/sci/ - Science & Math

[Anonymous No.11200968]

Daily reminder String theory is the Truth.

[Anonymous No.11200973]

>>11200968
Explain string theory to me.

[Anonymous No.11200979]

>>11200973
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IE_8596AYsk

[Anonymous No.11200982]

>YES IT'S REAL
>NO I DON'T NEED TO PROVE IT

[Anonymous No.11201001]

there isn't a single Truth, I think Nature is a big enough cunt that there will forever be different theories explaining the same thing in different ways, with definite proof always lying outside our capabilities

[Anonymous No.11201358]

rare background witten

[Anonymous No.11201377]

>>11201001
Brainlet. You know nothing of science or how the world works, your explanation amounts to "You can't know nuffin" and isn't any better than arguments made by creationists over science.

[Anonymous No.11201379]

>>11201377
I'm not that anon but lmao how many leaps did you make right there? Also, u can't kno nuffin is quite valid

[Anonymous No.11201399]

>>11200968
False advertising. It's not even wrong.

[Anonymous No.11201401]

>>11200968
Cite peer-reviewed literature documenting predictions made by string theory being experimentally verified.

[Anonymous No.11202031]

>>11200968
Considering they haven't found the specific string theory that corresponds to the universe, you might need to rephrase that statement.

[Anonymous No.11202409]

>>11200968
yeah, um, no. no proof, just fancy models that can't predict anything.

[Anonymous No.11202423]

String theory seems pretty compelling to me, but I wonder if it will ever be provable.

[Anonymous No.11202434]

Which particular string theory are you talking about here? Because I was under the impression that there actually are more "string theories" than particles in the observable Universe.

[Anonymous No.11202695]

all the midget brains in this thread, WHEW! lrn2ToE

[Anonymous No.11203170]

>>11202409
Wait, if theres no evidence then why is it called a theory?

[Anonymous No.11203180]

>>11203170
because the average asshole has no idea what a hypothesis is

[Anonymous No.11203188]

>>11203180
They teach the definiton of hypothesis in school though

[Anonymous No.11203356]

>>11203170
There is evidence though, the graviton's existence is predicted naturally in string theory equations.

[Anonymous No.11203363]

>>11203356
The graviton is a hypothetical particle

[Anonymous No.11203376]

>>11201377
>>11201379
>u can't kno nuffin is quite valid

this

[Anonymous No.11203390]

>>11203363
Yes and only string theory has assured this particle of gravity must exists, but quantum gravity is too fucking complex to make big advances.

[Anonymous No.11203396]

The only string theory I need is how to make nice spaghetti (:

[Anonymous No.11203397]

>>11203390
so the only evidence is a theory that is "too fucking complex to make big advances."
oh, so there isnt evidence then i guess
thanks

[Anonymous No.11203407]

>>11203397
>Einstein's equations come up naturally in string theory
>oh, so there isnt evidence then i guess
Retard.

[Anonymous No.11203451]

>>11203407
stop mudying the waters
the graviton is a hypothetical particle

[Anonymous No.11203453]

>>11203451
You said that there isn't evidence, and there Is Mathematical evidence, you moron.

[Anonymous No.11203478]

>>11203453
So there is an observed graviton?

[Anonymous No.11203487]

>>11203453
there was mathematical evidence that suggested that all numbers can be expressed as a ratio of two whole numbers...
and then it was shown to be false years later
fermat had mathematical proof that all numbers in the form of 2^2^n+1 were prime...
and then that turned out false too
sorry anon, the graviton is still hypothetical

[Anonymous No.11203490]

>>11203407
>>11203453
>left with no evidence that the graviton is not hypothetical, the low-information pop-sci plebbitor resorts to name calling
>retard
>moron

[Anonymous No.11203508]

>>11203478
>No concrete proof of gravitons exists, but quantized theories of matter may necessitate their existence.[17] The observation that all fundamental forces except gravity have one or more known messenger particles leads researchers to believe that at least one must exist. This hypothetical particle is known as the graviton. The predicted find would result in the classification of the graviton as a force particle similar to the photon of the electromagnetic interaction. Many of the accepted notions of a unified theory of physics since the 1970s assume, and to some degree depend upon, the existence of the graviton.

It doesn't matter if they have been observed or not, their existance is necessary, because every Fundamental force of nature has a particle/s and other Theories require its existence.

[Anonymous No.11203515]

>>11203487
Good luck trying to prove GR equations are false.

[Anonymous No.11203518]

>>11203508
>my theory is correct because my theory predicts something another theory predicts must exist, ergo vise vi concordantly string theory is correct

gonna say no to this one buddy

[Anonymous No.11203520]

>>11203490
>doesnt know what the definition of evidence is

[Anonymous No.11203523]

>>11203518
Good luck trying to explain why gravity has no particles. Nobel incoming for you.

[Anonymous No.11203534]

>>11203523
That's not the point you utter spacktard. My poopiedoopie theory of physics predicts gravitons exist, doesn't mean its a correct theory. Learn basic fucking logic

[Anonymous No.11203546]

>>11203534
You are anti science, I get it. You hate data and mathematical Facts. All data points the graviton must exists whether you accept it or not.

[Anonymous No.11204366]

>>11203546
based

[Anonymous No.11204388]

>>11200968
based and Motlpilled

[Anonymous No.11204672]

>>11203356
>my unproven theory predicts something
>something is not observed in real world
>but my theory predicts it so it must exist

This is circular. You need to verify the theory first for you to base hypothesis on it.

t. physicist

[Anonymous No.11204858]

>>11204672
Not a scifag so please explain
Are internally consistent, rational models not viable as a proper theory unless there has been empirical evidence to support it?

[Anonymous No.11204940]

>>11204858
No because by that logic most religions are scientific theories. It has to be testable and related to emperical evidence

[Anonymous No.11205000]

>>11204672
>>11203356
This is tiresome, String theory is a theoretical framework and thus it is a theory. As for the graviton of course it is a hypothetical particle, one of the many things that give evidence that string theory is up to something.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/String_theory
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_mathematical_theories

[LMC !!6bFXHDKL67m No.11205145]

>>11205000
>string theory is a theoretical framework and thus it is a theory
(a geuss)?

[Anonymous No.11205163]

>>11201358
lol wtf dude, probably the best photobomb ive ever seen

[Anonymous No.11205207]

>>11204940
Some religions are scientific, in a very broad use of the word. But alright that makes sense

[Anonymous No.11205694]

>>11200968
Reminder that not one person in this thread knows the first thing about string theory.

Do you know how to calculate the open-string tachyon scattering amplitude (in principle at least)?

If you can't answer that, or don't know what it means, you have no clue what string theory actually means, and so your 'opinion' on it is pure bullshit

[Anonymous No.11205725]

>>11205694
oh wow, mr. 1st year grad student got to page 179 in polchinski! how impressive!

oh wait no probably zwiebach covers that in "string theory for brainlet undergrads" my bad.

[Anonymous No.11205767]

>>11205725
It's intended to be a basic question that anyone who actually knows any string theory could answer. If you understand what it is you would know that Zwiebach couldn't possibly cover that since it involves a path integral. But thanks for the smug response out of nowhere though.

[Anonymous No.11205770]

>>11205694
Can you explain what that means in simple terms? If you can't it means you don't understand it either

[Anonymous No.11205772]

>>11205767
i never read zwiebach but thanks for the info -- what i can conclude is that the "sting theory for undergrads" courses that are offered at many universities are completely useless and that you are indeed that projecting smug grad student who got halfway through the first volume of Polchinski and thinks you're the hot shit

[Anonymous No.11205778]

>>11205772
No you're just a smug grad student yourself with no reading comprehension. Congratulations you are the one other person in the thread who understands the formulation of string theory. But you weren't so quick to pat yourself on the back you would realize that I was calling out the other two dozen people posting here that haven't gotten to page 2 in polchinski and still feel qualified to have an opinion.

>>11205770
How do the lowest energy states of two strings bounce off each other? But now say that in a precise way using quantum mechanics.

[Anonymous No.11205790]

>>11205778
>No you're just a smug grad student yourself
actually no. i graduated
? with no reading comprehension. Congratulations you are the one other person in the thread who understands the formulation of string theory. But you weren't so quick to pat yourself on the back
did i do that?
> you would realize that I was calling out the other two dozen people posting here that haven't gotten to page 2 in polchinski and still feel qualified to have an opinion.
yes, i would agree that most of the anons who are trying to shit on string theory are making arguments that reek of having no education in anything related to string theory of even QFT. but i don't think it is fair to demand that someone be able to calculate string amplitudes before they can have a physics opinion. i know plenty of physics professors who never looked at even one string theory equation in their life, yet i respect them for their understanding of physics. being a (smug) string theorist and criticizing them for not knowing how to calculate tachyon S-matrices is a prime example of why most physicists think string theorists are just masturbating and not doing real physics. that's why i think you bringing up tachyon scattering amplitudes is completely smug and everything i said in response was just to match your smug-level (which ordinarily i would never do, since real physics isn't just a "well i can calculate this and you can't" game)

[Anonymous No.11205791]

>>11205778
>No you're just a smug grad student yourself
actually no. i graduated
> with no reading comprehension. Congratulations you are the one other person in the thread who understands the formulation or string theory. But you weren't so quick to pat yourself on the back
did i do that?
> you would realize that I was calling out the other two dozen people posting here that haven't gotten to page 2 in polchinski and still feel qualified to have an opinion.
yes, i would agree that most of the anons who are trying to shit on string theory are making arguments that reek of having no education in anything related to string theory of even QFT. but i don't think it is fair to demand that someone be able to calculate string amplitudes before they can have a physics opinion. i know plenty of physics professors who never looked at even one string theory equation in their life, yet i respect them for their understanding of physics. being a (smug) string theorist and criticizing them for not knowing how to calculate tachyon S-matrices is a prime example of why most physicists think string theorists are just masturbating and not doing real physics. that's why i think you bringing up tachyon scattering amplitudes is completely smug and everything i said in response was just to match your smug-level (which ordinarily i would never do, since real physics isn't just a "well i can calculate this and you can't" game)

[Anonymous No.11205796]

>>11205791
*or even -- not "of even"

[Anonymous No.11205801]

>>11205790
>did i do that?
You gave a pretty offensively condescending reply to me out of nowhere, yes. Where the fuck was that coming from if not some superiority complex?

Now to address your actual point, if someone does not know how string theory is actually formulated how can they hope to even say anything about it? Yet if you look at the responses in this thread you see all sorts of smug dismissals. If they don't know what string theory is, and can claim to do, how can they feel qualified to talk out their ass like that? So I was calling them out. As you point out, Polchinski is the first real textbook on string theory, so if anyone has even learned what string theory is, they have at least seen the Veneziano amplitude. It is indeed a shibboleth to weed out those who actually know what string theory is and those who don't

[Anonymous No.11205805]

>>11200973
Just as the internet is a collection of tubes, so is the Universe a collection of strings.

[Anonymous No.11205806]

>>11203515
>gravitons not existing implies GR equations are false

No.

[Anonymous No.11205818]

>>11205801
i agree with basically everything you say in this post. however i cannot reconcile it with this post:
>>11205694
where you try to discredit everyone else who can't calculate the S-matrix of open string tachyons.

again, i'll say that it does not help string theory when its proponents try to tell people who can't follow its math that they are ... basically, "retarded". that doesn't help string theory at all. if you care about string theory not being killed by the political/popular opinions, you need to represent it in a much more diplomatic way, and such a diplomatic way requires representing it as a currently very speculative theory which is extremely complex in its current formulation, requiring years of study.

trying to denigrate other people (even physicists) for not getting it is not productive. one "job" that string theorists have failed to do for 40-50 years so far is to make it understandable. and this is a genuine failure.

anyhow, i love string theory and i love physics but i do not enjoy seeing string theorists do what you have done -- i.e. denigrating others for having common-sense ideas.

[Anonymous No.11205827]

>>11205818
Pretty much agree with what you're saying, I'm not a physicist, know nothing about string theory - I'm a chemist. Just jumped into the thread because I saw that post and felt the guy was being a faggot

[Anonymous No.11205831]

>>11205818
>people who can't follow its math that they are ... basically, "retarded".

That's not what I said at all. I said if you can't follow its math you are not (yet, maybe) qualified to judge what it is saying and whether it is correct or not. I stand by that. The people I am "denigrating" are those that have an inflated ego from hearing some popular science account of string theory and like to hear themselves talk so they shit up the thread here (and every other physics thread) with meaningless replies. It is good for those people to get a wake up call that no, they actually don't know what they are talking about.

[Anonymous No.11205833]

>>11205725
I am a mathematician...What is this bullshit I see before me? This is physics now? LOL. It looks like...this is so ar from anything remotely scientific.

FYI everyone. Every time one of my colleagues discovers a new type of mathematics physicists immediately rush in and try to form theories around them.

[Anonymous No.11205837]

>>11205833
They're applying mathematics to try to explain physical phenomena, don't see anything wrong with that

[Anonymous No.11205838]

>>11205831
I'm a mathematician, I can follow the math, and to me this theory is nothing more than a better dressed version of Sacred Geometry pseudo-scientific bullshit. That is why no one takes you guys seriously, your like a little faggot cult that misappropriates obscure math theories into physics. You let the math lead the physics, not the physics lead the math. Stupid, show us some experimental results or shut the fuck up.

[Anonymous No.11205840]

>>11205837
As a tachyon amplitude ever been measured in a lab? Or are we using math to generate supposed physical qualities that don't exist, hrmm? That's whats happening here, btw. Einstein and many others warned about mathcentric physics.

[Anonymous No.11205841]

When you are doing math with hypothetical parameters you call particles, you're just playing in some bizarre system you made up that's mathematically consistent. It proves nothing.

[Anonymous No.11205843]

>>11205840
I'm not a physicist so I'm not the person to ask about that, but it stands to reason that new methods in math could be applied to a variety of problems including those in physics

[Anonymous No.11205845]

It's the equivalent of mathematicians creating i to have solutions to even degree polynomials with negative roots. We can do that in math because we aren't mapping the real world, we are just trying to make consistent mathematical objects and structures that have the property o set closure.

[Anonymous No.11205847]

>>11205843
It is a hypothetical particle, so no it hasn't. I was being sarcastic.

[El Arcón No.11205848]

>>11205845

[Anonymous No.11205850]

>>11205838
I personally am not a string theorist and don't believe string theory will be a theory of everything. It is still a good bit of theoretical physics that has bore fruits in terms of the ads-cft correspondence and might continue to teach us things.

You yourself don't know what string theory is even saying. What bit of mathematics did you see in those textbook pages "the projective plane"? lol. Have some humility and maybe you could learn something new

[Anonymous No.11205854]

>>11205847
I realize that it's hypothetical, I was just saying I don't know enough about the subject to actually defend it at all. I was just saying that it makes sense that advances in mathematics could potentially be applied in other fields.

[Anonymous No.11205856]

>>11205694

I'm honestly so sick of this type of bullshit.
People are allowed to ask questions and voice opinions if they have conceptual questions or hang ups about the foundations of the theory before mastering it.

"Oh you can't have an opinion unless you can do this calculation!"

> Does the calculation
> It's long, tedious, and doesn't really make anything conceptually clearer

Ok, I still don't get underlying idea or the motivation for doing any of this.

"Oh no, that was just a basic calculation. You have to be able to do this other one before you can see the beauty of string theory. Then you can dunk on others who haven't done it yet! "

And in general you don't have to fully understand something to dismiss it. Anyone can make an overly complex model or system that can be hard for others to follow. But there are much more useless or wrong models than useful or correct ones, so the onus is on the person promoting the theory to show why it's worth putting in the effort to fully learn it, not on others to learn why it's worth the effort.

[Anonymous No.11205859]

>>11205850
I'm senpai. with ALL of the math on that page. I actually study involutions, only in a more broad scope in Group Theory. I'm sorry I am a fan of relativity. It appears to be correct and actually has some experimental proof. Most of the math on that page I learned in my undergrad. It's all pretty bleh.

[Anonymous No.11205868]

>>11205856
The problem is once you are good enough to understand the math you see that the theory is more of a math theory describing a potential universe that could exist, but most likely not the world we live in. We could do a null hypothesis test with a 99% confidence interval and I bet we would find the likelyhood of String Theory being correct would not be lower than the alpha-level.

[Anonymous No.11205883]

>>11205856
>"Oh you can't have an opinion unless you can do this calculation!"

Of course you can't. That is the most basic calculation in string theory, and I'm not even asking you to actually do it, simply to know what it means. If you understand how string theory is formulated, you have seen this calculation. If you do not understand how string theory is formulated, you should not act like you do.

[Anonymous No.11205891]

don't reply to this post, i'm just adding it for reference, but this is by far the best thread of the last month. and probably better than all or the last few months

[Anonymous No.11205906]

this thread is still the best thread on /sci/ despite a bunch of mathfags shitting it up

[Anonymous No.11205914]

>>11205906
Literally just one egotist who assumes his education in calculating shit means that only his opinion matters

[Anonymous No.11205919]

>>11205914
Nah that's not me bro. But just fyi, my opinion does matter more than yours, just as the opinions of those who are more informed than me are worth more than mine as well.

[Anonymous No.11206001]

>>11205163
i know, its epic

[Anonymous No.11206056]

>>11203546
The standard model is a model. It needs the gravitons existence to be consistent, that's what you are counting as evidence. There is no evidence that the standard model works at energy levels needed to detect the graviton. Probably it doesn't, but I bet you there is a better model out there in the world which can unify all the forces. String theory is a candidate, but experimental verification requires some serious energy.

You can plug in big numbers into Newton's theory of gravitation and get things to move faster than light. But that doesn't mean you can really do that irl. These are the epistemological limits of mathematical modeling we must watch for.

[Anonymous No.11206058]

only people on backwater messageboards such as this doubt the truthfulness of this truth

[Anonymous No.11206068]

>>11206058
Its actually an imageboard