/sci/ - Science & Math

Maxwell

knuth i guess

Personally, I love michio kaku.

look at that kid

look at how edgy he is

i have never seen such an edgy kid

>>5262742
Yeah, this.

Also Hawking I suppose.

Sir Timothy Gowers

Kicking ass and proving theorems is just another Tuesday for him

>>5262750
Hawking is overrated.

Kick him out of his cripplechair and he would be just a pretty standard associate professor, probably teaching remedial calculus at Iowa State or somewhere

<span class="quote deadlink">>>5262747[/spoiler]
What's edgy about him? That he's well-dressed and cute?

>>5262753
The hair.

>>5262752
Yeah nah, he really is good.

>>5262742
>>5262750
>Knuth on the same level as Newton

This is what computer science students actually believe.

von neumann would probably have been alive until recently too if it weren't for whatever he got exposed to at los alamos

Grigori Perelman

neil? lol, nope, although i do like the guy

>>5262731
Fuck Newton

Leibnez for lyfe bitches.

>>5262797
>>5262748

>mathematicians
>science

Pick one, retards.

Leon Lederman, David Gross, Steven Weinberg, etc.

Excellent experimentalist + contributions to the Standard Model, contributions to QCD, and electroweak unification respectively. They all regularly do conferences and science education events, though Lederman recently retired officially. He's charming in person.

penrose
t'hooft
witten
weinberg

da Vinci>>>>>>> Einstein and Newton
And no, there hasn't been anyone like da Vinci for quite some time now.

>>5262731
Jacob Barnett

>>5262859
What did Da Vinci do that makes him better than Einstein

Daniela Titan

<span class="quote deadlink">>>5263931[/spoiler]
Die

Gell-Mann

>>5263935
Are you jelly because you didn't find an error in general relativity at the age of 12?

Tesla. He lives in the heart of men.

<span class="quote deadlink">>>5263931[/spoiler]
/thread

>>5262731
There is none atm. That's the point of Newton and Einstein being that famous...

Carl

>>5262745
>2745
>Personally, I love michio kaku.
this xD
hes realy great and knows about other universes and stuff :D

<span class="quote deadlink">>>5263965[/spoiler]
What is his name? I know he is the time travel guy

>>5263985
Morgan Freeman

>>5262771
>von neumann
Holy fucking shit, just look at his wikipedia page..
"Known for Abelian von Neumann algebra
Affiliated operator
Amenable group
Arithmetic logic unit
Artificial viscosity
Axiom of regularity
Axiom of limitation of size
Backward induction
Blast wave (fluid dynamics)
Bounded set (topological vector space)
Class (set theory)
Decoherence theory
Computer virus
Commutation theorem
Continuous geometry
Direct integral
Doubly stochastic matrix
Duality Theorem
Density matrix
Durbin–Watson statistic
Game theory
Hyperfinite type II factor
Ergodic theory
EDVAC
explosive lenses
Lattice theory
Lifting theory
Inner model
Inner model theory
Interior point method
Mutual assured destruction
Merge sort
Middle-square method
Minimax theorem
Monte Carlo method
Normal-form game
Pointless topology
Polarization identity
Pseudorandomness
PRNG
Quantum mutual information
Radiation implosion
Rank ring
Operator theory
Operation Greenhouse
Self-replication
Software whitening
Standard probability space
Stochastic computing
Subfactor
von Neumann algebra
von Neumann architecture
Von Neumann bicommutant theorem
Von Neumann cardinal assignment
Von Neumann cellular automaton
von Neumann constant (two of them)
Von Neumann interpretation
von Neumann measurement scheme
Von Neumann Ordinals
Von Neumann universal constructor
Von Neumann entropy
von Neumann Equation
Von Neumann neighborhood
Von Neumann paradox
Von Neumann regular ring
Von Neumann–Bernays–Gödel set theory
Von Neumann spectral theory
Von Neumann universe
Von Neumann conjecture
Von Neumann's inequality
Stone–von Neumann theorem
Von Neumann's trace inequality
Von Neumann stability analysis
Quantum statistical mechanics
Von Neumann extractor
Von Neumann ergodic theorem
Ultrastrong topology
Von Neumann–Morgenstern utility theorem
ZND detonation model"


That's more than fucking Euler.

>>5263985
Marty McFly?

Edward Witten is probably on that kind of level. Its just amazing how much different and great stuff he has done over the years. All of his physics stuff is of course unproven so far, but if we eventually find proof or indications that string theory is correct then his stuff will be as important as that of Einstein (maybe still not comparable with Newton, since he basically started physics).

Otherwise, I don't know really. People like Weinberg, 't Hooft, Hawking, Maldacena etc. are of course brilliant scientists but not quite at that level.

<span class="quote deadlink">>>5263965[/spoiler]
Drake from degrassi

>>5263985
Neil degrasse tyson

>>5262826
There isn't a scientists at that level. I just chose someone with the thinking ability on a close level.

Einstein wasn't a great scientist and neither was Newton.

Einstein had the idea for relativity. That's all he did. He failed at babby tier math and needed mathematicians' help for formalizing his theory. He also failed to understand quantum mechanics when it was discovered within his life time.

Newton didn't achieve anything special. He discovered babby's first calculus in a non-rigorous manner. That's something every 14 year old can do. With respect to physics he did nothing more than Newtonian mechanics, which is highschool physics.

Daniella Titan. She is a greek woman who excels at theoretical physics.

She used to make youtube videos, but young white males brought a lolsuit against her, and forced her to go into hiding.

>>5262768

Knuth is over 80 and is yet to start chasing fairy tales and poising himself with mercury do to his own stupidity.

Newton was insanely smart and also plainly insane.

>>5262731

Parviz Moin

<span class="quote deadlink">>>5264067[/spoiler]

>elvis wasn't that great. all he did was wiggle his hips around, every idiot teenager can do that.

>>5264156
This is true. He wasn't great. He produced music, which is just mind numbing hipster nonsense.

>>5264110
i hope you die in your sleep

I don't understand why you guys revere Einstein and Newton so much. None of their work is particularly impressive nowadays. By that I mean, that we are probably in an age where the average research topic in their respective fields is at least two orders of magnitude more complex than it was in the days of Newton and at least an order of magnitude more complex than it was at the start of the last century.

>>5264156
I think you'd have to be brilliant to get as rich and famous as he did, doing something every idiot teenager can do.

>>5264206
Without their work, there would be no modern physics.

>>5264218
>implying nobody else would of discovered their trivialities

Keep telling that to yourself, pop sci kid.

>>5263995
No one inspires brain envy quite like John von Neumann.

<span class="quote deadlink">>>5264223[/spoiler]
Okay then.

Hawking. and to the people calling him overrated, you can call him that the day YOU have published 213 papers.

>>5264226

And he had every stereotypical genius characteristic. He was a child prodigy from a very early age and he was noted specifically for showing an great aptitude in mental calculations.

<span class="quote deadlink">>>5264067[/spoiler]
>that copypasta

>>5264206
this a retarded argument, they dont fucking live today, they lived in a time when it wast like that.

>>5264242
>implying copypasta

>>5264206
Though he's putting it a little abrasively, I can't really disagree.

They were both very much products of their time, and it's pretty safe to say that all of their important work would have been done by other people just a little later if they had died of childhood illnesses or something.

Despite both being highly competent and productive physicists, they both served mainly as figureheads of science.

Feynman lives! Also he's at least as rad as Einstein and Newton.

>>5264244

Exactly. Would they still be top of their fields if they were born today?

>>5264251
They wouldn't even pass high school nowadays.

>Einstein or Newton
>On Gauss' level

Pick 1

>>5264251
by this logic no one can be "revered" becasue sometime in the future their work will be understood by everyone.

>>5264267
> Gauss
> Living

>>5264271

The question should've been:

>Can you name a living scientist as extraordinary as Gauss?

And the answer would be no.

>>5264276
Why would he ask a question everyone already knows the answer to?

Boith Einstein and Newton would have been branded as idiots, and medicated until they were completely intellectually neutered.

What really blows my mind is that a few decades ago we had, Von Neumann, Alan Turin, Alonzo Church, Paul Dirac, Feynman and all the people in this picture alive and working at more or less the same time.

That is kind of a mini golden area for science and technology.

>>5264293
well with education being mass produced nowadays i would say these guys had the advantage of being bunched up. there were only so many places you could go. imagine them bouncing off ideas with each other.

also the primary source of knowledge was apprenticeship / mentoring, everything was pretty much first or second handed to them, fresh and alive, as opposed to textbooks and all.

just like with the jazz scene, games, movies or whatever. everything institutionalized withers and dies.

>>5264286
>mfw this guy might be right

>>5264293

>doesn't mention Schrödinger

Edward Witten.

>>5264286

>This is probably right.

>>5262752

>The only reason the Heath Ledger's god tier performance is respected is that he died

>No one under special circumstances can accomplish anything; there's always a special bias that makes them receive more credit than they deserve

kill yourself.

>>5264352
Look at him all grown up without his little piano!

>>5262752

He's British you dumb fuck.

Not a physicsfag but shouldn't Higgs be on this list?
If I could vote per area, it would be:
Comp Sci: Donald Knuth (no one can say any different, he is by far the best computer scientist alive. If he is at the same level as Newton that's a whole different story)
Mathematics: Grigori Perelman and Terrence Tao

Me.

>>5264364
Nope, Higgs shouldn't be mentioned. He is a fine physicist, sure, but his work was hardly that important or revolutionary. The Higgs mechanism was a natural thing that 3 other persons than him noticed at around the same time, and as far as I know that is the only really great idea he ever did.

Beat Lutz, neuropsychopharmacology.

you're all a bunch of scrubs because nobody named Ed Witten. Theoretical physicist with a Fields medal.

>>5264449
>...Witten is a researcher in superstring theory...
>superstring theory
>string theory

>>5264449
He was named a few times, though.

>>5264453
>doesn't understand the math behind string theory
>hurr let's make fun of it because le reddit said so

I want underagefags to go away.

<span class="quote deadlink">>>5264479[/spoiler]
>implying that plenty of highly respected physicists aren't also dismissing string theory as an unscientific dead end

>>5264494
>implying they are
>implying you know anything about physics

<span class="quote deadlink">>>5264502[/spoiler]
meh, ain't even mad, 0/10.

>>5264453
>>5264494
>>5264524
Why do you not like string theory?

>>5264528
Stop trying, really. You've been called out on your bad trolling, it's time to stop.

<span class="quote deadlink">>>5264530[/spoiler]

fuck off

>>5264494

lol you're cute

>>5264524
Will you please stop shitting up /sci/ with ignorant reddit teenager drivel?

>>5264530
The only people who "dismiss" string theory are edgy CERN experimentalists

>>5264530
>science
>trolling

Choose one. You are really bad at this. Go back to >>>/b/ and learn to be less obvious.

>>5264530
Nobody is trolling but you. You are claiming physicists "dismiss" string theory.

>>5264540
>>5264537
<span class="quote deadlink">>>5264535[/spoiler]
>>5264534
i mad

10/10 post oh pee

People of that caliber come along once or twice per couple of centuries. It's a random distribution. I think we're just at a low point right now.

<span class="quote deadlink">>>5264537[/spoiler]
<span class="quote deadlink">>>5264540[/spoiler]
But lots of physicists do dismiss string theory.

It's a quantum theory of gravitation formulated without respect to observations of quantum gravitational phenomena. It's notoriously lacking in predictive power, and seems likely to remain so until the fad passes.

It amazes me how excited people are about bigger and more expensive accelerators and plasma facilities, and how little interest there is in the much cheaper, and more likely to be productive, research being done on the extremes of low energy, particularly ultracold neutrons.

>>5264560

They don't dismiss it though. They realize that it's just math, but it's still a valid field of inquiry.

>>5264572
>They realize that it's just math

>They dismiss it as physics

all i know is young and hooke were pretty cool guys.

In addition to constructing the wave theory of light, young learned to read at 2 and was the first person to translate Egyptian hieroglyphics .

hooke just trolled newton.

>>5264575

No they don't. Give me a source were a prominent physicist comes out and says explicitly that string theory is bullshit.

Not only don't they not dismiss it but even if it turns out that string theory is not actually that accurate of a model (which it isn't I'd dare guess) it already made contributions to both physics and math just by being such a radical idea.

>>5264560

Keep in mind that relativity was derived from mathematics first and observed later. Just because we can't test it doesn't mean it's wrong.

It doesn't mean it's right of course, but the math is really cool.

many physicists dont take interest in string theory as it operates at levels that are far too close to h to ever be able to carry out an experiment. we may never be able to comprehensibly explain the totality of mass/energy interactions with backing data as were too damn big.

>>5264580
>Give me a source were a prominent physicist comes out and says explicitly that string theory is bullshit so we can argue about what is and isn't "explicit" and who is and isn't "prominent".

>>5264582
Relativity was motivated by unexplained common phenomena such as magnetism, and immediately both explained previous unexplained experimental results and made easily testable predictions.

>>5264591
one told me they thought it was crap because it cant be tested, and so is an interesting mathematical model, but not worth her time . This woman worked for cern.

<span class="quote deadlink">>>5264479[/spoiler]
>doesn't understand the math behind string theory

This is what all of the physicists make fun of at string theorists who try and defend their theory.

String theorists best argument to date is '...the only reason you don't like it is because you don't understand it'

String theory disagrees with experiment, it's WRONG.

Unless of course you are a string theorist because then you could make another dimension that makes the experimental anomaly possible.

>>5264611
>This woman worked for cern.
Did you show her your gel banana?

>>5264627

>getting mad that a scientific model adjusts so that it agrees with observation

pls go

Fucking /reddit/fags "strunng furry kewwll...Machu Picchuu und Sooskind!! xDD"

String theory is not even wrong.

String theorists don't make predictions, they make excuses.

“It is tragic, but now, we have the string theorists, thousands of them, that also dream of explaining all the features of nature. They just celebrated the 20th anniversary of superstring theory. So when one person spends 30 years, it’s a waste, but when thousands waste 20 years in modern day, they celebrate with champagne. I find that curious.”

I don’t like that they’re not calculating anything. I don’t like that they don’t check their ideas. I don’t like that for anything that disagrees with a n experiment, they cook up an explanation—a fix-up to say, “Well, it might be true.” For example, the theory requires ten dimensions. Well, maybe there’s a way of wrapping up six of the dimensions. Yes, that’s all possible mathematically, but why not seven? When they write their equation, the equation should decide how many of these things get wrapped up, not the desire to agree with experiment. In other words, there’s no reason whatsoever in superstring theory that it isn’t eight out of the ten dimensions that get wrapped up and that the result is only two dimensions, which would be completely in disagreement with experience. So the fact that it might disagree with experience is very tenuous, it doesn’t produce anything; it has to be excused most of the time.

>>5264637

>String theory is not even wrong.

so?

>>5264646

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Not_even_wrong

...As you say, the way string theory requires all these extra dimensions and this comes from certain consistency requirements about how string should behave and so on...

But superstring physicists have not yet shown that theory really works. They cannot demonstrate that the standard theory is a logical outcome of string theory. They cannot even be sure that their formalism includes a description of such things as protons and electrons. And they have not yet made even one teeny-tiny experimental prediction. Worst of all, superstring theory does not follow as a logical consequence of some appealing set of hypotheses about nature. Why, you may ask, do the string theorists insist space is none-dimensional? Simply because string theory doesn’t make sense in any other kind of space.

>>5264652

I know what the phrase means.

>>5264637
>>5264642
>>5264643
>>5264649
LOL

Look at these edgy reddit kids who think they are entitled to talk about a theory they don't even understand.

Haha, quoting your pop sci heros out of context is totally a convincing scientific argument. Le xD

Learn the math behind the theory, then we can talk. Fucking retards.

<span class="quote deadlink">>>5264664[/spoiler]

Has 9fag or reddit shut down or something?

Just leave.

"Consciousness, huh? Man. Consciousness. Consciousness... man."

<span class="quote deadlink">>>5264664[/spoiler]

<div class="math">B^{0}_{s} \rightarrow \mu^{+}\mu^{-} </div>

/thread

>>5264677
I guess that's the reason why all these edgy kids hating on string theory without understanding it are raiding this thread.

<span class="quote deadlink">>>5264183[/spoiler]
>music, which is just mind numbing hipster nonsense.

Holy FUCK can you be more autistic?

<span class="quote deadlink">>>5264700[/spoiler]

>Michio Kaku LUL extrad1men$10ns !!!!1!!111!

>>5264705
Please look up the meaning of "autism". It's not what you think it is. The word you actually wanted to use is "intellectual".

>>5264709
>"strang thurry fawse bcuz all le kewl kidz say so"
>"pls do mai calcoolus homwrok /sci"

I want the children to leave /sci/. This is a place for science and math discussion, not for edgy babble.

>>5264677
<span class="quote deadlink">>>5264700[/spoiler]
>>5264709
Your LessWrong is showing.

>>5264693

lol

<span class="quote deadlink">>>5264716[/spoiler]

Then why are you still here?

>>5264718
He gets it!

>>5264719
LMFAO

Don't you have homework to do? Oh, I forgot. That's why you're here. You're shitposting while you're waiting for nerds to do your "solve for x" problem.

<span class="quote deadlink">>>5264729[/spoiler]

>nerds

Do you actually use that word?

<span class="quote deadlink">>>5264729[/spoiler]
>LMFAO

Confirmed for high schooler.

Please, just leave.

>>5264749
>projecting

Shitpost harder, high schooler. I bet you don't even know how to solve a quadratic equation.

>>5264751
>2012
>not being a nerd

Well, Ed Witten and people like Juan Maldacena surely deserve the recognition they already have. I'm not too deep into strings, so I personally can't judge their contribution, although Maldacena's work has obviously kicked over to other areas.

Gell-Mann was mentioned here, and he's also a fine physicist that gave at least a kick-in-the-balls to his field of QFT.

Newton on the other hand is probably unsurpassed in sheer intelligence and capability.

<span class="quote deadlink">>>5264754[/spoiler]

Quadratic equations are middle school stuff.


>Pic related

It's my homework.

>>5264717
Is that your real rejection, anon?

<span class="quote deadlink">>>5264757[/spoiler]
>/reddit/

>>5264763
babby's first QFT (QED) homework

keep up the work, it's gonna be rewarding once you can actually calculate cross sections by hand that you can then check against experiments.

>>5264769
>>>/9fag/
>>>/memebase/

Andrew Fire and Craig Mello's work will impact civilization on an equal scale

>>5264771

I've done string theory as well so I know where I'm coming from. Many professors at my uni have the same views as me.

>>5264771
No it isn't. Phenomenology puts me to sleep.

>>5264820
Ah, well. There's something in physics for everyone, I'm sure you'll find something that suits your interest.

<span class="quote deadlink">>>5264772[/spoiler]
The only thing differentiating Reddit fallacy from 4chan fallacy is the word 'le'.

I think I might be, I am very good at double and triple integrals.

Degrasse Tyson

<span class="quote deadlink">>>5264183[/spoiler]
you sound like a kid who saw the big bang theory and thinks sheldon is someone to look up to

>mfw all these teenagers who think a grade 12 physics class means they know anything about science

>>5264494
>>implying that plenty of highly respected physicists aren't also dismissing string theory as an unscientific dead end
Name one.

>>5265096
Sheldon engages in anti-intellectualism. He plays infantile games, he reads infantile comics and he watches infantile fiction tv series.

<span class="quote deadlink">>>5265107[/spoiler]
yeah, you sound just like him except you think you're somehow better

>>5264560 But lots of physicists do dismiss string theory.
No. Any “physicist” to dismiss string theory baselessly is a crackpot. Every repudiation that has been made against string theory thus far is absent of an argument.

>It's a quantum theory of gravitation formulated without respect to observations
This is just indecorous. String theory is “with respect” to every observation ever made. The Horn-Scmid duality demonstrates stringy behavior already present at the electroweak scale. The landscape has been shown in the 1990s to contain the standard model. The Maldacena duality implies string theory is equivalent to ordinary gauge theory.

To recover electromagnetism, you’ll notice the global U(1) symmetry, a group of automorphisms that acts on the local net of observables of the fermionic field, and promote this to a local (principal bundle over configuration space) symmetry. A similar process occurs with chromodynamics, with the gauge group SU(3). To recover string theory, you promote the gauge symmetries to U(N), SU(N), etc. where N tends to infinity. We know that this will transpire at high energies. The worldline Feynman diagrams which pronounce the processes of these symmetries can now be split into groups according to the topology of the corresponding extended objects (worldvolumes) that they discretize. This “large-N limit” is entirely equivalent to strictly continuous worldvolumes replacing Feynman diagrams.

<span class="quote deadlink">>>5265103[/spoiler]

Dead or alive?

From here we notice these objects already contain local supersymmetry (via reparametrization symmetry of the worldvolume), and quantize the theory with a GSO projection + BRST. The minimal extended object turns out to be a string propagating in 11 dimensions (via the cohomology of the generators of super translations), and we see from here that the various excitation modes of this object from such a coycyle are the particles - but this time there is magical cancellation of all standard model anomalies, divergences, and inconsistencies. And no need for any sort of renormalization, free parameters, or coupling constants. The theory naturally includes a graviton propagator and describes physics at all energy scales. There does not exist any other proposed “theory of everything” capable of doing this.

>It's notoriously lacking in predictive power, and seems likely to remain so until the fad passes.
That's just wrong. String theory is the only theory in the quantum gravity regime where we can recover unequivocal, qualitative predictions. To do calculations in the low-energy regime, we must obtain moduli-stabilized vacua with their corresponding superselection sector (full-blown theories of everything, each with their own cosmic evolution, symmetry breaking mechanisms, particles, interactions, and so on) which contain standard model particle and field content. It turns out that there are a discrete number of possible solutions, and so we see string theory is the only theory which tells us we will never have to probe the quantum gravity regime experimentally (which has been known to be impossible circa 1900s) to figure out what happens. We have a discrete number to provide to a single input parameter to specify the vacuum.

So in phenomenology, in contrast to adjusting continuous parameters in a theory only valid effectively below the electroweak scale, we eliminate chunks of the landscape. With enough data from future colliders, and hopefully in our lifetimes, we will know precisely which vacuum we live in.

>and seems likely to remain so until the fad passes
You dismiss science due to its popularity? Do you have any idea what physics is? Your argument here is essentially meaningless babbling plus unsubstantiated bias.

> It amazes me how excited people are about bigger and more expensive accelerators and plasma facilities, and how little interest there is in the much cheaper, and more likely to be productive, research being done on the extremes of low energy, particularly ultracold neutrons.
More irrelevant babbling. Why do you compare entirely dissimilar branches of physics? This is comparable to dismissing research on evolutionary biology in place of field biology because it is somehow “easier” to research. If you do not like hep-th, feel free to work on something else, like your condensed matter. But keep in mind that many things in Nature are scale invariant - so just like quantum field theory, string theory will now find usage in your field with AdS/CM; it's still relevant to you.

>>5263995
what the shit. he did all that and didn't even live past 53

>>5264572 They realize that it's just math, but it's still a valid field of inquiry.
String theory is not “just maths”. This is an entirely illogical and unjustifiable prejudice. String theory is falsifiable, recovers ordinary physics, and makes predictions. It is “science” in every facet.

>>5263995
>pointless topology
why is that anything to be known for? even the name says it's useless.

>>5264587
>operates at levels that are far too close to h to ever be able to carry out an experiment
You are just wrong. What you spew is pure pseudointellectualism. You are confusing string theory for some hypothetical quantum gravity theory absent of a landscape; you do not have any idea what string theory is or what it predicts. Please go read/learn actual physics as opposed to glancing through popular science articles.

<span class="quote deadlink">>>5265127[/spoiler]

>Feynman
>crackpot

>Sheldon Lee Glashow
>crackpot

>Roger Penrose
>crackpot

>Lee Smolin
>crackpot

>Peter Woit
>crackpot

You clearly don't understand qualia.

>>5264627
What you write is a complete haze of incoherent crackpot nonsense, and a typical mantra of brainwashed laymen.

> String theorists best argument to date is '...the only reason you don't like it is because you don't understand it'
If you cannot or refuse to understand ordinary standard model physics, you cannot attempt to understand string theory. You will have to suffice for a popsci description (A recent one which I have helped to create is located on http://whystringtheory.com/).). Sadly those who write such enlightenments are in “contradiction” with hundreds of uneducated, dishonest, anti-science subhuman crackpots who dislike the theory on an emotional basis.

>String theory disagrees with experiment, it's WRONG.
It most certainly does not. I am not even going to bother refuting anything just yet: first - do you have any evidence to support this claim?

>Unless of course you are a string theorist because then you could make another dimension
It is hysterical how this is always an argument. You must suffer from some kind of severe mental deviation or even retardation. Do you not realize standard model physics already contains 11 dimensions? The symmetry group U(1) x SU(2) x SU(3) x ISO(3,1) is exactly 11 dimensional. U(1) x SU(2) x SU(3) is compactified over a four dimensional manifold.

> that makes the experimental anomaly possible.
I’d love to hear what kind of “experimental anomaly” you are referring to. Any “experimental anomaly” contradicting string theory would destroy it. Your thoroughly irrational extrapolation is also incorrect. You do not “add” dimensions to string theory to resolve anomalies.

<span class="quote deadlink">>>5265170[/spoiler]
i'm not a /sci/ regular but you're the only person i've seen here so far who actually has any idea what they're talking about when it comes to physics

>>5264636
This is just exceptionally deceitful propaganda. String theory cannot “adjust” at all; it can't be modified, not even by an infinitesimal mutation. This will render the entire theory non-unitary, and thus it will contradict basic postulates of quantum mechanics and probability theory. You can freely deform standard model physics, or adjust some 20 or so continuous free parameters and extract observables after appropriate regularization/renormalization, but unlike standard model physics all of the solutions to string theory are exact, and also easier to calculate.

>>5264693
Too funny. Please inform me with all of your bulk popsci knowledge from uneducated journalists how this has any relevance to the “death” of string theory/supersymmetry. I cannot wait to hear the demagogic crackpottery. This is a deeply flawed and brutally misinterpreted proposition.

>>5265159
>>Feynman
>>crackpot
You are quoting the incoherent ramblings of an old, mentally-unstable man with cancer. But regardless, none of what he stated regarding string theory is true. String theory at the time of his criticism was lacking numerous things. It was not the qualitative framework it is today.

>Penrose
He considers inflation a fraud. He considers consciousness of a quantum mechanical origin. He considers the uncertainty principle erroneous. Need I say more? It's simply embarrassing for one of the most famous mathematical physicists to say - and believe - these stupid things about physics.

>Smolin
I have said this before and will say it again: every competent high-energy physicist who knows Lee Smolin may confirm that he is the ultimate symbol of the complete absence of the scientific integrity and, indeed, the very basic human ethical values.He does not understand what physics is. This fact is masked by popsci articles. If you do not believe me, please see http://online.kitp.ucsb.edu/online/resident/johnson2/rm/qt.html..

>Woit
So many untrue statements from this one. He parasites on the work of scientists. Woit is a computer administrator and a lecturer in discipline, and is trying to revenge to the hep-th community for his inability to become a physicist himself.

You can check that during the last two decades, Peter Woit only wrote 3 rants against string theory and one unpublishable, 0-citation demonization of spinors in quantum field theory, earning less than 10 suspicious citations in total. For comparison, Edward Witten wrote nearly 200 articles during the same period, earning almost 40,000 citations from them. Peter Woit is not a scientist in any sense; he is just an activist.

You may also listen to an interview with Leonard Susskind (http://kqed02.streamguys.us/anon.kqed/radio/forum/2006/07/2006-07-31b-forum.mp3)), one of the leading physicists, who is also asked about Peter Woit and Lee Smolin and explains their grumpiness.

>>5265211

You still don't understand qualitative.

<span class="quote deadlink">>>5265209[/spoiler]
>tfw string theory has been around since 1970

could you briefly summarize the most important accomplishments in this field since then?

>>5265222
>implying string theory wasn't invented by Tesla

<span class="quote deadlink">>>5265226[/spoiler]
Tesla had neither the technology to conduct such an experiment, nor the mathematical knowledge to formulate string theory.

>>5265238
Nor the ignorance.

>>5262797
Didn't Perelman deny his Millenium Prize because he said a large part of his famous work had already been done by some other guy and he was just adding onto it?

Why are people who can't even understand the math behind string theory ARGUING about string theory?

Why are people seriously even trying to answer the OP? Nobody has ever been on Newton's level. And nobody will for a very long time.

>>5263995
Von Neumann's architecture was actually the idea of two other people, Von Neumann was just writing it up, but a fellow jew at the university passed the paper round with V.Neumans name on it, and he got the credit.

>>5265255
Because they are edgy reddit kids who regurgitate what their fellow redditors told them. The only reason they are here on /sci/ is because they need homework help and in the meantime they shit up legitimate threads with uneducated drivel.

>>5265245

No, he is a socially awkward aspire.

>>5265222
There is quite a lot.

We have shown that string theory does not require any coupling constants - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dilaton

We have shown string theory resolves every single standard model anomaly, and all standard model field/particle content - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Green%E2%80%93Schwarz_mechanism

We have shown that string theory naturally contains other extended objects, which can vibrate. The vibrations on these objects can be shown to be strings - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/D-brane, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/p-brane

We have shown that there are a finite number of moduli-stabilized solutions, all of which can be compactified on top of ordinary spacetime with the use of Calabi-Yau mainfolds. - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compactification_(physics)#Flux_compactification

We have shown that all of the string theories are equivalent to each other, and to the Kaluza Klein theory - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/T-duality

We have shown the AdS/CFT correspondence, which allows for easier calculations in the strong nuclear physics, investigation of black holes, and shows that string theory is entirely dual to ordinary gauge theory, with the added feature of a landscape of solutions - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AdS/CFT_correspondence

There's much more to list, I'll continue in the morning.

>>5265255
While I agree that people on /sci/ shouldn't be arguing about string theory(unless they can show they are at that level), string theory is a bit of a fad in the community. I don't say string theory is void because I simply don't understand it well enough, but there are many physicists who argue against it and that's what creates people on /sci/ who think its null. People who say its right though should be ridiculed until string theory has better evidence behind it.

>>5264576
>implying it wasnt Newton trolling Hooke

>>5265275
>People who say its right though should be ridiculed until string theory has better evidence behind it.
No other theory in physics has as much evidence as string theory.

>>5265322

0/10 poor effort.

>>5265299
cox is a third tier, and a dick

>>5264267
How can you believe in Bach when he's just a Johann (a gauss)?

>>5263995
Von Neumann.
Had only one offspring.
This makes me rage so fucking hard
So fucking hard.
One of the most intelligent geniuses in the history of humankind. Dwarfing all his peers, making Newton's contributions look like child's play.
How can someone so smart have only one kid when shitskins all over the world are having dozens of litters. Pig disgusting.

>>5265245
No, from what I heard the cause what that he had a dispute with another person about the authorship (or well, how much was his and how much built on other stuff) of his proof. After this he got mad at how the crazy world of papers works these days and the scientific community, refused the price, and it's said he now lives in a hill collecting mushrooms with a long ass beard and the only furniture in his living room is a single table.

<span class="quote deadlink">>>5264223[/spoiler]
>would of
>of

You cannot into English grammar, your opinion is irrelevant.

>>5265772
Idiocracy the movie. Am disappoint, hypothetical humanity.

>>5265772
>shitskins
Many of those so called shitskins have huge potential but since they were unlucky to be born where they were born, they can't unleash it.
You can't apply racism on an individual level dumbass, geniuses appear in every race.
For example, probably the most pure and creative mathematician is a shitskin, Ramanujan. If it wasn't for some people discovering his mathematical talent early, he would of just died in his twenties of hunger like all the other Indian "shitskins" of his socio-economical level.

>>5265772
>Dwarfing all his peers, making Newton's contributions look like child's play.
You know that none of Von Neumann's papers is considered anywhere near as important as Newtons Principia?
Dissing Newton reveals thou for the pleb that thou are.
"Taking mathematics from the beginning of the world to the time of Newton, what he has done is much the better half." - Gottfried Leibniz, 1688

>>5267419

Fuck no. You are currently using a machine that Von Neumann conceived of. Principe is fundamental but not as hard to conceive of. Numbers are also fundamental. We don't praise Amazonian tribes for independently coming up with the concept.

>>5265912
This.
Intelligence isn't the attribute of certain communities.
An African child can be clever than an American child, and vice versa, what matter is the degree of education he get.

<span class="quote deadlink">>>5264528[/spoiler]
It's a concept on par with religion

>>5262820
lrn2spell Leibniz
also, the most important principles in mechanics are based on Newton's 3 axioms

and why would you even compare Leibniz to Newton?

>>5263995
Sigh, another Jew with great accomplishments.

Was Einstein loved in his life time?

By loved I mean did people know him, not just known like "hey that Tyson guy was on Big Bang Theory once"

>>5267438
>Principe is fundamental but not as hard to conceive of.
With this definition, Newton is relegated infinitely in the list of fgreatest scientists, to an unworthy speck.
The fact is that Newton was the greatest physicist and mathematician of his day - and his work had complexity to it, so to compare it to the realisation of numbers is hysterical.
Von Neumann's scope is immense, but the Von Neumann architecture you refer to wasn't really his idea

>As part of that group, he volunteered to write up a description of it and produced the First Draft of a Report on the EDVAC[1] which included ideas from Eckert and Mauchly. It was unfinished when his colleague Herman Goldstine circulated it with only von Neumann's name on it, to the consternation of Eckert and Mauchly.[10] The paper was read by dozens of von Neumann's colleagues in America and Europe, and influenced the next round of computer designs.

Hence, Von Neumann was not alone in developing the idea of the stored-program architecture, and Jack Copeland considers that it is "historically inappropriate, to refer to electronic stored-program digital computers as 'von Neumann machines'".[11] His Los Alamos colleague Stan Frankel said of von Neumann's regard for Turing's ideas:

Einstein - easily; susskind, hawking, hell, maybe even a couple of my university profs
Newton - impossible to tell

Your question simply illustrates that you cannot divorce yourself from the social context in which you were raised.

>>5267529
>susskind
>string theory
>equal to Einstein

Jacob Barnett

>>5267529
>susskind

How's Reddit been?

>>5267471
Loved and hated and idolized and derided.

>>5262820
This truly is the greatest of all possible worlds.

>>5267563
The holographic principle is up there, considering how probable it is.

We're past the age the lone scientist and it's progress.
Let's not dismiss, however, the groundbreaking work today, that innovators, not simply discoverers and theorists, are accomplishing. The Nobel Committee greatly overlooks innovation in favor of discovery.

>>5267604
>We're past the age the lone scientist and it's progress.
That has been said since the beginning of mankind.

>>5267597
The holographic principle is like it came out of a contest to see how silly one can get away with being in physics.

>>5267604
We're past the age of progress in physics.

Everyone that smart and genuinely sane has looked at Hiroshima and seen the danger of publicly advancing physics, and has gone to do some other kind of work.

Everyone who has failed to recognize how irresponsible it is is rather dull-minded or crackpottish, so we get things like tokamak fusion from the former camp and string theory from the latter.

>>5267646
>>5267604

This is fundamentally not true in condensed matter physics.

We're aproaching an age where physicists with computers can perform more accurate experiments than chemists. And physics is just starting to see application to other sciences which historically have shunned mathematical methods.

>>5267664
>We're aproaching an age where physicists with computers can perform more accurate experiments than chemists.

>simulation called "experiment"
>simulation more accurate than actual experiment

And here's the crackpot contingent.

>mfw IQ fundie is verbally raping everyone arguing against string theory

>>5262731
How about Andrew Wiles?

>>5267884

Fun fact: I am currently at university with his daughter. She's doing computer science.

>>5267914
Funny, would have thought that the child of a famous mathematician would try to continue the legacy.

>>5267929

Actually, her and her two sisters seem to be totally scared off from doing maths due to their father's towering achievements. One sister did physics (ended up going into graduate medicine) and the other is at Yale majoring in some sort of laughable non-science "humanities" subject whose name I couldn't be bothered to remember.

She gave me the example of Gowers's son, who either studies or studied - can't remember if he's graduated yet - maths at the same university as us. He got a 2:1 in his first year (British degree grading system) and became the laughing stock of the whole department, even though it's a totally respectable grade. Because he's the son of this intellectual leviathan, he's constantly being compared to his father and he can't be anything less than totally brilliant and amazing without being derided. It's a tough path to tread.

eo wilson, although group selection is starting to burn that bridge

The problem with this question is that there is a much larger pool of scientists to work with then before, and the fact we have started to get most of the low hanging fruit in science.

You would not expect the best scientists of then to be as good as the best of today, simply because of the larger talent pool and methods of selecting them.

However, the rate of progress in upper math and theoretical physics is slowing down, simply because the problems are getting harder and harder

TL;DR Top scientists of today are smarter than back then, but the problems are harder

>>5267956

Oh fuck no, Wilson's a proponent of that bullshit? ALL OF MY TEARS

>>5267953
Oh god, that sounds so sad.

>>5267970
yep. he's been getting shit for it the last couple years.

his influence is never going to leave the field but his reputation is definitely tainted now

>>5265912
Indian's don't count as shitskins, retard.

We are talking about nigs and spics

>>5268078

Sure smells like science in here!

>>5268078

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miguel_Alcubierre

>>>/pol/

>>5262731

S-source..

pls respond

>>5268078
>Indian's

Get off my /sci/

>>5269917
How many nobel prizes this mexican have?
lel

>>5270835
High caste indians are masterrace, like the jews. Give me one black or mexican who won a nobel prize in physics or chemistry.
You can't.

>>5270862
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mario_J._Molina

Now back to >>>/pol/

The problem with this is the types of advancements that were POSSIBLE at their time. I'm sure there have been minds that if you sent back to the 1900s or prior could have made a 'Newton' or 'Einstein' out of themselves if they had the chance, but these days the 'rogue scientists' who uncovers amazing shit just isn't a viable outcome.

Likewise, Einstein and Newton may never have stumbled across too much if they were born today. Now that's not to say they AREN'T significant figures, but rather the opposite: there still are some really brilliant minds today, there's just nothing for them to uncover in such an 'eccentric and outsider' way that Newton and Einstein did, which is what made their names. These days, you NEED money and large resarch teams.

>>5270876
Actually I misworded.
Give me one black or mexican who go the physics nobel prize. I'll make it even easier actually, give me one black, mexican or arab winner of the physics nobel prize.
You can't.

>>5270917

>Get proven wrong
>Oh! Actually I misworded.

>>5262731
Tesla

What exactly does op mean by "extraordinary"? Being one of the leading scientists on its topic? Introducing a sudden change in a scientific field?
In the latter case, I would say Alexander Grothendieck. Maybe also Per Martin-Löf.

Maxwell would be on that tier. Fuck Tesla fags.

>>5263980
It's not that he 'knows' about other universes, as no other universes have been proven to exist yet other than our own, he does accept that it is a huge possibility, given the data.

>>5270917
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abdus_Salam
Fuckwit.

>>5262859
lolno

>>5267953
>"humanities laughable"
>entire world, including all scientists, controlled by non-scientists
>enjoy toil and mediocrity

>>5271780

>2012
>doesn't understand facetious use of stereotypes

Everyone is idiots compared to this guy.

>>5262768
He may not be _as_ important, but with the rise of the digital era people will need algorithms and he's the fucking grand wizard of them.

>>5262731
You'll never know how significant current scientists are until their ideas have been fully tested.

Shit... If he turned out to be right, Garret Lisi could be a legend tier scientist.

>>5271662
The fuckwit is the person who doesn't know the difference between a pakistani and an arab.
Go kill yourself, fucking idiot.