/sci/ - Science & Math

[Anonymous No.11280324]

The strings are obviously correct, Einstein's dream has come true. The theory works and is certainly the unique correct theory. Finding our vacuum might be the only way to determine what the dark matter really is, and how it interacts, how exactly inflation happened, or what the monopole spectrum is. On a more practical level, the theory will say what comes out of black holes (even astrophysical ones).

[Anonymous No.11280328]

[Anonymous No.11280329]

>>11280324
>>>/x/

[Anonymous No.11280367]

>>11280329
brainlet

[Anonymous No.11280466]

>>11280324
experimentalists will figure out DM first i’m sure, but string theorists are based anyway

[Anonymous No.11280478]

String theory is a trap for people looking for an elegant solution rather than a correct but messy solution

[Anonymous No.11280564]

>>11280478
>String theory is a trap for people looking for an elegant solution rather than a correct but messy solution
String theory is a consistent theory of quantum gravity, there is no dispute, and no one will ever kick us out of the paradise that Scherk and Schwarz have created, so stop trying. It's pure politics, and it's as old as the theory.

[Anonymous No.11280568]

>>11280329
>>11280478
The reason strings must be studied is because they are the only thing that works, anything else is wrong for quantum gravity. The reason people attack it is the same reason they attacked it in 1974, because it is difficult and revolutionary, and people hate the fact that not only did they not come up with it, they can't even understand it now that other people came up with it. This bruises the ego. Get over it. You are beaten, it is useless to resist.

[Anonymous No.11280583]

>>11280568
But, but, muh LQG!!

[Anonymous No.11280591]

>>11280568
I'm not spending such an outrageous amount of time specializing into something that has no experimental evidence and makes no useful predictions.

[Anonymous No.11280615]

>>11280591
>no experimental evidence and makes no useful predictions
Imbecile. String theory is maximally predictive, it predicts as much as can be predicted, and no more. This should be enough to make severe testable predictions, even for experiments strictly at low energies--- because the theory has no adjustable parameters. Unless we are extremely unfortunate, and a bazillion standard model vacua exist, with the right dark-matter and cosmological constant, we should be able to discriminate between all the possibilities by just going through them conceptually until we find the right one, or rule them all out.

[Anonymous No.11280649]

Ever heard of scale relativity? Other than string theory, it makes no crazy assumptions like extra dimensions but rather goes from the completely natural one of relativity of reference systems and is able to derive big parts of quantum physics.
Google Laurant Nottale.

[Anonymous No.11280664]

>>11280649
Interesting find, though the wiki article feels like a self-write.

[Anonymous No.11280672]

>>11280649
>Ever heard of scale relativity?
>it makes no crazy assumptions like extra dimensions
LOL are you fucking serious? Relativity? It was pretty odd in the early 20th century to think that time was actually a dimension, but now we know it is. It seems String Theory is the same way, but because people don't understand it or haven't even tried, they attempt to claim it is invalid, untestable or have some other silly objection.

[Anonymous No.11280882]

>>11280615
Okay, so what are the conclusive experimental discoveries of string theory?

protip: there are none

[Anonymous No.11280885]

>>11280591
That's fine, it's not like you'd ever contribute anything interesting. Just know that you are wrong not to study it.

[Anonymous No.11280888]

>>11280882
protip: read his posts again and this time try to understand what the words mean

[Anonymous No.11280907]

>>11280564
>String theory is a consistent theory of quantum gravity

WRONG.
String hypothesis is a hypothesis. It has NEVER made tested predictions.

[Anonymous No.11280976]

>>11280907
You are beaten, it is useless to resist.

[Anonymous No.11281026]

>>11280976
>You are beaten

Really?
Cite a study documenting tested predictions of the string hypothesis.

[Anonymous No.11281580]

>>11281026
>"s-science is only about falsifiable predictions!!"
Midwit retard

[Anonymous No.11281667]

>>11280564
Are you Ron Maimon?

[Anonymous No.11283484]

>>11281667
yes

[Anonymous No.11283497]

>>11280324
Personally it's hard to advocate for something that has such severe ground state degeneracies even within a single isotopy class of string configurations but go off I guess.
At least the degeneracy is not sub-extensive, but then again, fractons are actually real.

[Anonymous No.11283505]

>>11280324
WRONG

[Anonymous No.11283587]

>>11283505
lee smolin ruined jacob barnett’s career

[Anonymous No.11283612]

>>11283497
>because I find it degenerate it means the universe can't be that way

[Anonymous No.11283695]

>>11283612
How is "the universe just [math]happens[/math] to settle in one ground state out of hundreds of other degenerate states" satisfactory to you, sweetie?
Besides, the topological LSM theorem states that - unless some LSM anomaly is non-trivial - degenerate ground states in the SRE phase is either gapless or hosts fractional excitations. Now as string theory (as a CFT) have discrete spectra by virtue of the Viasoro reps of the underlying affine Lie algebra, the ground state is automatically gapped; coupled with the fact that fractionalized anyons don't exist in dimensions higher than 2, this implies that the LSM anomaly is non-trivial. Topological anomalies are typically more energetically costly to produce, so you better have a good explanation for why the universe settled down in such a topological false vacuum if you want to advocate for string theory as a ToE. Else you're literally blowing smoke up your own bum.

[Anonymous No.11283711]

>>11280324

[Anonymous No.11283768]

>>11281580
i could make a consistent theory where the axioms are bob is gay if he wears a red shirt, and, bob is wearing a red shirt. then the theory implies bob is gay but it didnt test his irl shirt color

[Anonymous No.11283906]

>>11280478
This. They're always shifting fundamental question to questions of mathematical elegance.
Why are there three generating of particles?
>well it's because there are three odd-dimensional holes in the Calabi-Yau spaces attached to each point in spacetime
Why are they built that way?
>...

[Anonymous No.11283961]

>>11280583
more like Jim FAGGOT hahahaha

[Anonymous No.11285397]

>>11280478
>>11280329
t. i don't understand anything i just want to follow the masses on this matter

[Anonymous No.11286099]

>>11280885
I'm contributing something interesting at this very moment, but it's not string theory.

[Anonymous No.11286306]

>>11285397
Stop shilling, you don't know shit.

>>11286099
Stop blueballing. What is it?

[Anonymous No.11287862]

>>11283695
the argument is that in string theory, we indeed live in a false vacuum, without some better additions to the theory.

your arguments against string theory are all the usual ones. “i hate 10/11 dimensions” or “i hate that the SM is only compatible with metastable vacua”. what you miss is that ST has many more strengths that outweigh these pedantic complaints, plus there is more than enough room for ST machinations to handle such complaints and/or future generalizations of ST to completely resolve them.

i know you fetishize condensed matter crap, and you think something from that arena is going to be better than string theory (based on some false ideas that condensed matter was ahead of the game all along, since you never cared to look at the actual history of the field). so if you’re so smart, go ahead and propose something better. once you’re done with your thesis of course. we’ll be waiting

this whole line of argumentation reminds me of the Lee “Forever Grateful to Epstein” Smolin argument about “background-independence”. you just nitpick at some detail that has already been acknowledged and discussed while ignoring the consensus that already exists that refutes your nitpicks. rephrasing it in terms of some newer more obscure theorems is fun to read but convinces noone. however, unironically i respect your views and appreciate your posts

[Anonymous No.11287878]

>>11280672
>but now we know it is.
We don't know shit about time. Stop assuming we are more advanced than we are. We have one proven and predictive theory of quantum mechanics, on one hand and relativity on the other, which has none of those.

[Anonymous No.11287888]

>>11287862
If you think an argument is substantial only if an alternative is provided then I've got some bad news for you hun. My problems with string theory [math]\textbf{ as a physical ToE}[/math] is the farthest thing from nitpicking; any theory that fails to reproduce large-scale covariance will be brought into question, stringy or not.
>cared to look at the actual history of the field
Hypocrite that you are, for you never actually look at the actual history of and recent developments in cond mat. Aside from the obvious brane-CFT stuff, people have proposed [math]G[/math]-equivariant, twisted and non-commutative versions of known CFT models, motivated from the cond. mat. perspective, that [math]will[/math] have significant impact on HMS and string theory via holography as a whole.
Remember CFT was first developed with cond. mat. considerations in mind in order to study critical phenomena. Never forget your roots, kid, because the third string revolution will start in cond. mat. and you can quote me on this.

[Anonymous No.11287906]

>>11287888
what do you even mean by “large-scale covariance”? ST reproduces GR at IR scales and its central tenet is general covariance. if you are complaining that conformal symmetry is not what ST predicts in our world then you are complaining against facts.

your argument about conformal theories may have a nugget of truth in there, but that’s it. what condensed matter people have contributed to modern theoretical physics outside their little realm (e.g. fundamental particles and the cosmos) is just that: a nugget. if you trace the history, the important guys like Gell-Mann, Weinberg, ‘t Hooft, Veneziano, Ferrara, Zumino, Van Neuwenhuizen, Scherk, Schwarz, Gross, Witten, on and on... they had the real ideas about fundamental theory. maybe Polyakov and his russian buddies were more immersed in CM but they are only one small part of the tapestry. CM guys who claim credit for quantum gravity are politely ignored and, most of the time, privately ridiculed

[Anonymous No.11287955]

>>11287906
>what do you even mean by “large-scale covariance”?
I meant invariance in the sense that the GS manifold in the thermodynamic limit isn't a single orbit under some rep of the internal symmetry. This is the case in ordered media and invertible topological phases (c.f. Wen or Kitaev, this includes Witten-Djikgraaf & WZW, btw). In other words, you need some satisfactory explanation for your GS degeneracy, else it doesn't tickle my mental prostate - at least when considering physical theories.
>outside their little realm
You do know most HEP people are now migrating towards EFT and DM, and rarely care about what string theory people are doing? Aside from the fact that cond. mat. and HEP are two of the largest fields of ancient and modern physics, how is what cond. mat. people contribute a "little realm" exactly? Name a field of theoretical physics aside from cond. mat. that's keeping string theory alive, because god knows string theory people themselves can't.
If you want to discredit cond. mat. influences on string theory this is by far the worse approach I've ever seen.
>CM guys who claim credit for quantum gravity
I see you've never met Volovik. Besides, that's not my point of contention; I only saidthat developments in cond. mat. cannot be ignored if you want to look at where string theory is going, and general physical conditions (or "axioms") that constrain them should also play a role in string theoretic candidates of ToE. Nothing more and nothing less. We can have the discussion on the influences of cond. mat. theory (and the associated mathematical structures and developments) on string theory some other time.

[Anonymous No.11287990]

>>11287955
>In other words, you need some satisfactory explanation for your GS degeneracy, else it doesn't tickle my mental prostate - at least when considering physical theories.
well the standard way to respond to this nitpick (which you would know if you did your reading) is that “ground state” (really metastable states) degeneracy is a feature of string theory and picking one over the other is not dictated to be unique by the theory. the standard argument is that there is some dynamical process that randomly picks out some possible meta-vacuum. my personal take on it is that probably a (more) deterministic mechanism exists in a more advanced version of string theory (or a new theory that generalizes string theory) . and your complaint would be gone. but even in the standard argument, your complaint is just a nitpick. not a real argument against ST

>Aside from the fact that cond. mat. and HEP are two of the largest fields of ancient and modern physics, how is what cond. mat. people contribute a "little realm" exactly?
the number of people in a field does not dictate how “big” it is, in terms of generality. if that were the case, then AMO folks would shit all over real theorists by the sheer number of laser and nanomaterial crap they put out

> Name a field of theoretical physics aside from cond. mat. that's keeping string theory alive
how about heavy ion physics? either way, string theorists can and do keep themselves alive thanks to lots of ongoing progress

>I only saidthat developments in cond. mat. cannot be ignored if you want to look at where string theory is going, and general physical conditions (or "axioms") that constrain them should also play a role in string theoretic candidates of ToE.
i find your youthful hope that CM will revolutionize QG to be kind of cute but probably misguided. i would probably recommend you focus on doing good work in CM instead of focusing on a pipe dream that it will somehow miraculously reinvent quantum gravity

[Anonymous No.11288011]

>>11287990
>and your complaint would be gone
That'd be fine with me if that "some dynamical process" is well-justified. Sweeping this argument under a rug by calling it, or subsequent arguments against the validity of said dynamical processes, a nitpick isn't going to satisfy anyone.
>CM will revolutionize QG
Who said anything about QG? I've always focused my points on string theory. There's a reason for that, which I hope haven't escaped you. If you see all the interesting new directions that cond. mat. considerations took T-duality and HMS, you'd doubt it's a pipe dream too.
>i would probably recommend you
Despite cond. mat. being my background, my current field is math.TQFT with a cond. mat. slant. But I'll take your advice into cooperation.

[Anonymous No.11289878]

>>11280324
>unique correct theory
Bonjour Pierre