gotta believe me bro"

>>15187595
4 pressed boobs >= 2 pressed boobs
Plus the intimacy.

>>15191849
>tree falls in the words
>we didn't hear it fall
>but we can see the stump and the other foliage that got crushed when it came down

>>15192022
No it's more like
>guy claims to insurance company that a tree fell on his car
>the tree is nowhere to be found
>he brings his totaled car as evidence for the tree
Now pay for my particle collider thanks.

>>15192035
Cope

>>15192035
and sneethe

>>15192050
>>15192053
>500 million dollars have been added to your grants

>>15192112
$5 has been added to your Taco Bell reward card.

>>15191407
Good bait, i almost fell for it.

>>15190985
>Loop Quantum Gravity
meme

>>15190978
I wish I knew more about physics so I could say why this is obviously nonsense.

>>15187577
That's like saying
>Newton's laws vs Energy conservation, which one?
They aren't mutually exclusive and they often go together (but not always)

>>15190942
I would not say the String theory requires SUSY....but isn't SUSY a natural happening in the String theory?
Imo both are wrong.

>>15187577
SUSY string theory duh

>>15190942
>he doesn't know about rapcak's shitposts
chances are the shitposters memeing on string theory are string theorists
i'm memeing on my field too because i don't want retards infesting my field

>>15191648
good analogy, if the pet dragon predicted stock prices with pretty much perfect accuracy (but there was one stock which he would get absolutely wrong) every single day