/sci/ - Science & Math

[Anonymous No.10124937]

>we don't have the technology to build a particle accelerator powerful enough to experimentally confirm string theory
What obstacles are physicists running into exactly?

[Anonymous No.10124939]

>>10124937
>measurements

[Anonymous No.10124944]

>>10124937
Energy and better materials.

If we could make it out of solid gold, ironically, it would be more efficient than less.

._."

[Anonymous No.10124945]

>>10124937
large hardon collider

[Anonymous No.10125063]

>>10124937
to reach the energy where for sure we would see quantum gravity effects, it would require a collider with energy a _quadrillion_ times more powerful than the LHC. optimistically, the collider would need to be a good portion of the size of the galaxy.

if string theorists could actually turn their “framework” into a real theory, however, maybe they’ll find out it has effects at lower energies that we might realistically observe. but after 50 years of trying, they’re not even close yet

[Anonymous No.10125064]

>>10125063
>the collider would need to be a good portion of the size of the galaxy.
Time to start funding asteroid mining, then.

[Anonymous No.10125147]

Cool, a string theory thread.

Can anyone point to another (popular or accepted) theory in natural science that relies on such a massive degree of mathematical abstraction from known reality? Is string theory the deepest, wildest proposition ever taken to have bearing on our observable 4D reality?

[Anonymous No.10125152]

>>10124937
These partical accelerators are a waste of money and never accomplished anything like all of theoretical physics.
Physics getting all the funding so they waste money and energy so that two particles can collide and do nothing instead of actually modifying organisms is why science isn't progressing

[Anonymous No.10125163]

>>10125063
>quantum gravity
The biggest meme and most stupid fad in modern physics.

[Anonymous No.10125166]

thats a pretty large hadron collider

[The Landlord No.10125176]

I'll be interested to see what the accessible energy scale is when they adapt this new plasma wakefield acceleration stuff to the circular colliders.

[Anonymous No.10125180]

>>10125152
Don't be retarded, a lot of particles were discovered with the first accelerators, and the LHC discovered the Higgs-Boson, experiments and theory go hand in hand

[Anonymous No.10125184]

>>10125147
>Is string theory the deepest, wildest proposition ever taken to have bearing on our observable 4D reality?
It's not that much more abstracted than particle physics, it just says the fundamental excitations are strings not points and goes from there.

[Anonymous No.10125199]

>>10125180
>the LHC discovered the Higgs-Boson
Name one practical use for that discovery.

[Anonymous No.10125208]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iTTa9YcTe1k

[Anonymous No.10125218]

>>10125199
physicists could pay their bills

[The Landlord No.10125219]

>>10125180
>>10125199
LHC discovered a particle, not the Higgs boson. Higgs has spin-0 but they have not reported the spin of the particle they found. Indeed, the obstinately refuse for many years to publish a model-independent analysis of all Lorentz invariant amplitudes which result in two photons. Despite the Landau-Yang theorem, which is an idea only and not a constraint on Lorentz invariance, there are two amplitudes fro spin-1 to two photons. Indeed, since i have predicted new spin-1 particles, I think they are refusing to report the particle's spin because they know it has spin-1 (unpublished analyses) and they are in league with my enemy.
>pic

Anyway... the practical application of new discoveries in HEP is to pave the way for more specific experiments which might in turn pave the way for new engineering principles.

[The Landlord No.10125223]

>>10125180
>>10125199
>>10125219
My prediction:
Quantum Structure
http://www.vixra.org/abs/1302.0037

[Anonymous No.10125227]

>>10125064
I Iike your attitude.

[Anonymous No.10125344]

>>10125152
Then which fields of physics should receive the most funding if we're strictly talking about the potential impact on technological advancement?
Everything flows from particle physics/cosmology. It's just that the discrepancy between our current knowledge of HEP and the available technology that we can use to exploit that knowledge is extremely large, so it makes HEP look abstract and useless.

[Anonymous No.10126271]

>>10125163
>implying general relativity is any better

[Anonymous No.10126278]

>>10125064
Just wrap it around the earth multiple times

[Anonymous No.10126282]

>>10125208
This video doesn't make an argument, and the last 3 minutes are an ad

[Anonymous No.10126391]

>>10126271
Don't you talk shit about GR. Theoretical particle physics is the bigger meme.

>Muh ghost fields

[Anonymous No.10126393]

>>10125344
Condensed matter

[Anonymous No.10126395]

>>10126391
what does an average particle physicist make?

[Anonymous No.10126396]

>>10126393
Why?

[Anonymous No.10126726]

>>10126395
a lot if they work on the positron rifle for nerv

[Anonymous No.10126735]

>>10126726
>you will never be a research scientist at NERV
Fucking kill me

[Anonymous No.10126740]

>>10125163
>gravity exists
>quantum mechanics exists
>but quantum gravity is a meme

brainlet detected

[Anonymous No.10126744]

>>10126735
>tfw want to be a cog in a terrifying engineering effort that either ends the world or brings humans to the next level of existence
>tfw scrabbling for satellite jobs

[Anonymous No.10126750]

>>10126744
Why satellite jobs though?
>a cog in a terrifying engineering effort that either ends the world or brings humans to the next level of existence
I don't think there's anything we're currently working on that fits this description (inb4 AI, it's still far too early)

[Anonymous No.10126768]

>>10126750
oh cause I'm aero eng
no I don't think there's anything on that level, maybe during the manhattan project it was sort of like that though

[Anonymous No.10126787]

>>10126726
Just become a cool theoretical physicist and money and bitches will fall at your feet

[Anonymous No.10126850]

>>10126768
Good luck on building cool space weapons then.
>manhattan project
Yeah probably, now I just have to figure out what the next project of that scale will be.

[Anonymous No.10126856]

>>10124937
string theory is a meme.

[Anonymous No.10126861]

>>10126856
It's the second most beautiful meme then

[Anonymous No.10126881]

>>10126861
What is the first?

[Anonymous No.10126885]

>>10126881

[Anonymous No.10126905]

>>10124937
Predictions from string theory. If you're taking about getting to higher energies, radiation and magnetic field strength, then pile up in observed data.

[Anonymous No.10126907]

>>10124945
Kek'd

[Anonymous No.10126915]

>>10125152
Still waiting on SUSY from HL-LHC 3000 fb^-1

[Anonymous No.10126921]

>>10126915
SUSY fags BTFO, stop ruining physics with your cult bullshit.

[Anonymous No.10126928]

>>10125199
Name one practical use for the discovery that some particles get pushed upwards when traveling through a magnetic gradient and others get pushed downwards randomly. By the way, you can only use technology and knowledge of 1922 to determine a use.

[Anonymous No.10126929]

>>10126278
It's not the length that matters, but the curvature.

[Anonymous No.10126932]

>>10126929
I think the curvature of an accelerator around the earth would allow the necessary parameters

[Anonymous No.10126939]

>>10126921
Butthurt that pop sci people lied to you saying it's at the lowest possible energy it could be which was derived ad hoc from poor definitions of their fine-tuning measure? Amazing what people run with because some ivy league published a paper with one definition and didn't critique it.

[Anonymous No.10126942]

>>10126932
Yes, because you haven't done the calculations of the necessary energy required to get to GUT scale physics with a limited magnetic field.

[Anonymous No.10126974]

>>10126921
your daily reminder that even SUSY at Planck energy is more likely than no SUSY at all

SUSY aint going anywhere, pseud

[Anonymous No.10127067]

>>10126942
GUT is not the same as quantum gravity (ToE). the GUT scale where electroweak forces unite with chromodynamics is believed to be much lower than QG scales.

>>10126974
more likely according to what? just pure speculation. reminder that ST can’t generate a cosmological constant consistent with the universe according to Vafa

[Anonymous No.10127446]

>>10125163
>t. HS dropout 4chan poster
Your opinion isnt worth anything.

[Anonymous No.10127451]

>>10125199
Name one practical use for any fundamental physics discovery while only using the available knowledge and culture at the time the discovery was made.

It pains me that people as retarded as you exist.

[Anonymous No.10127454]

>>10127451
When can we expect current particle physics knowledge to become relevant to applicable technology?

[Anonymous No.10127458]

>>10127067
>more likely according to what? just pure speculation.
All of theory is speculation with known observation as context you ape.

[Anonymous No.10127474]

>>10127458
that's bullshit. plenty of theories arise as "explanations" of well-observed phenomena, as opposed to wild guesses about stuff disconnected from reality. take for example the BCS model of superconductivity. superconductors were known, and the theoretical challenge was to explain it with a microscopic model.

OTOH any reasons for arguing why "SUSY is there! trust me!" are not based on anything except for staring at equations and saying "hey, this would be nice" or "oh fuck my other speculative equations don't work unless i also speculate that SUSY is real, despite no hints of it ever being observed in nature (after decades of idiots declaring that it would be observed)"

[Anonymous No.10127476]

>>10127454
When can you expect the prediction and discovery of radio waves to be applicable to technology?
When can you expect the discovery of the weak nuclear force to be applicable to technology?
When can you expect the invention of the internet to be applicable to technology?

You are asking me to predict the future while also having no conception of discovery for discovery's sake.

[Anonymous No.10127479]

>>10127476
I get it, you don't have to be a cunt about it m8.

[Anonymous No.10127484]

>>10127474
>superconductors were known, and the theoretical challenge was to explain it with a microscopic model.

Is this the limit of your reading comprehension?
>>10127458
>with observation as context
Additionally
> staring at equations
The entire modern age is based on people staring at equations.

So you are either just an edgy, uneducated contrarian or you think that doing nothing is better than trying to explain something. Either way you are retarded.

[Anonymous No.10127505]

>>10127484
ooh wow somebody is getting their panties in a bunch.

>with observation as context
let me give you an example:
>smartguy:
>"hey look at that, hot stuff like fire goes up"
>"hmmm okay, maybe that has to do with buoyancy or something, let me work out a theory that relates heat to buoyancy"
>brainlet:
>"hey look at that, hot stuff like fire goes up"
>"based on this, I conjecture the existence of phlogiston, the elemental constituent of fire"
>"it has negative mass, therefore gravity pushes it up"
>"furthermore i speculate: Air attracts the phlogiston of bodies. When set in motion, phlogiston is the chief active principle in nature of all inanimate bodies. It is the basis of colors.

there is a difference between theories motivated by trying to explain real phenomena or make incremental predictions of what could be expected given the theoretical hints, fine, that's one thing, but there's a COMPLETELY SEPARATE thing that says "oh, let me speculate about what happens at energies that won't be measurable for ten thousand years because i like how the equations look, and based on these speculations, make claims like there are many extra dimensions of space time, that we can't see, but they're there :^)"

anyhow you have no argument and you're just butthurt that your precious SUSY isn't where it was supposed to be, according to all the smartypants guys you worship, who turned out to be wrong

[Anonymous No.10127582]

>>10127505
>anyhow you have no argument and you're just butthurt
Typically when someone says this it means they have no idea what they are on about. Skimming through our exchange so far that seems to pan out since my only point is that theory is informed speculation. Which you agree with in this post with
> trying to explain real phenomena or make incremental predictions of what could be expected given the theoretical hints
Looks like I was right about the scope of your reading comprehension.

[Anonymous No.10127589]

>>10126744
What is that horse doin to that dragon

[Anonymous No.10127591]

I wish people would this amount of effort and money into theoretical chemistry, that would actually get results that are worth things

[Anonymous No.10127593]

>>10125064
But anon said Galaxy, not solar system.

[Anonymous No.10127597]

>>10127582
still no argument.

if your theory says that it is inherently unobservable for the next ten thousand years, then it's way too far out there to be considered as a "valuable theory" in the scientific sense that science is empirical. therefore if your prized SUSY theory gets ruled out where it "should have been" over and over to the point where you need to claim that supersymmetry breaking occurs at the string scale, you're just as bad as string theorists. and their theory is incapable of describing anything observable for many thousands of years, and it hasn't gotten any closer for the 50 years it's been trying.

therefore, it doesn't count as an
>incremental prediction
what i mean by this is that you make predictions that add, gradually, to the scientific process of theorizing and experimenting and then theorizing and re-experimenting. saving your SUSY theory by saying "it can't be tested for basically ever" is not at all "incremental" in this sense, and basically relegates it to the garbage can

[Anonymous No.10127766]

>>10127591
hear hear!
I keep thinking about this. We use theoretical chemistry to make predictions that we actually test on a routine basis. The limitation is just computational cost, but things might improve a lot when we can routinely implement quantum chemistry on quantum computers.

[Anonymous No.10127772]

>>10124937
They fell for the jewish physics meme and are entirely preoccupied with autistic nonsense.

[Anonymous No.10127809]

>>10127479
Clearly, you don't get it

[Anonymous No.10128292]

>>10127593
Yeah, and?

[Anonymous No.10128294]

We need uhhh... more funding... yeah for the parts that make the particles go zip zoooooommmm

[Anonymous No.10128306]

>>10125064
>>10127593
What kind of physics is relevant to the elaboration of megastructures and related tech?

[Anonymous No.10128329]

Why is everyone getting so excited about string theory lately?
It's a bit of a cop out isn't it?

[Anonymous No.10128374]

>>10124937
Not fast enough

[Anonymous No.10128392]

>>10128329
>Why is everyone getting so excited about string theory lately?

It pops up, off and on, every now and then. PBS Spacetime did a recent episode on it.

Also, regarding predictions, String Theory does actually make one prediction: it predicts Gravity. Much as the Dirac Equations only work when they contain electromagnetic field theory, String Theory only works when it includes Gravity. The fact that it also doesn't work without a bunch of other spacial dimensions that don't seem to actually exist is a wee bit of an argument against it.

[Anonymous No.10128538]

>>10127597
Of course there is no argument, you have literally agreed with me multiple times while arguing a strawman because you are too illiterate to read my posts, and because you think you should be the one to arbitrate what is and isnt a valid theory.

[Anonymous No.10129030]

>>10128292
Solar system is ~1 LY diameter. Galaxy is ~120000 LY diameter.

[Anonymous No.10130433]

>>10128392
>don't seem to actually exist
According to what?

[Anonymous No.10130440]

>>10129030
>Solar system is ~1 LY diameter.
Not anywhere close to a light year. Our solar system is around 244 AU or about 0.004 light years.

[Anonymous No.10131283]

>>10130440
Depends on if the oort cloud is a thing or not. We just can't get good data out that far yet.

But besidss that, comet 2017 k2 has a aphelion of .7 LY. And even sedena has a aphelion of .015 LY. So your .004 LY estimate is much too small, as we already have known satellites that orbit beyond that number.

The Oort cloud is by no means confirmed, but the size of the solar system is still approximately 1 LY, that is why the theory behind the oort cloud even exists, because we know our sun is a biggest influence on objects at that distance from us.

[Anonymous No.10131312]

>>10127597
>if your theory says that it is inherently unobservable for the next ten thousand years, then it's way too far out there to be considered as a "valuable theory" in the scientific sense that science is empirical.

According to whom? There is no hard cutoff where theory is not considered valuable science anymore. Quantum gravity is inherently a theory of high energy phenomena, up to Planck scale, and hence testing it is very hard and we have to rely strongly on theory. But that does not make it any less worthy of study.

If you have better theory than string theory, then publish it, otherwise shut up as a brainlet that you are and let theoretical physicists do their jobs.

[Anonymous No.10131322]

>>10127067
>reminder that ST can’t generate a cosmological constant consistent with the universe according to Vafa

Reminder that ST can generate such constant according to others, and it can generate quintessence fields that could play the role of such constant. Nobody is saying ST is a solved theory.

[Periwinkle McFluster No.10131332]

>>10124937
>What obstacles are physicists running into exactly?
The main issue for me is that the Israelites forgot what I did for their ancestors, who are my own ancestors, and have chosen to have other gods before me: the Mighty One of Israel, the Sovereign Lord God. This is the main issue.

[Anonymous No.10131339]

>>10127597
>you make predictions that add, gradually, to the scientific process of theorizing and experimenting and then theorizing and re-experimenting

You should realize that there is zero reason to expect Nature to be friendly to such incremental, experimentally guided process of understanding by us puny humans. Maybe we will never be able to get any other confirmation of Theory of Everything, only certain deep theoretical reasons coupled with very indirect and weak experimental evidence. Favoring theories with easy experimental confirmations is just an unjustified bias.

[Anonymous No.10132440]

>>10131339
i disagree. i think experiment lies at the root of scientific knowledge; therefore any theory which begins to rely on "theoretical" grounds is sort of departing subtly with the scientific method.

science should stay grounded. our mission is empirical knowledge, no?

[Anonymous No.10132487]

>>10124937
The Planck length. We will never be able to experimentally confirm string theory. Trying to creates a black hole.

[Anonymous No.10132504]

>>10124937
>String theory was disproved half a year ago and has lost most of it's supporters in the physics community

Get with the times

[Anonymous No.10132506]

>>10131332
No one cares what you think, Jon.

[Anonymous No.10132514]

Are Brian Greene books considered pure pop-sci? I ask because the explanations for things only properly understood mathematically are given in fairly rigorous analogs with funny maths included for the inclined reader, not me though.

I know Greene himself has contributed something, so he's not NDT level.

[Anonymous No.10132867]

>>10127479
lol you were the one trying to tweeze out some sort of defeat. He comes back with a real response and all you can say is "well you didn't have to be mean about it..."

[Anonymous No.10132876]

honestly i'll be happy when CERN stops getting high smashing tiny things together it's really quite psychotic, like serial killers obsess over detail, and they do this with living things. is there something they've accomplished after all this time, and money, that has benefitted the world because I don't see it. we have regressed beyond any acceptable state.

[Anonymous No.10132887]

>>10124937
no strings to confirm the string theory

[Anonymous No.10132955]

>>10125166
For you

[Anonymous No.10132962]

It's probably because the critical field of superconductors is too low.

[Anonymous No.10132966]

>>10132876
>they do this with living things
wow a faithful shintoist in 2018, posting on the science and mathematics board on 4chan of all places

[Anonymous No.10132968]

>>10132514
>Are Brian Greene books considered pure pop-sci?

No. Well, it is a popular science genre by definition. However, Greene along with Hawking are the best authors in this genre, and certainly have scientific credentials behind their names. Kaku is also pretty good but sometimes tends to go on wild speculations..

[Anonymous No.10132979]

>>10132440
>science should stay grounded.

if we could we would, however it may not be possible to stay strictly experimentally grounded when the object of study is quantum gravity and ultra-high energy physics

[Anonymous No.10132989]

>>10126393
This

[Anonymous No.10133111]

>>10132876
Oh look another shortsighted dumbfuck talking complete nonsense. What a surprise.

[Anonymous No.10133121]

>>10127766
So can you use your computers to develop new chiral catalysts yet?

[Anonymous No.10134488]

>>10132968
So, I'm still brainlet for gaining my "understanding" of these topics from his books, but I could be worse, right?

[Anonymous No.10134517]

>>10124944
than why won't they do it, they had all the resources in the world don't they?

[Anonymous No.10134548]

>>10125147
Global warming

[Anonymous No.10134560]

>>10130440
>solar system is only 0.004 light years
Hey, brainlet. The 1960s called, They want their planetology back.

[Anonymous No.10134568]

>>10132968
>Kaku is also pretty good
How’s that 10 dimensional metric tensor working out you mullet sporting faggot?

[Anonymous No.10134579]

>>10134568
hey, if anything about kaku, you CANNOT hate on his hair.

total based wizard hair

[Anonymous No.10134580]

>>10134568
>faggot
Why the homophobia?

[Anonymous No.10134592]

>>10124937
>What obstacles are physicists running into exactly?

Governments are pandering to their anti-science constituencies, slashing science budgets, disrespecting science and scientists

[Anonymous No.10134602]

In order to figure out what everything you see around you is made of is to build a LHC the diameter of the milky way

[Anonymous No.10135578]

>>10124937
Govs

[Anonymous No.10135594]

>>10134580
>homophobia
Why the Islamophobia?

[Anonymous No.10135734]

>>10135594
Saved.

[Anonymous No.10135737]

>>10134592
...or funding something besides physishits microscopic pyromania.

[Anonymous No.10136732]

>>10124937
What happens if I put my head inside?

[Anonymous No.10136738]

>>10124937
Space particle accelerator when?????
Elon, I know you're reading this. Make it happen pl0x.

[Anonymous No.10137713]

>>10124937
God doesn't want us to reveal is secrets

[Anonymous No.10139255]

>Aether