/sci/ - Science & Math

[Anonymous No.2296909]

>yfw String Theory turns out to be wrong

[Anonymous No.2296914]

>>2296909
>physicists have latched onto a new theory following the death of string theory. They call it "8 or 9 large vibrators in the pussy of the universe"

[Anonymous No.2296920]

>There were faggots that actually thought string theory wasn't pseudo-science

[Anonymous No.2296928]

>>2296909
Well string theory might prevent warpdrives...

[jigglypuff !!NoTWHJSRg4i No.2296970]

>>2296920
String Theory can be proven wrong or right, We just need to have some technical advancements to be able to detect them

[Anonymous No.2296996]

[Anonymous No.2296999]

The physics community needs to stop sucking string theory dick.


String theory believers may well be the new flat earthers twenty years from now

[Anonymous No.2297012]

>>2296999

>implying real scientists hold on to theories after they're debunked.

[Anonymous No.2297032]

>>2296999
why you so mad? The Theory has yet to be debunked and the math behind it works out perfectly so far.

[Anonymous No.2297137]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/String_theory

>String theory posits that the electrons and quarks within an atom are not 0-dimensional objects, but 1-dimensional strings.

Can some one help me visualize this?

[Anonymous No.2297144]

>>2297012
>Implying they don't

[Anonymous No.2297148]

I'm not sure I understand what all the hate with String Theory is coming from. What's so unbelievable about it?

I mean, a lot of real credible scientists believe it is possible and have all done the math, no?

Do people just find it really difficult to believe that everything is made of strings?

[Anonymous No.2297155]

>>2297032
>the math behind it works out perfectly so far.
Everything 'works out' when you add all the shit you need to make it work.
600 additional dimensions hurr durr derp

[Anonymous No.2297157]

>>2297137
Perhaps this will help. Found in a book largely about Quantum Mechanics and String Theory: An Elegant Universe.

[Anonymous No.2297168]

>>2297155
>600 additional dimensions hurr durr derp
Your ignorance is not amusing here, back to /b/

[Anonymous No.2297194]

>>2297168
I was exaggerating to show how retarded the entire concept behind string theory is.

[Anonymous No.2297200]

>>2297194
If you're willing to believe that there's a 4th dimension, why not 6 or 7 more?

[Anonymous No.2297204]

>>2297194
You clearly don't understand how these extra dimensions work judging by your posts.

I don't you even know anything about string theory other than lol it calls for strings and extra dimensions

[Anonymous No.2297214]

>My face when /sci/ thinks believing in a ridiculous theory makes them smart
>My face when they think they "get it" instead of realising it's bullshit

[Anonymous No.2297220]

>>2297214
Well, why don't you give your opinion? Present a theory that you believe is correct and evidence for it.

Until you do, you're worse than someone who believes in a wrong theory.

[Anonymous No.2297222]

>>2297137
>>2297137

don't know if I'm oversimplifying or missing the point, but I drew this to explain.

Hope it helps.

[Anonymous No.2297224]

How is this any less believable than "quantum foam"?

[Anonymous No.2297227]

>>2297214
>My face when people get so butthurt over a fucking theory that cannot be proven/disproven YET. I repeat YET.

[Anonymous No.2297231]

>>2297200

Why would I believe that either?

inb4 hurr durr time is dimensions

[Anonymous No.2297241]

>>2297231
1/5 now you're just showing that you're a troll

[Anonymous No.2297244]

>>2297220
Nope. That is not science, that is religion. Someone gave an explanation for a phenomenon he didn't understand and said "If god didn't do it, then what did?" And because people prefer any explanation to no explanation, retards like you exist.

[Anonymous No.2297246]

>>2297227

The misuse of the term "theory" alone should be enough to get any scientist angry.

String theory would at best be conjecture.

It cannot even be considered a hypothesis because a hypothesis must make falsifiable and testable predictions.

Only after they have a working hypothesis and that hypothesis is rigorously tested could it be accepted as a theory.

[Anonymous No.2297245]

>>2297231
I was referring to the 4th spatial dimension, now temporal.

Have you ever heard of a tesseract?

[Anonymous No.2297249]

>>2297244
>that is religion
String Theory is border-line philosophy until we have the power to actually test it.

PHILOSPHY

NOT

RELIGION


Do you know what Religion is? Are you just another braindead atheists who thinks he's such a smart ass and knows everything?

[Anonymous No.2297250]

>>2297244
What does String Theory have to do with God?

And why do hundreds of people in the scientific community stand by it and research it if they didn't believe it could be true?

[Anonymous No.2297255]

>>2297222
So a 1D object casts a 0D shadow and a 0D object casts no shadow?
But how does anyone know that 0D objects exisit?
How could they?

[Anonymous No.2297256]

>>2297244
And because of retards like you who would rather have nothing than a theory, science as a whole was held back for hundreds of years.

There is faith in science sometimes. I personally don't have a religion, but theories are just that until they are completely proven. Until then, people believe in theories.

You can think a theory is wrong, but in the scientific world, you're going to need evidence, otherwise that is just as much religion as what you stated.

[Anonymous No.2297264]

>>2297245

A tessarect is a purely mathematical construct and has nothing to do with natural phenomena.

There is no evidence to suggest any higher dimensions exist.

[Anonymous No.2297265]

>>2297246
Alright you got me there, the term theory really is being misused. But regardless "String Idea"(better?) will eventually be able to be tested in the future.

[Anonymous No.2297271]

>>2297265
>"String Idea"(better?) will eventually be able to be tested in the future.

Or so we hope.

[Anonymous No.2297272]

>>2297250
Why do hipsters hate things that are popular?
Why do guidos only like things that are popular?

Peer pressure

[Anonymous No.2297278]

>>2297250
Because they get paid for it

[Anonymous No.2297279]

>>2297255

because 0D objects are pretty much theoretical they don't really exist. There more of like just a location...

[Anonymous No.2297286]

>>2296909
>mfw this entire thread is just shit-flinging, posturing, and name-calling with no actual discussion

>mfw I realized all of /sci/ is like this

[Anonymous No.2297293]

ITT: basement neckbeards try to disprove physicists with years of college and study by the logic that "I don't understand it, so it musn't be true!"

You fags don't realize they have math on their side.

[Anonymous No.2297298]

>>2297278
Why spend billions of dollars for something that has no practical use in the real world?

[Anonymous No.2297295]

>>2297286

Okay.

[Anonymous No.2297308]

>>2297255

The dimensions have nothing to do with shadows or shapes, infact it's theorized (ideaized?) that most of the higher dimensions are too small to interact with on the human scale.

The shadow thing was just to use as an example between as interaction between dimensions

[Anonymous No.2297310]

>>2297298
Nigga you just went full retard.

[Anonymous No.2297315]

>>2297298

They don't spend billions on it. What they toss their way is basically pocket change, and the very low funding requirement is one of the reasons nobody is especially bothered by what is essentially mathematical masturbation.

[Anonymous No.2297331]

>>2297315
>Mathematical masturbation
I lol'ed

[Anonymous No.2297342]

>/sci/ - basement scientists disproving theories without actually disproving them

[Anonymous No.2297355]

>>2297342
>He doesn't know what theory means
>Creationist detected

[Anonymous No.2297361]

>>2297342
>/sci/ - basement-dwelling, neckbeard, mouthbreathing, knuckle-dragging, college drop-outs disproving theories without actually disproving them

Fix'd

[Anonymous No.2297367]

>>2297355

>implying the misuse of the word theory credits everything within said theory

[Anonymous No.2297373]

>>2297342
>>2297286
There are a few people in here who have posts that are actually logical, and trying to avoid this stereotype. Not samefagging at all before accusations, but here they are:
>>2296970
>>2297157
>>2297222
>>2297246
>>2297256
>>2297265
>>2297308
>>2297315

[Anonymous No.2297370]

>>2297367

errrr discredits...

[Anonymous No.2297383]

STRING THEORY WILL BE VALIDATED THIS DECADE.

LONG LIVE KAKU.

[Anonymous No.2297389]

Wave Theory was here, String Theory is a faggot.

[atheismIsGay !Lwg.Wdk8q. No.2297386]

>mfw /sci/ dorks believed in string theory which is more ridiculous and baseless than anything the theists they criticize have come up with

[Anonymous No.2297395]

>>2297386

IN KAKU WE TRUST.

[Anonymous No.2297398]

>>2297383

He died?

[Anonymous No.2297399]

>>2297367
>Implying it doesn't
>The theory of intelligent design

[Anonymous No.2297403]

>/sci/ - IF I CAN'T SEE IT THEN IT DOESN'T EXIST

[Anonymous No.2297414]

I can't even pretend that I have anything more than a superficial understanding of string theory.

String theory just recently failed its first test.

As of right now, String theory experiments prove it false.

Just because people didn't accept major scientific discoveries a long time ago doesn't mean every new theory has to be accepted without proving itself through the scientific method

We have the scientific theory for a reason. String theory has to follow it just like everything else.

Only time will tell if it is actually valid or just "pop culture" physics.

[Anonymous No.2297417]

String theory is fine and all, and I've read plenty of books on the subject simply because it interested me, but it shouldn't be taken too seriously. At this point, it's still something that looks good on paper, but is not observable in real life and is (currently) unable to be experimented on.

No one knows if it's right or wrong. The math checks out just fine, but it certainly delves into unknown territory. Then again, quantum mechanics received similar derision less than a century ago and look at that now.

[Anonymous No.2297423]

>/sci/ - where everyone gets there information from http://www.landoverbaptist.net/showthread.php?t=55848

[Anonymous No.2297425]

>>2297414

Had to correct this before someone green texts with a reaction image thinking it was an actual rebuttal

Meant scientific method, not theory

[Anonymous No.2297450]

>>2297414
>As of right now, String theory experiments prove it false.

Nope.avi

It just proves that the LHC in it's current state can't produce the mini black holes that String Theoriests hoped it would in energy levels around 3.5-4.5 TeV

[Anonymous No.2297454]

>>2297373


aggghaghaghh forgot about that place long ago, browsing it I can't decide whether to laugh or rage

[Anonymous No.2297467]

>>2297450
>String Theory predicts micro black holes created by particle collisions starting around 4 TeV
>experiment testing prediction undertaken
>prediction falsified by experiment

Back to the drawing board.

[Anonymous No.2297471]

>>2297467
>This doesn’t disprove string theory — it just proves that mini black holes can’t be produced at energies between 3.5 and 4.5 trillion electron volts. But they could still theoretically be produced at higher energies, so when the LHC fully fires up in 2013, string theorists will be holding their breath.

[Anonymous No.2297472]

>>2297450

My apologies, you are in fact correct.

Allow me to correct my statement

>So far then, string theory experiments have not been able to produce expected results.

[Anonymous No.2297473]

>>2297423

[Anonymous No.2297478]

>>2297423
THE FUCK IS THAT SITE

A BREEDING GROUNDS FOR TROLLS OR RETARDS GOD DAMNIT I CANT EVEN TELL NOW.

[Anonymous No.2297479]

Oh god read that whole thread

>>2297423
>>2297423
>>2297423
>>2297423
>>2297423
>>2297423

[Anonymous No.2297488]

>>2297423
>So not only were huge amounts of tax money wasted on building the Large Hadron Collider, in the end all it did was prove what we already knew all along, scientists have no idea what they are talking about.

11/10 would rage again

[Anonymous No.2297494]

>>2297488

read the one about the "protein that holds our cells together" probably also holding our universe together.

[Anonymous No.2297495]

>>2297471

It falsified their prediction.
If their revision is simply "MOAR POWAR" then we'll see that soon enough, but their position is not terribly convincing.

[Anonymous No.2297509]

>>2297423
>where everyone gets there information
>everyone gets there information
>there information
>there
wut

[Anonymous No.2297513]

>>2297478
>>2297479
>>2297488
>>2297494

It's a troll site. Many of the posters there do not realize this, and are in fact as retarded as they appear.

[Anonymous No.2297522]

Guys stop raging at landoverbaptist

It is a 100% troll site just like MacRumors.

It was designed specifically to have as many logical fallacies as possible.

[Anonymous No.2297526]

>>2297383

ALL HAIL KAKU!!

[Anonymous No.2297559]

ALL HAIL KAKU!

[Anonymous No.2297605]

>>2296909

Stephen Hawking won't be too mad.

[Anonymous No.2297618]

>>2297605
Hawking is opposed to String Theory?
Honestly, this is the first I've ever heard any inkling of his opinion on it. I suppose it makes sense, as String Theory impies many things that contradict with some of his black hole work, and his thoughts on Freidman's work with the expanding universe concept.

[Anonymous No.2297636]

String theory is a yet to be proven fact

[Anonymous No.2297654]

>>2297618
He like loop quantum gravity

[Anonymous No.2297660]

>>2297618
you do realise hawking works on m-theory which is derived from string theory he certainly isn't opposed to it

[Anonymous No.2297662]

Sure, strings are an interesting idea, but here's what's wrong with it ATM (commencing dump):

"I don't like that they're not calculating anything. I don't like that they don't check their ideas. I don't like that for anything that disagrees with a n experiment, they cook up an explanation-a fix-up to say, "Well, it might be true." For example, the theory requires ten dimensions. Well, maybe there's a way of wrapping up six of the dimensions. Yes, that's all possible mathematically, but why not seven? When they write their equation, the equation should decide how many of these things get wrapped up, not the desire to agree with experiment. In other words, there's no reason whatsoever in superstring theory that it isn't eight out of the ten dimensions that get wrapped up and that the result is only two dimensions, which would be completely in disagreement with experience. So the fact that it might disagree with experience is very tenuous, it doesn't produce anything; it has to be excused most of the time. It doesn't look right." -Richard Feynman

[Anonymous No.2297669]

Actually, I would not even be prepared to call string theory a "theory" rather a "model" or not even that: just a hunch. After all, a theory should come together with instructions on how to deal with it to identify the things one wishes to describe, in our case the elementary particles, and one should, at least in principle, be able to formulate the rules for calculating the properties of these particles, and how to make new predictions for them. Imagine that I give you a chair, while explaining that the legs are still missing, and that the seat, back and armrest will perhaps be delivered soon; whatever I did give you, can I still call it a chair? -Gerard `t Hooft

[Anonymous No.2297670]

Just leaving this here...

[Anonymous No.2297674]

[Anonymous No.2297681]

If Einstein were alive today, he would be horrified at this state of affairs. He would upbraid the profession for allowing this mess to develop and fly into a blind rage over the transformation of his beautiful creations into ideologies and the resulting proliferation of logical inconsistencies. Einstein was an artist and a scholar but above all he was a revolutionary. His approach to physics might be summarized as hypothesizing minimally. Never arguing with experiment, demanding total logical consistency, and mistrusting unsubstantiated beliefs. The unsubstantial belief of his day was ether, or more precisely the naïve version of ether that preceded relativity. The unsubstantiated belief of our day is relativity itself. It would be perfectly in character for him to reexamine the facts, toss them over in his mind, and conclude that his beloved principle of relativity was not fundamental at all but emergent-a collective property of the matter constituting space-time that becomes increasingly exact at long length scales but fails at short ones. This is a different idea from his original one but something fully compatible with it logically, and even more exciting and potentially important. It would mean that the fabric of space-time was not simply the stage on which life played out but an organizational phenomenon, and that there might be something beyond." -A Different Universe, Reinventing Physics From The Bottom Down, Robert B. Laughlin, Winner of the Nobel Prize in physics for his work on the fractional quantum Hall effect.

[Anonymous No.2297687]

>>2297423
Fuck that really STEAMED MY BEANS

[Christian No.2297694]

The idea that everything made up of strings is preposterous. If strings are the base of matter, what makes up those strings? No, what the Universe really is made up with is Laminin, which confirms the Bible.

Scientists have discovered a protein which literally holds our cells together. If we didn't have it, we'd fall apart into billions of pieces. And I don't think it will be too long before scientists admit it holds everything together in the Universe. What is so special about this? Take a look...

This confirms what the Bible says: That Jesus Christ holds everything together!

[Anonymous No.2297697]

>>2297662
>>2297669
>>2297681

... and so on. So the problem is that it's just not a reasonable PHYSICAL theory. Still, after 30-40 years they can't even suggest how to theoretically derive masses of elementary particles for eg. At least the Standard Model is fair and honest science, ST, so far has been just a bunch of unproven fancy math.

[Anonymous No.2297705]

MUST TROLL EVERY SCI THREAD

[Anonymous No.2297713]

>>2297618
Naw, but it's funny to think of him being understandably pissed that the ST guys beat him to the punch in terms of getting closer to a GUT.

[Anonymous No.2297715]

>>2297669
We'll call it the Elegant mathematical world of Strings

[Anonymous No.2297718]

>>2297681
Einstein also had a similar hissy-fit about Quantum Mechanics. Just sayin.

[Anonymous No.2297727]

>>2297423
>>2297423
>>2297423
It's funny because that's what we sound like to them.

[Anonymous No.2297744]

>>2297681
Einstein would probably actually be happy that there's a idea of how to combine Quantum Mechanics which he didn't like that must with his theory of Relativity.

Although if Einstein were still living up to this point he would of probably proposed a whole different and possibly similar theory that he was working on till his death.

[Anonymous No.2297748]

>>2297718

That episode is way overrated. He disliked the implications and principles of QM, but he sure as hell didn't confused his dislike with reality. He never claimed QM wasn't an effective theory, he just wanted to find another way. Hell, even Schodinger once said something like: I hate QM, and I wish I never had anything to do with it.

[Anonymous No.2297749]

ITT: Wankers who think that rejecting/accepting theories they only have a cursory understanding of makes them seem cool.

[Anonymous No.2298094]

I LOVE THE KAKU!