/sci/ - Science & Math

Muh beauty

It's starting to look like it. Personally I can't help but be pleased by the thought since most versions of string theory would go down with it.

>>6531418
Another great reason to hope the LHC misses it.

>>6531403 says it all

>>6531401
So what if it is? Luminiferous ether was a great theory until it got ruled out.
Supersymmetry hasn't been ruled out yet, so by your hypothesis it must be a great theory.

>>6531401
>spelling "aether" like a pleb
Therefore wrong, QED.

>>6531806
>Luminiferous ether was a great theory
Nope. Luminiferous aether was the most embarrassing blunder in the history of physics.

>>6531401
>implying dark matter/energy isn't

>>6533205
This

>>6533192
>spelling æther like a pleb

>>6531401
What exactly does this formula describe?

>>6533388
Have you seen the covariant form of maxwell's equations before? The variational principle that describes those comes from the 'yang-mills action', in which two field tensors are contracted. This is the kinetic term of basically any field theory involving vector bosons.

What you are seeing is just the yang mills for arbitrary numbers of bosons and fermions, but supersymmetric, meaning that both sectors are treated equally.

>>6531418
why are faggots like you even around? you can't see the merit in string theory or supersymmetry? science is about exploring ideas, no need to be an ass for no reason.

> inb4 i'm a string theorist

>>6533393
>you can't see the merit in string theory or supersymmetry?
Most of it is non-rigorous (i.e. worthless) math, not science.

>>6533398
Why is non-rigorous worthless?

>>6533398
i cant tell if this is troll or if there are actually undergraduates who believe this

>>6533434
Because when math lacks rigour or you can't trust the results.

>>6533453
So what?

“As far as the laws of mathematics refer to reality, they are not certain; and as far as they are certain, they do not refer to reality.”

>>6533457
>>>/x/
>>>/pol/

>>6533453
Newtonian mechanics was rigorously defined.

>>6533458
>Einstein belongs on /x/ and /pol/

>>6533459
And?
Nobody thinks that calculus is worthless.

>string theory
>super symmetry
>COSMIC VIBRATIONS


Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha


let's be real for a second. math can perfectly describe things that aren't real, thinking that you're on to something because the math checks out when there's no indication of validity in nature is a logical fallacy.

>>6533460
>a crackpot that doesn't believe in QM
>an believes in hidden unicorns theories
>not on /x/

what the fuck happened? /sci/, /fit/ and /a/ suddenly seemed to go to shit in the last~2weeks or so. did 4chan get publicity on some southern American tv show or something?

>>6533469
4chan has always been shit.

>>6533388
>>6533392
Or, in a more helpful way:

It describes how much energy a fundamental particle has (e.g. an electron). More specifically, it tells us that to get this energy, we add up and multiply (i.e. "contract") certain elements of the field that describes the electron's state. This includes some special extra terms for supersymmetry, which I personally know nothing about.

One absolute simple retarded question,
How do I multiply 6/10 by 4/9?

>>6533486
(6*4)/(10*9)

>>6533466
yeah i sure don't see any teserracts or other 4th dimensional objects around here
I guess it just doesn't exist

>>6533453
So all quantum field theory is unreliable?
The Standard Model isn't good physics?

>>6533501
Aren't the smart people supposed to hang out here?
QFT and the SM are good physics because there's experiments that show they are a good model of nature.
Since string theory has exactly zero experimental support it is worthless as a model of nature. And since the math is not rigorous it is also worthless as mathematics.
So:
Less rigourous math + experiments = good for physics.
Less rigorous math - experiments = useless physics.
Less rigorous math = worthless math.

>>6533505
come back when you've taken a physics course that is more advanced than Newtonian physics and well talk again kid.

its like people like you think that Einstein sat there at his desk, went 'aha!' and shitted out the complete theory of general relativity.

>>6533523
I am not certain you understand what is meant by mathematical rigour. Though I am inclined to believe that most results in string theory are more rigorous than the methods used in the path integral formulation of QED at the time of its proposal or of the inclusion of the Dirac-delta in quantum theory before that. Anyways, physics can do away with rigorous mathematical proof as physics is unconcerned with deductive, axiomatic proof and simply cares whether or not the mathematical model works. As such, rigorous proof can be put off or ignored in favour of proposing a method or a function and sticking with it because it works. None of this implies anything comes from vacuum, as the path integral formulation was developed using ideas proposed by Dirac regarding the action and the evolution of the system and even the evaluation of the path integral has some mathematical argument to it, but it was not a rigorous argument and it did not have to be as it gave proper physical results.

>>6533197
implying the aether won't come back full force a few decades from now. Mark my words.

>>6533523
>come back when you've taken a physics course that is more advanced than Newtonian physics and well talk again kid.
Way to make a fool out of yourself, son.
I have certainly taken something "more advanced" than classical mechanics.
Undergrads these days...

>>6534073
well you obviously didn't concentrate in the class then.

>>6534135
My PhD and papers suggest otherwise.
Don't dig further.

>>6534153
I hope you are joking, because if people like you are also have a phd im going to go burn my degrees and become a hermit so that i dont have to be associated with your kind.

>Don't dig further.
shitiest response ive herd on /sci/

>>6534160
Go burn your degree then.
BTW, my degree granting school is also regularly listed in the "top n" lists. Not that it matters much.

>shitiest response ive herd on /sci/
It's pretty good advice to someone who got himself in a hole.

>>6534165
>BTW, my degree granting school is also regularly listed in the "top n" lists. Not that it matters much.
well good for you. im sure your parents very proud

>>6534169
Well since you (or someone like you) attacked my qualifications ("taken a physics course that is more advanced than Newtonian physics") I just tossed this little fact out there.
BTW, envy is an ugly thing.

>>6533385
where is the "æny" key

>>6534177
>BTW, envy is an ugly thing.
please dont dig any further

>>6533471
>/sci/ has always been shit.
I like to think otherwise

>>6533505
>Less rigourous math + experiments = good for physics
But you said earlier:
>Because when math lacks rigour or you can't trust the results.

I agree that ST is difficult to accept because of the lack of evidence, but that is not what I was arguing about. You said that less rigorous maths is worthless, but it surely cannot be if it forms the basis of QFT, which very successfully describes reality.
Also ST is, if anything, <span class="math">more[/spoiler] rigorous than QFT, and certainly more rigorous than QFT when it was first being carved out, as >>6533528 indicated.

Even from a pure maths point of view, non-rigorous results can still be useful, even though they do not constitute proof. Take topological quantum field theories, for example. The results that they generate are not rigorous, but they do show mathematicians what they can prove, and give indications of how to go about doing so. Going back 2300 years, Archimedes used his method of levers (an early form of calculus) to derive formulae, which he would then go on to prove formally, exactly the same way mathematicians now use TQFTs to prove stuff about knots and manifolds.

>>6534185
>please dont dig any further
I am not.
Anyway, If you are not capable of understanding that "physics" without experimental support isn't physics and "mathematics" without rigour isn't mathematics then you are a lost case.

>>6534203
and if you are not capable of understanding that physicists need to explore new ideas even without rigor to find the next direction to work in then you dont understand what physics is.

>>6533197
>aether was the most embarrassing blunder
Worse than Phlogiston?

>>6534198
>But you said earlier:
>>Because when math lacks rigour or you can't trust the results.
I am talking about its value as math. An example is the italian school of algebraic geometry:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Italian_school_of_algebraic_geometry
They let rigour standards slip and published so many false results that it took some time to sort out what was true from what was false.

>You said that less rigorous maths is worthless, but it surely cannot be if it forms the basis of QFT, which very successfully describes reality.
As mathematics, less rigorous math is worthless. QFT (+ SM) has the nice property that it describes several fundamental (and many effective) interactions. That is its value, as physics.

>Also ST is, if anything, more rigorous than QFT
It is, but it doesn't seem like we live in the world (if anything) it describes so it has no value as a physical theory. Not until some experiment gives an indication that it has to do something with nature. And since it doesn't have the level of rigour required for mathematics its value for math is also limited.

>Even from a pure maths point of view, non-rigorous results can still be useful,
It could be, it could also send people in a wild goose chase.

>>6534221
>and if you are not capable of understanding that physicists need to explore new ideas even without rigor
I never said they shouldn't do that. I only made the non-controversial statement that, in the end, physics needs experimental support and that math requires rigour. I really don't see how anyone can disagree with that.

>>6534243
because you said it was useless/worthless, when it fact it does have worth as stated in >>6534221.
maybe the problem is you dont understand English?

>>6534235
>no value as a physical theory.
Debatable. The thing as a whole may be scrapped by failure of the simplest supersymmetric theory, but the resulting conformal field theories and other structures are finding use in certain theories of topological states of matter. At worst, the theory is wrong but the resulting mathematical frameworks are still workable on other problems.

>>6534254
>maybe the problem is you dont understand English?
No. It seems like you don't understand what is plainly written. I made a true statement about rigour in math and got a response about rigour in physics.

>>6534267
>At worst, the theory is wrong but the resulting mathematical frameworks are still workable on other problems.

The math methods could also be used to study condensed matter systems, as you say. But the value as an effective theory of electronic interaction comes from the combination of the (less than rigorous) math and experiments that show that the model is useful.

>>6534296
It prevents us from having to reinvent the wheel at the very least and a great deal of work did go into developing these structures for use in string theory. So, the theory itself may be incorrect, but it is still of value due to the structures developed finding applicability elsewhere.

The luminiferous aether definitely exists. Einsteinian Relativity is complete bullshit. More at 11.

>>6533197
>the most embarrassing blunder in the history of physics.

what is relativity?

>>6531401
There is simply no way a theory predicting something called the smuon sneutrino is remotely valid.

>>6533469
>thinking that the American south is stupid
>implying Durham and Winston-Salem aren't 3d printing organs while you fuckers drink your Starbucks.

>>6531401

It basically is. It's the equivalent of saying "Wouldn't it be nice if this were true?"

>>6534576
I am and idiot and can you explain this picture? What happens at the Grand Unified Theory point, exactly? All the forces become equally strong?

>>6534169
What the fuck did you just fucking say about me, you little bitch? I’ll have you know I graduated top of my class in the Navy Seals, and I’ve been involved in numerous secret raids on Al-Quaeda, and I have over 300 confirmed kills. I am trained in gorilla warfare and I’m the top sniper in the entire US armed forces. You are nothing to me but just another target. I will wipe you the fuck out with precision the likes of which has never been seen before on this Earth, mark my fucking words. You think you can get away with saying that shit to me over the Internet? Think again, fucker. As we speak I am contacting my secret network of spies across the USA and your IP is being traced right now so you better prepare for the storm, maggot. The storm that wipes out the pathetic little thing you call your life. You’re fucking dead, kid. I can be anywhere, anytime, and I can kill you in over seven hundred ways, and that’s just with my bare hands. Not only am I extensively trained in unarmed combat, but I have access to the entire arsenal of the United States Marine Corps and I will use it to its full extent to wipe your miserable ass off the face of the continent, you little shit. If only you could have known what unholy retribution your little “clever” comment was about to bring down upon you, maybe you would have held your fucking tongue. But you couldn’t, you didn’t, and now you’re paying the price, you goddamn idiot. I will shit fury all over you and you will drown in it. You’re fucking dead, kiddo.

>>6534569
Engineer is kredit to team!

>>6534596

Yes, with SUSY, it can be proven that the forces were, at one point, probably shortly after the Big Bang, unified as a sort of "super force," which is apparently good for modern physics and astronomy or something and matches certain models. In short, if we find evidence for SUSY, cool, we were right on something in particle physics again, if not, who really cares.