Are there people who really actually & unironically believe that the string theory is correct?

[Anonymous No.10628315]

[Anonymous No.10628406]

>>10628315
Yes. Got a problem with it?

[Anonymous No.10628421]

>>10628406
Uh yeah it's fucking stupid

[Anonymous No.10628425]

>>10628421
Well, that settles it. Glad you have such an informed opinion, I'll be sure to let all those physicists know it's "fucking stupid."

[Anonymous No.10628427]

>>10628421
prove its fucking stupid then

[Anonymous No.10628448]

>>10628425
>>10628427
This board has the best shitposting.

[Anonymous No.10628455]

>>10628315
most competent physicists do

[Anonymous No.10629151]

>>10628455
When will said competent physicists deliver a demonstration of the predictive power of this hypothesis?

[Anonymous No.10629213]

>>10629151
Once they find the one equation in 10 to the power of 500 which predicts our universe.

[Anonymous No.10629235]

>>10628315
Yes there are. The mathematics work out. Though /sci/ probably isn't the best place to ask such a question, since 99% have read maybe 2-3 popsci books on the topic. Obviously it's the most elegant ToE candidate that we currently have and there are plenty of reasons why so many top physicists have high hopes for it.

[Anonymous No.10629244]

>>10629235
>have high hopes for it
Whoopsies, looks like you are discussing faith and religion on a board dedicated for scientific discussion, you might want to try your luck on the board dedicated to history & humanities instead :)

You're welcome!

[Anonymous No.10629324]

>>10629244
So what about GR? Orbit of mercury wasn't really enough to convince everyone the theory was right. It took the processing of petabytes of data to generate an image of a black hole to finally clear all doubts. Just because we have no testable predictions yet doesn't mean it's irrational to work on it. By your logic we would still live in the bronze age.
It's not even bait at this point.

[Anonymous No.10629329]

>>10629235
>String Theorist: hey look! Our math works in a theoretical billion trillion gorrillion possible universes!
>Real Physician: neat, which one is our universe?
>String Theorist: ... We... I... We don't...
>Real Physician: It's not very useful then, is it?
>String Theorist: REEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE

[Anonymous No.10629334]

>>10629324
>Orbit of mercury wasn't really enough to convince everyone the theory was right.
Yes it was and it did.

[Anonymous No.10629335]

>>10629235
Except the hypothesis failed in its predictive power repeatedly, it's a lie, it doesn't reflect reality, move on.

[Anonymous No.10629338]

>>10629335
Come up with something better then if you think it's wrong.

[Anonymous No.10629353]

>>10628315
Yes
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q8ccXzM3x8A

[Anonymous No.10629379]

string theory has got to be right. it works too perfectly for it to be a coincidence.

obviously there is something missing, that’s why M theory is still literally a hypothetical theory but it’s clear something has to be there. i bet when a young witten++ makes his way to the top of the field, we’ll formulate it once and for all and all the landscape/multiverse ambiguity will go away

[Anonymous No.10629401]

>>10629379
>string theory has got to be right.
No it doesn't. Pretty maths doesn't make it true. Just look at SUSY. Dark energy / the cosmological constant almost killed string theory and the theoreticians had to contort the maths a lot to fit it into the theory. So much so that it's no the elegant mathematics it started out to be and was one of it's main appeals.

>it works too perfectly for it to be a coincidence.
Technically it doesn't work at all because it doesn't make any predictions.

> i bet when a young witten++ makes his way to the top of the field, we’ll formulate it once and for all and all the landscape/multiverse ambiguity will go away
Maybe so. Pure intellectual research is never a bad thing and often the mathematical tools invented in one field end up being used in others. But to say an unproven theory has to be right is just wishful thinking.

[Anonymous No.10629407]

>>10628315
Yes, me.

[Anonymous No.10629416]

>>10629401
well, that’s just like, your opinion, man. to me if string theory weren’t (at least partially) right, then that would be completely antithetical to how in history it always turns out that even lame math ends up being real in physics, and if you read a bit of Polchinski instead of shitting on a theory you’ve never studied, you’ll see that it’s like discovering some advanced alien technology device in the middle of hostile wilderness, and your argument is like “no, no, that just is there by coincidence”

[Anonymous No.10629437]

>>10629416
>well, that’s just like, your opinion, man
well, so was your original statement, man.

[Anonymous No.10629445]

>>10629338
I'm not claiming to have something better, but just don't try to shill out string theory to the uneducated masses knowing that the theory's predictions failed.

[Anonymous No.10629517]

>>10629401
>Dark energy / the cosmological constant almost killed string theory
Somebody only reads the title of the articles...
Also, remember: cosmological constant is NOT the same as dark energy.

>the theoreticians had to contort the maths a lot to fit it into the theory.
I see that you don't like Quintessence...

>Technically it doesn't work at all because it doesn't make any predictions.
Any "new and currently testable" predictions. For example, you can derive Einstein equations or compute the mass of the Higgs from String theory.

>But to say an unproven theory has to be right is just wishful thinking.
I completely agree with you on that.

>>10629445
>knowing that the theory's predictions failed.
Which ones?

[Anonymous No.10629640]

>>10629517
> Also, remember: cosmological constant is NOT the same as dark energy.
I know but you can express it in the maths as a +ve cosmological constant.

> I see that you don't like Quintessence...
More like I'm not 100% convinced by KKLT. There's a lot of assumptions in the original proposal.

> For example, you can derive Einstein equations or compute the mass of the Higgs from String theory.
I was aware of the Einstein field equations but is that really a prediction? I wasn't aware of the Higgs one. I'll have go read up on that.

[The Pencil Cunts No.10629673]

>>10628315
Got anything better?

[Anonymous No.10629677]

>>10629640
>> Also, remember: cosmological constant is NOT the same as dark energy.
>I know but you can express it in the maths as a +ve cosmological constant.
The cosmological constant can be expressed as dark energy but not all dark energy mechanisms can be written as a cosmological constant. It depends on their equation of state.

>There's a lot of assumptions in the original proposal.
Indeed.

>I was aware of the Einstein field equations but is that really a prediction?
I consider it more as a "consistency with the previous physics we know", but it is a very important check that any good theory must pass.

>I wasn't aware of the Higgs one. I'll have go read up on that.
There is a whole branch dedicated to recover the standard model from string theory called "string phenomenology".

[Anonymous No.10629700]

>>10629329
>String Theorist: PLEASE
>Experimentalist: listen I.
>String Theorist: I JUST NEED $50 BILLION
>Experimentalist: Look maybe once we have some better theories we can think about a new apparatus for test-
>String Theorist: I PROMISE YOU WE'LL FIND THE FLOTON, WE JUST NEED 100 BILLION, NO I MEAN $500 BILLION

[Anonymous No.10629731]

>>10629379
>it works too perfectly for it to be a coincidence.
You could have said the same about the Bohr model.

[Anonymous No.10629737]

String theory may have working mathematics, but it does not apply to this universe.
Sure, sure, theoretically possible, but not here.

[Anonymous No.10629739]

>>10629731
There WAS something there for the Bohr model. We have more accurate models now, but the Bohr model was much more accurate than what we had before, and investigation of why the Bohr model seemed to work was necessary to lead us to where we are now. Likewise, we should investigate why string theory seems to work so well.

[Anonymous No.10630545]

>>10628315
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asymptotic_safety_in_quantum_gravity

[Anonymous No.10630828]

>>10629737
well for one, the standard model of particle physics directly contradicts the existence of gravity, and GR is incompatible with quantum field theory. so wat do?

for another, no, nothing has shown that string theory does not apply to the universe. it actually works as a quantum gravity theory so bam, epic win

>>10630545
asymptotic gravity is not a theory of quantum gravity. it’s merely a condition on QFTs in general that don’t disintegrate at quantum gravity scales, which the standard model does (e.g. atoms aren’t stable if you consider gravitational radiation in the SM). this is a retarded sabine meme and sabineposters need to stop; she’s an anti-science troll who failed at even making a living in hep-th, much less contributing anything of value. motl even beats her on that count, and he’s a flunkie too

[Anonymous No.10630832]

let me get back to you once i understand field theory

[Anonymous No.10630833]

let me get back to you once i understand field theory

[Anonymous No.10630867]

>>10629335
I don't know that it's made any prediction that can be tested besides claiming it makes the standard model.
All I'm aware of is that they've put lower end constraints on the size of extra spatial dimensions because they didn't notice any unexpected difference between the gravity waves and light's arrival times.
It's certainly a fascinating theory, but until someone can figures out how to do experiments to validate the theory without a particle collider several AU in diameter.

[Anonymous No.10630893]

>>10630867
it also makes general relativity. no other theory can even claim to come close to giving us both in such a tightly constrained theory. it has basically 0 free parameters (reeee muh landscape of solutions and moduli spaces, hosstardfelder will cry. it’s different though, a fact physicslets can’t grasp. the schrodinger equation can have a bunch of potentials and even a bunch of solutions for the same potential; that doesn’t mean it has 25 free parameters that come out of nowhere)

[Anonymous No.10630897]

>>10628315
Rule 3 states no science vs religion threads.

[Anonymous No.10630926]

>>10628315

String theory is just a classic case of overfitting.

[Anonymous No.10630940]

>>10630897
>>10630926
string theory denialists are a classic case of buttblasted brainlets coping

[Anonymous No.10631110]

>>10628315
This image isn't necessarily true...
It implies that the universe is ergodic which may not be the case at all. For all we know much of the universe may be stuck in various meta-stable states and the actually minimum energy states are essentially unobtainable due to some high-valued activation energy requirement. But who knows ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

[Anonymous No.10631672]

>>10628448
It doesn't but it's still really annoying to see that. Anyone who responds to stuff like that with a few sentences of unoriginal sarcasm deserves to feel upset for that amount of time. Just ignore it.

[Anonymous No.10632139]

>>10630893

Calm down Lubos. String theory amongst most physicists has become a punchline, and rightly so given the contrast between the arrogance of some of its proponents and its complete failure to explain anything in our universe.

[Anonymous No.10632263]

>>10630828
Why did you bring in particle physics?
Also, if it works as a quantum gravity theory then why isn't it an actual solution?

[Anonymous No.10632302]

Hopefully not. Believing in an unproven theory is highly unscientific

[Anonymous No.10633395]

>>10632302
believing a theory can be proven is highly unscientific

[Anonymous No.10633432]

>>10632139
>calls me lubos
i’m offended but also sort of flattered

[Anonymous No.10635118]

bump stringy thread

[Anonymous No.10635677]

>>10628427
string theory is a platonic theory and the universe isnt platonic

[6 No.10635710]

>>10628421
No u