/sci/ - Science & Math

Total bullshit disguised as science.

Creationism has equal credibility.

bullshit that is so complex that nobody understands it, but pretends to anyway

>>2869543
hurr durr that's why it's a theory

Basically it's a theory that suggests that everything in the universe (energy, matter, mass, photons, everything, etc.) all made up vibrating frequencies (like a radio or WiFi signal if you want to be loose about this allegory); and what said frequency is depends on what universe you're currently in.

>>2869549
>>2869543
i still have no idea what it is. please explain it

I don't know, but superficially it looks a lot like quantum field theory. I do plan on reading at least an introduction on it at some point.

String Theory is all about vibrations. Since everything is made of string, everything vibrates. Also, there are infinite Universes that all vibrate at different wavelength. What this means is that if say the molecules in your penis were to vibrate at a different speed, you could theoretically have a gorilla penis. Unfortunately this is not the case for our Universe. Good thing though in the near future we will be able to create wormholes to access these different Universe and possible time travel, eat dinosaur meat, and also harvest the stars from solar systems.

>>2869564
ok. thanks

>>2869563

In a strictly scientific sense of the word, no version of string theory is a theory. That name was given to it by the press.

It's a long string of suppositions and should not be regarded as in any way authoritative or meaningful until and unless they come up with some experiments to evidence their claims.

>>2869563

HURR DURR, leanr the meaning of theory in science you fucking retard.

>>2869532

Current models assume that the elementary particles we observe don´t have an inner structure. Usual assumptions that have been made, like them being 2- or 3-dimensional in our space-time, didn´t work out so well.

When dealing with particles in quantum field theory, there appear situations in which calculations seem to return infinite results. There are ways to cope with this (regularization and renormalization). These mechanisms result in certain cases in beta-functions.

Someone, i think he was called Valeriano or something, noticed, that the behaviour of this function can be interpreted as describing the possible oscillations of a closed string under special circumstances.

From this he drew the conclusion, that we can deduce a theory of elementary particles when we assume their inner structure is that of an oscillating string. And it works, more or less, by assuming a string is the fundamental object in our universe, they found vibrations of the string that one can correspond to (bosonic) elementary particles.

There are some tweaks by which it is possible to include fermions in the theory and supersymmetry, gravity etc., but this is basically what string theory is about.

>>2869571

> there are infinite Universes that all vibrate at different wavelength.

That´s not what string theory says.

i hate it how everytime i ask about it i always get "herp it's bullshit derp" istead of a real answer explaining what it really is

>>2869577
Now that is a bit too harsh. Strings embody most development of modern quantum field theories. It is also the only quantum field theory that shits out Einstein's GR at sufficiently large scales. True, strings haven't produced a single prognosis that could be verified by experiment, but it has sprung off a number of tools that can be (and are) used in more "solid" physics - e.g. AdS/CFT.

I refuse to say that strings is a pile of nonsense, it is not a fault of the theory that the universe may have certain aspects to it that cannot be tested by our current means of experiment.

Some people are butthurt because the theory has so many parameters that can/must be adjusted to describe reality, that it is of no worth actually.

String theory is a theory that blinds newfags of the science world. For example: String-theorists often claim they can explain why there are exactly 3 families of particles by saying that the Calabi-Yau spaces at each "point" of our universe has a certain ratio of multidimensional holes.
In fact, they only changed the question to "why are there these kinds of spaces attached to our spacetime?"

I don´t like string theory either, by the way.

>>2869604

> It is also the only quantum field theory that shits out Einstein's GR at sufficiently large scales

I think you mean m-theory.

>>2869563
It's not even as credible hypothesis.

>>2869605

Forgot to mention many people also claim that string theory can´t be falsified.

This is not exactly true to be honest, as string theory requires supersymmetry.
If supersymmetry is ruled out by experiment (LHC), string theory is ruled out as well.

All matter is energy condensed to a slow vibration. We are all one consciousness viewing itself subjectively. There is no such thing as life or death and we are all merely the imaginations of ourselves.

>>2869634

> I think

fix´d

>>2869543
>>2869549
Instead of visualizing these "strings" more figuratively, try visualizing it as a more metaphorical concept. Who knows you might stumble on to something.

Do you guys prefer quantum loop gravity?

Or is that bullshit as well in your books?

Any other theory?

>>2869644
>you might stumble on to something.

Like the fact that silly strings are a false-trail.

>>2869604

True enough, but it is still nothing more than a hypothesis until evidence can be provided for it. Just because something can be made which makes the math come out nicely doesn't mean it reflects physical reality. I'll grant that I'm not a physicist, so I'm not completely up on the standards of theoretical physics, but I am quite certain that they don't have a theory until their predictions are confirmed or they get someone to do some goddamn tests. The fact is that for how wide-reaching the string theories are, they tend to make very few observable or testable predictions, which makes me pretty leery of them in general.

Remember that General and Special Relativity were NOT widely accepted until their predictions started being observed. I fail to see why any version of string theory should get a pass on this.

against popular belief there are certain particles that string theory predicts that could be found in particle accelerators. So it's not entirely without predictions

>>2869691

Sure, but you can also adjust the theory to produce particles that are not observed by collider experimetns.

>>2869577
>>2869585
nope

know-it-all 20 year olds detected

It's funny to see how so many here discard string theory just because they're unfamiliar with changing their world view - which is precisely why it's so hard to de-christianize Christians.

You are much alike. ;)

most of /sci/ cannot into quantum field theory

>>2870134
Yep, QM comforts me and I don't want to believe in string theory because it's scary, I'm afraid of a world with extra dimensions.

It's not because there's no empirical evidence, no sir.

>>2870134

> so many here discard string theory just because they're unfamiliar with changing their world view

Lies. Good reasons have been given in this thread.
>>2870150

samefag

>>2869593
you should see this thread: >>2869863
you'll want to kill yourself

>>2869588
this sounds good (although I wouldn't say "internal degrees of freedom" when talking about the 1 dimensional string since in string theory this string is embedded in space - btw. I know people who work on a stringy quantum field theory where some kind of string is really internal to the point particle)

>>2870235

A point particle can't have an inner structure.

>>2869610
Not true, since not finding SUSY at LHC would only push the supersymmetry-breaking scale up somewhat, something that is perfectly reasonable from a stringy point of view.

>>2870244
inner structure of the state as in phase of its spin

>>2870250

Not finding SUSY != disprove SUSY

I'm not sure the LHC can do that however.

tooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo complicated

The action for a classical relativistic string:
<div class="math">S = - \frac{T}{2}\int \sqrt{-h} h^{ab}\eta_{\mu\nu}\partial_a X^\mu \partial_b X^\nu d\sigma d\tau</div>
where h is the world sheet metric, a,b are worldsheet indices and X describes the strins spacetime embedding. This action can be quantazid which gives us the simplest bosonic string model, which can only exists in 26 dimensions (otherwise we get non-removable anomalies). Anyhow, upon quantizing one finds different modes of the string corresponding to different particles, and also that closed and open strings get different properties. The graviton always appears as a massless closed string mode, which illustrates the deep connection to gravity. In order to include fermions, worldsheet supersymmetry is needed, which also reduces the number of required dimensionst to 10. It is not quite clear that worldsheet supersymmetry automatically implies off-sheet supersymmetry but is seems natural (but I haven't gotten that far yet :/ ).

Spirals. Spirals everywhere.

>>2870255
It can't, it can only push the lower energy limits further up. There is really no theoretical upper limit on where SUSY should appear, so SUSY really can't be easily disproven. The thing that do exists is limits on the lightest supersymmetric particle (LSP) it we identify it with the cold dark matter, but depending on which susy-partner is the lightest its production channels vary so it's not so simple to rule out SUSY even from that. Now, if we find SUSY at the other hand, that would be exciting. Not finding it would be too, because we need some kind of explanation for the Higgs mass and so on, but it wouldnt rule out susy at a larger scale at all.

>>2870287

nice.

now take that Action and make the classical (particle-) limit.

String Theory is a hypothesis that has no supporting proof. At this point, it's just a bunch of people who think it would be cool if it was true but have no real reason to believe it is. The biggest accomplishment for the hypothesis is that it was right about something we knew 30 years ago.

>>2870325
>At this point, it's just a bunch of people who think it would be cool if it was true but have no real reason to believe it is

It is the mathematical beauty of it is their reason to believe they are on the right tracks. Like how Paul Dirac predicted the positron.

Some tricky mathematics and evasive sophistry.

hugh. I always thought our galaxy was the result of a projection of a 2D membrane.

Given that a hologram can represent n dimensions as a projection of n-1 dimensions. So the 'dimension' of time is created by the act of computation. Leaving us with 3, -1 = 2D.

Btw when i say hologram, its a completely mathematical construct based on fractal algorithms. Given that they are self-similar.

Ok im really baked.