What's up with /sci/ hating on string theory all the time?

[Anonymous No.14481770]

Are people here just too stupid to understand it or what?

I read the Deligne books and it seems pretty reasonable.

[Anonymous No.14481779]

>>14481770
With so much makeup, you just know she's revolting looking

[Anonymous No.14481782]

>>14481779
Vid related.

[Anonymous No.14481783]

If it's not testable its just pilpul

[Anonymous No.14481786]

>>14481770
/sci/ is midwit central

you have to be a topwit to appreciate string theory

[Anonymous No.14481794]

>>14481786
Topwits throughout history made meaningful contributions that changed the world in palpable ways. String theory has done no such thing.

[Anonymous No.14481800]

>>14481794
Brainlet detected. Wrong, topwits who work in math or physics theory often make great contributions that do not materially affect the wider world much. It is just the nature of the object of study.

[Anonymous No.14481805]

>>14481800
Sure it's new math...but as far as physics js concerned, it will perpetually be "we need mo money fo dem theoryz"

[Anonymous No.14481813]

>>14481805
the issue with physics currently is not really lack of theory or theoretical funding, but technical difficulties in reaching high energy scales where any new theories can be tested.. I mean the most common criticism of string theory is that it cannot be easily tested, however this applies to basically the whole theoretical high energy physics in general, including any supposed alterantives to string theory (there are not really any but if there were..)

[Anonymous No.14481819]

>>14481770
I have a high school certificate in mathematics and I love string theory.

[Anonymous No.14481825]

>>14481813
>the issue with physics currently is not really lack of theory or theoretical funding
yes....lets give them less money...especially if its only a subject topwits can appreciate....brian greene doesnt need to be getting money to make shitty videos and charging colleges to speak

[Anonymous No.14481833]

>>14481770
I have never studied string theory. Most physicists never do, no laymen do. Its a very specialized niche topic.

[Anonymous No.14481836]

I dont hate string theory, but it's definitely not the whole story as far as physics. Personally I think theres a lot more important problems to solve, like turbulence or creating a version of QM which doesnt depend on perturbation.

[Anonymous No.14481885]

>>14481770
I don't understand string theory at all, but I'll still dump on it. it's a primate thing.

[Anonymous No.14481889]

>>14481782
She unironically looks better without makeup.

[Anonymous No.14482144]

>>14481800
>Wrong, topwits who work in math or physics theory often make great contributions that do not materially affect the wider world much
>heh, Gauss thought infinities were icky so ALL the useless mathematics we produce WILL find a use later in the future FOR SURE!
>what do you mean he also contributed more to the science of his contemporaries alone, than the combined efforts of all the departments of science and mathematics of a small state today?

[cassandra malcador - King Anos Rimuru Saitama Goku Carl Angelo Insuya Belarmino No.14482153]

https://archive.wakarimasen.moe/x/thread/31796912/#31801812

here's a TRUTH ONLY Jesus Christ / Yahweh and higher highest entities responded

[Anonymous No.14482421]

>string theory
>science
Meds. Now.

[Anonymous No.14482444]

The LHC not finding any evidence that supports string theory made it look even more far-fetched than it already was.
Which is unfortunate, because string theory is a really cool theory.

Unfortunately "seems pretty reasonable" isn't science.

[Anonymous No.14482448]

>>14481770
/sci/ hates quantum mechanics and relativity (since they failed high school) so of course it hates string theory too.

[Anonymous No.14482582]

>>14482444
How do you know

[Anonymous No.14483780]

>>14482582
How do I know what?
You mean LHC tests? You can test for the existence of the additional compactified dimensions implied by string theory with the LHC. So far no evidence of such dimensions has been found.

Of course this doesn't *prove* that string theory is false. Just makes it stand out less and the standard model stand out more (since they found the Higgs boson which supports the standard model)

[Anonymous No.14483793]

>>14482448

/thread

[Anonymous No.14484934]

>>14481770
>it seems pretty reasonable.
midwit larp

[Anonymous No.14484951]

>>14482448
>i hate /sci/, everyone on /sci/ is incredibly stupid and low IQ
why are you here if you hate the board so much?
>i went on 4chan and someone cast doubts on the conventional wisdom i memorized from the bill nye tv show, i've never been so enraged
yeah i totally hate it when people on 4chan express unconventional opinions too

[Anonymous No.14484991]

>>14484951
Opinions of science are not worth anything. You either have evidence that shows the theories to be wrong, or you don't.
Why are you people here if you don't even have any serious interest in science? The average poster here is clearly uneducated.

[Anonymous No.14485020]

>>14484991
>Opinions of science are not worth anything.
Except yours apparently, you hold your own opinions in extremely high esteem as if they were god given facts
>You either have evidence that shows the theories to be wrong, or you don't.
General relativity doesn't accurately predict the observed spread of rotational velocities in spiral galaxies, it also didn't predict the observed distance luminosity relationship in galaxies until it was given a patch. Its almost as if relativity isn't disprovable using conventional evidence the was a real scientific theory is suppose to be. Every time problematic evidence is found theres always an excuse.

[Anonymous No.14485038]

>>14485020
We know relativity is not some final truth, and we've always been aware of this. It is clearly a very good theory though and issues only come up in small cases. Throwing relativity out would require far more than just this, which may be explained by other factors which don't require throwing it away.
Also, any serious discussion is rare on 4chan. The vast vast majority of posts here are now "I fucking hate science" tier and don't have any serious criticism at all like the other anon said.

[Anonymous No.14485457]

i post about string theory here occasionally since I studied it a bit in grad school (but did not end up in specializing it) and do reading every so often to try and get a decent grasp on it. i’ve noticed it gets a lot of stupid shitpost disses. my theory for why is:
1) it’s hard so people instinctively reject things they don’t understand. this is true even among professional physicists
2) the waters have been muddied by the likes of Lee Smolin, Sabine Hossenfelder, Unzicker, who appeal to brainlets in their popsci disses. but their complaints are just because they’re butthurf
3) more reasonable complaints by Rovelli and Woit have gotten mainstream attention, but the media attention to them is overblown and doesn’t report well how ST’s counter-arguments work
4) old heroes like Feynman and Glashow hated on it, and they had cults of personality, even though their arguments were zeroth-order basic disses
5) the public defenders of ST like Michio Kaku and Brian Greene are pretty cringe honestly. they simultaneously go overboard with enthusiasm while making things sound brainlet tier so midwits feel condescended to
5.5) Lubos Motl was one of the most fun defenders of ST back when it was in full force but he became a right-wing loonie and alienated most people
6) honestly string theory has lost a lot of its mojo since the late 90s. a lot of the younger people who work on string theory don’t really work on actual strings any more. folks like S. Pasterski, D. Harlow, N. Englehard, D. Stanford, G. Pennington, the current top millenials in the field, don’t actually work on the kind of string theory that has to do with what you hear about compactifying strings on calabi-yaus to get a ToE. so they are actually not educated in that stuff to mount a defense like Motl used to (and Motl has accused Harlow of not even knowing string theory lol). so when they are asked about it, they recite the same old stuff we’ve all heard and it has no new spark or passion

[Anonymous No.14485468]

>>14485457
Peak midwit. The reason people like me (theoretical high energy physicist at R1 uni) shit on string theory is extremely simple. It's not testable, never was testable, and never will be testable. It's unfalsifiable nonsense. That's why Witten won a fields medal in math and not a nobel prize in physics; it's not physics he was doing but math. Rephrased: none of the work by string theorists maps to reality, despite over 60 years.

Historically string theory evolved out of Gross's model for proton interactions. His model which, btw, was demonstrated to be WRONG. String theory evolved out of a completely failed and falsified model.

So perhaps I was too lenient on string theory in my first paragraph. It's not unfalsifiable. It was already falsified. So they shifted the goal posts, abstracted the model a little bit, and now claim it's too complicated to test. Mighty convenient. But ultimately not science.

[Anonymous No.14485486]

>>14485457
>anyone who doesn't like theology is stupid and jealous of my intelligence
>their mind have been poisoned by dumb materialists making strawmans out of the hierarchy of angels (NO serious theologist ever asked how many angels can dance on the head of a pin)
>I'm more of a pseudo-Dyonisius kind of guy than new fangled Aquinas desu, but we can't ignore Eliyahu de Vidas's significant contributions, or Ghulam Ahmad Parwez
Perhaps they don't feel like string theory is any more worthwhile to understand than medieval angelology, given its premises.

[Anonymous No.14485487]

>>14485468
>never will be testable
you don’t know this. what you mean is that currently it only makes predictions that are too hard to test (e.g. galaxy-size collider, or detailed measurements of hawking radiation). that’s not even quite true because the LHC has tested for things like large extra dimensions which are motivated by string theory. but anyhow, the more important thing to keep in mind is that string theory is known to not be a fully “done” theory—for example there is the idea of M theory and it’s not quite settled what that theory actually is. potentially, and this is just an example, somebody could work out a much better formulation of M theory which could make definite predictions or provide explanations even in particle physics. like maybe M theory explains the W mass and g-2 and etc etc and predicts other subtle things we haven’t measured yet.

you would know all this if you weren’t LARPing

[Anonymous No.14485495]

>>14484951
No one in science cares about your "unconventional opinion", kys schizo.

[Anonymous No.14485515]

>>14485487
of course i know this. i know it as much as i know that the existence of the deities in the judeo-christian holy texts aren't testable.
>too hard to test (e.g. galaxy-size collider,
>string theory is known to not be a fully “done” theory
my, my. how convenient. i feel confident enough in saying your claims will never be testable. if i'm wrong, then i'll admit i'm wrong. but i won't be wrong.
>you would know all this if you weren’t LARPing
and you would know how bullshit string theory is if you dabbled in physics beyond your pitiful master's degree. :)

[Anonymous No.14485526]

>>14485515
so basically what you’re saying is that i’m technically right but you are just super sure in your gut instinct so that’s why you go on imageboards to trash a theory you dislike (with inaccurate hyperbole and oversimplified insults) to unwitting strangers. and you could be wrong. but you do it anyway.

do you ever feel bad about just spewing negative propaganda? i mean even if you are so sure of your feelings, don’t you ever get a hesitation? like for example i hate bluegrass music but i don’t make it my hobby to go and troll bluegrass lovers on the internet

are you just resentful? had a bad past experience with it?

[Anonymous No.14485532]

>>14485468
you don't know what you're on about
we knew the dual models didn't work for decades, the reason we kept string theory work going is because string theory having so many interesting connections keep coming up that it's hard to justify ignoring them
you obviously don't know what you're on about, although it is true that most physicists who dislike it do dislike it for its current lack of falsifiability

[Anonymous No.14485543]

>>14485526
why don't you admit you could be wrong in ST having any utility? i already admitted i could be wrong. do you lack that kind of scientific rigor? i wonder...

i'm not trolling. you're the one spreading propaganda (dare I say, disinformation). string theory doesn't deserve the degree of respect you're giving it. if ANY other "scientific" model had the degree of failures string theory did, made the grandiose claims it does (which cannot be tested, e.g. galaxy sized collider), and the sheer number of excuses (it's too hard!), it would be identified as pseudoscientific garbage and thrown into the trash heap.

honestly any "physicist" who specializes in this crap should feel ashamed for wasting their universities money, wasting their local governments money, and for wasting their students' time.

[Anonymous No.14485560]

>>14485543
>why don't you admit you could be wrong in ST having any utility? i already admitted i could be wrong. do you lack that kind of scientific rigor? i wonder...
sure, I admit string theory could be totally wrong. i never said anything in this thread to suggest otherwise. one thing to note, though, is that it certainly has had a positive impact on mathematics and to a lesser extent on model building in other branches of physics, so that represents utility imho

>i'm not trolling.
yes you are. you admitted you were posting disses that you knew were technically not correct hyperboles. that’s trolling

>you're the one spreading propaganda (dare I say, disinformation).
where did i post any propaganda? my original post in this thread was listing my theories for why brainlets troll string theory. here: >>14485457
it’s not even related to physics except i was talking about the public perception of it

i am basically 100% sure now that your claim of being a physicist is a LARP since you’re basically unable to have a reasonable conversation much less make any good physics points

[Anonymous No.14485562]

>>14485532
>the reason we kept string theory work going is because string theory having so many interesting connections
ugh huh, none of which have been experimentally verified. so it's all masturbation.

[Anonymous No.14485568]

>>14485560
>positive impact on mathematics
i don't deny this. i do deny that this belongs in physics. witten is a mathematican, not a physicist.
>model building in other branches of physics
this is a lie.
>you admitted you were posting disses that you knew were technically not correct hyperboles.
another lie. i did no such thing.
>it’s not even related to physics
on that, we agree. :)
>you’re basically unable to have a reasonable conversation much less make any good physics points
how can i make good physics points on a topic that is so far divorced from physics it won a fields medal in math, and not a nobel prize in physics? there's no physics points to address beyond what i already did (e.g. it evolved from Gross's FAILED model for proton interactions). that's all the physics that needs to be said. you could go further and bring up how RS extra dimensions turned up blank, but that's overkill and not surprising. any other failures you want to talk about? perhaps the dozens of failures of SUSY?

[Anonymous No.14485573]

>>14485543
Not even that guy but it looks like you just want people to give up trying to understand a theory of everything because you don't want there to be one. Back to >>>/x/ you go.

[Anonymous No.14485577]

>>14485573
>TOE
maybe you should first understand and verify a GUT before masturbating on a potential TOE. seems rather trivial to me.

[Anonymous No.14485582]

>>14485577
>maybe you should give up on quantum mechanics and work on navier-stokes instead
That's how retarded you sound

[Anonymous No.14485591]

>>14485582
think about it this way: how can you begin to understand what a TOE is if you don't even have a working GUT model? a TOE necessarily must reduce to a GUT in a limiting case. if you don't know what that GUT is, what hope do you have for understanding what the TOE is?

here's a better example. how can you solve partial differential equations if you don't even understand how to solve differential equations?

[Anonymous No.14485597]

>>14485568
you’re just repeating yourself now. let me just point out an example of where you are fucking up the physics:

>e.g. it evolved from Gross's FAILED model for proton interactions
this is not an accurate description of the history of dual models or string/superstring theory
the first real string theory formula to be discovered was a result of Veniziano, inspired by Dolen-Horn-Schmidt (Gell Mann’s students) in the sort of Chew bootstrap realm of ideas. sure Gross worked under chew on bootstrap but the Veniziano thing wasn’t directly related to Gross as far as i can tell. strings were identified as connecting to the Venusian Amplitude by Nambu, Susskind, and Nielsen. not Gross. superstring theory was based on the dual pion model by Schwarz and Neveau, and generalized to quantum gravity later by Schwarz and Scherk.

Gross mostly left the bootstrap program and changed to QFT/QCD and only came back to strings much later

[Anonymous No.14485600]

>>14485597
*Veniziano amplitude
not Venusian

[Anonymous No.14485603]

>>14485597
>the first real string theory formula to be discovered
>string theory
>discovered
we're done here.

[Anonymous No.14485608]

>>14485591
You don't need to understand material science in all its details if you want to study QM. Not very hard to understand retard.

[Anonymous No.14485610]

>>14485562
right, we should just not explore physical theories then
nice argument

[Anonymous No.14485615]

>>14485610
>physical theory
>doesn't map to physical reality
???

[Anonymous No.14485624]

>>14485457
>even though their arguments were zeroth-order basic disses
I'm generally pro-string theory but Glashow's argument was absolutely justified imo
String theorists are fucking horrible communicators and it is a huge huge problem for the field, because the responsibility is always on the physicist to make sure he can communicate his ideas clearly to the non-specialists, and if it's a tricky field it's your responsibility to do the work to solve that issue. String theorists just don't give a shit at all, and it does enormous damage to how the field is treated and perceived.
The arguments "oh there's just so much to learn, it's too hard to explain" don't cut it. Many fields in physics have high barriers of entry, and we're all expected to communicate with other physicists.

[Anonymous No.14485625]

>>14485603
>we're done here.
sure, you have no comeback, as i suspected. all you can do is argue semantics about whether a formula can be “discovered”. painfully clear that your claim to be a physicist is a LARP

[Anonymous No.14485630]

>>14485625
you can discover a mathematical formula. yes. when you however pretend that string theory maps to reality, and when you use the word "discover", you're promoting the model to a much higher degree of physical accuracy than it really has. they didn't discover shit when it comes to physics --- they discovered certain mathematical formulas. that's why witten won a fields medal.

this is why i said you post propaganda. you're the one playing semantics games to elevate the model to a higher level than it deserves.

[Anonymous No.14485646]

>>14485630
all i said was that Veneziano discovered a formula. you’re the one reading into it. my post was about the history of string theory (which you kept repeating a false account of) and again i wasn’t making any claim about physics aside from historical stuff. jesus christ dude, are you paranoid or something?

[Anonymous No.14485651]

>>14485646
>all i said was that Veneziano discovered a formula
No. You said, and I quote:
>the first real string theory formula to be discovered
To you these may mean the same thing. Whether you know it or not, the second version communicates something far different.

[Anonymous No.14485663]

>>Was it only in jest that a leading string theorist suggested that “superstrings may prove as successful as God, Who has after all lasted for millennia and is still
invoked in some quarters as a Theory of Nature”?
Kek, what did Glashow mean by this?

[Anonymous No.14485708]

>>14485651
okay, maybe a lurker reading this thread deserves clarification. what i meant is that the first appearance of anything in the physics literature/vocabulary that today would be put in the category of “string theory” was something called the Venizianio Amplitude. at the time though, nobody had thought of strings yet. Veniziano had read the works of Chew, Dolen-Horn-Schmidt, and a few others (Olive maybe) about the general properties you would want from scattering (S) matrices. they were conjectural things like “crossing symmetry” and “analyticity” which are technical requirements you would want from an S-matrix to describe how particles scatter in accelerator/collider experiments. so based on thinking just about the S-matrix (a quantum mechanics thing, not even really QFT and certainly not string theory) he wrote down his guess at a formula for an S matrix with those properties. this was what “bootstrap” people did. only after a while of thinking about it did Nambu, Susskind, and sorta Nielsen realize that this particular formula for the S matrix would correspond to the scattering of strings. it turns out that Dirac had already written about how strings work in quantum mechanics, but that was pretty much unknown to Nambu et al and certainly now their starting point

so only later would we have classified the Veniziano amplitude as part of string theory, but in the timeline it was the earliest formula to come around that is now considered part of string theory

[Anonymous No.14485709]

>>14485708
*certainly not their starting point

[Anonymous No.14486787]

It's not science because it's not testable
>B-but it's elegant!
Not testable = Not science
>b-but all the famous physicists are doing it!!
Not testable = Not science
>You just don't get it!!
Not testable = Not science
>Just give me another 100 billion dollars so I can build a bigger particle accelerator to find the farton particle!
No

[Anonymous No.14486857]

>>14486787
but reddit, instagram, cnn and the government all say its important

[Anonymous No.14486865]

>>14486787
>>14486857
thanks for bumping the thread where your one teammate willing to try his hand at an argument got BTFO’d, now anons can read why it’s obvious you’re just trolls

[Anonymous No.14486873]

>>14486865
>14486865
>chad physicist leaves thread to enjoy his sunday
>virgin midwit autistically checks thread nonstop
who really won here, homie

[Anonymous No.14486941]

No I'm not educated in string theory or any other physics subject
Yes it's wrong

[Anonymous No.14486981]

>>14481782
kek

[Anonymous No.14487588]

>>14485577
kek, clever posting.

[Anonymous No.14487590]

>>14483780
I dont believe CERN has ever claimed the LHC can test for string theory. You are making this up.

[Anonymous No.14487643]

>>14487588
an anon wanted to simp for an egirl he had never met and asked >>14485577 for advice.
he said:
>you should first understand and verify a GUT before masturbating on a potential TOE
in that moment, the anon was enlightened.

[Anonymous No.14489355]

>>14485577
>maybe you should first understand and verify a GUT before masturbating on a potential TOE
kek underrated post. Masterful joke.

[Anonymous No.14489527]

>>14481770
>Are people here just too stupid to understand it or what?
Yes of course, have you seen the threads here?

What people know about string theory is that it purports to be a theory of the real world but involves a bunch of extra garbage like supersymmetry and extra dimensions and has no hope for testability in the near future. On the face of it that sounds like a bunch of bullshit.

What people don't realize is that the whole string theory as a theory of everything that explains the real world is an outdated 1980s paradigm that has more or less run its course and failed. It doesn't help that this is what pop sci string theorists keep hyping.

The actual role that string theory plays in modern theoretical physics is more difficult to explain to outsiders since outsiders don't realize that theoretical physics studies a lot of different abstract models for the sake of better understanding qualitative physics.

[Anonymous No.14490692]

>>14489527
>What people don't realize is that the whole string theory as a theory of everything that explains the real world is an outdated 1980s paradigm that has more or less run its course and failed. It doesn't help that this is what pop sci string theorists keep hyping.
>The actual role that string theory plays in modern theoretical physics is more difficult to explain to outsiders since outsiders don't realize that theoretical physics studies a lot of different abstract models for the sake of better understanding qualitative physics.
Being a tumor.

[Anonymous No.14491257]

The only string model I support in physics is the Lund string model.

[Anonymous No.14491483]

>>14491257
thanks Torbjorn

[Anonymous No.14492350]

this is my string theory
r8