/sci/ - Science & Math

Go study the maths behind it then come back and ask the same question.

>>4765249
Can you summarize it for me?

>>4765245
String theory is a mathematical model that supposedly claims to describe the universe on a very fundmental level. However, string theory does not actually have any evidence to back up its extrodinary claims, hence it is not actually a scientific theory.

Maybe one day there will be evidence to confirm string theory as a theory, but until then it is not science.

>>4765255
pic related

>>4765256
There must have been some indication of 'possible evidence' to have established the idea in the first place.

Or was it just a 'i reckon the world is made of billions of circles and shit'
Just a random thought?

http://www.mathematik.uni-bielefeld.de/~rehmann/ECM/cdrom/3ecm/pdfs/pant3/dijkgr.pdf

>>4765245
string theory is actually string fact

anyone with a brain would know this

>>4765274

I know, right bro? I mean, just look at it. It's just fucking retarded not to believe it, the only counterargument these dumbfucks ever have is "HURR I'M A FUCKING IDIOT HURFDURFDURF"

I can't believe there's so many close-minded, ignorant people around that can just ignore everything that would upset their ass-backwards retarded worldview, no matter how little they have to support their claims.

*scifist*

>>4765263

String theory has yet to provide anything "new" to physics. It just reporduces old shit, and provides no evidence for any "new" shit.

Addition of unprovable, unverifiable claims to existsing theories, DOES NOT CREATE NEW THEORIES! Nor does it validate the unprovable shit!

It would be like just adding "jesus" to Quantum Mechanics, and saying its a new scientifc theory. Saying that since Quantum mehcnics is right, jesus must be right....LMFAO.

That is not proper logic or reasoning, and is by defintion totally unscientific.

Make sense?

>>4765274
>>4765301
0/1000

>>4765304

Occam's razor proves String Theory to be the best theory we have.

>>4765304
Well .. the thing about strings is that it doesn't really try to come up with new shit, instead the idea is to put the well-known physics (all of it) into a single framework.

Sadly, almost none of the posters here have an actual idea about what impact strings had on theoretical physics.

I'll give you just one single example: http://arxiv.org/pdf/1112.2177.pdf

If you don't understand what significance the results of this particular field of study has (meson spectra from gauge-gravity string theories), then you really have no authority to claim strings being "bullshit".

>>4765325
>that it doesn't really try to come up with new shit

Implying everything being made up of strings in 10-dimensions to 26-dimensions is not COMPLETELY FUCKING NEW? Seriously, HOW FUCKING RETARDED ARE YOU?

Sting theory makes all sorts of huge claims. In order for string theory to ever be accepted as science IT NEEDS TO BACK UP ITS SHIT! WITHOUT EVIDENCE IT IS JUST A FANCY MATHEMATICAL CIRCLE-JERK!

>>4765325
You are a very strange troll

>>4765346
First of all, you caps lock key seems to be somewhat lodged.

Secondly, if the introduction of several extra dimensions gives you headaches, you shouldn't be part of science.

You, sir, belong to the same group of people who claimed at the end of the 18th century that all physics had already been discovered.

>>4765322
occam's razor has never and will never "prove" anything

>>4765353
>misses the point

Without evidence, it is not science.

\thread

>>4765363
>>4765325

>>4765366
And yet, strings can come up with meson mass ratios in a strongly coupled theory without the use of numerical schemes like lattice QCD.

Your turn.

>>4765375
That suggests it's math rather than science.

>>4765379
No, it really doesn't suggest that in any way.

>>4765381
new ways of calculating shit = math

Have fun sorting through 10^500 potentially similar universes while I do real science.

>>4765383
That's like saying special relativity is math because it proposes a new way calculating physical quantities.

It is not.

>>4765398
No, SR is a different theory than Newton which makes different predictions. These people are just finding a new way to calculate what QCD predicts.

>>4765400
But the gravity formulation of QCD is a new theory that (supposedly) is dual to QCD.
It is not the same.

>>4765405
A theory that gives the same predictions is the same theory.

String theory is a massive drain on resources. Even if it is true, we know we can't test it for quite some time so talking about it is mostly a waste, in the meanwhile whole generations of PhD's are being indoctrinated into a possibly useless mindset. It's very sad, and seriously retarded for a bunch of scientists to have allowed this to happen

>>4765409
The same can be said about every single theory of physics. No experiment can ever prove a theory correct.

>>4765409
What?
It's not like string theory groups sit in crystal palaces. Every bigger physics institute may have a few people or a smaller group at most dedicated to strings. "Massive drain", as you call it, is really an exaggeration. Even in theoretical physics alone, the strings people are single digit percentage AT MOST. Sure, the gained some new interest due to certain schemes that can be used in particle physics and with the upcoming LHC/ALICE upgrades, .. but strings is really not that big of an issue.

Non-commutative quantum field theories, now that shit we could scrap.

>>4765417
I heard they had huge swimming pools filled with liquid helium.

>>4765421
In my former institute, they had a smelly old office. When it came to get new computer equipment, they decided to keep the CRTs and invest in 8-core CPUs instead.

>>4765353
He never said anything aobut getting a headache - he said it was a new idea.
If you can't comprehend what you're reading, you shoulding be part of science.

>Is it bullshit or do most people accept it
That OR statement implies that most people wouldn't accept bullshit, when in fact IF most people accept it THEN it is most probably bullshit.
Unless you meant physicists.